Introduction to <i>Social Psychology in Action</i> : <i>Addressing the Critical Issues of Our Time</i> and Implications of Removing AI Safeguards

Social Psychology in Action: Addressing the Critical Issues of Our Time, was conceived of and assembled to assert the vital relevance of social psychology at a moment when science and evidence-based reasoning are increasingly questioned, politicized, or disregarded. It stands as a clear demonstration of the field's power to understand and address the complex social challenges shaping our world today. The papers featured in this collection present authoritative analyses by leading experts in social psychology on a range of issues of urgent and universal importance including: climate change, public health, education, institutional trust, democracy, political extremism, freedom of speech, artificial intelligence and technology, and more. In recent times, scientists in the United States and around the world have faced multipronged attacks from governmental forces aimed at eroding public trust in science (e.g., Hmielowski et al. 2014; Krause et al. 2019; Nogrady 2021; Rosenstock and Lee 2002), impeding research progress through defunding scientific endeavors (Donovan 2025; National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics 2025), and restricting scientific discourse through censorship and political interference (U.S. Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, 2024). Together, these attacks have effectively institutionalized the degradation of science. In his role as president of the Association for Psychological Science, John Cacioppo (2007) emphasized psychology's role as a hub science, uniquely positioned to connect and integrate insights across disciplines. Psychology's ability to synthesize knowledge, communicate effectively with the public, and motivate behavior is precisely why governments have historically turned to social psychology during moments of national urgency. For example, during World War II, the U.S. government enlisted social psychologists such as Carl Hovland to design persuasive propaganda campaigns aimed at boosting morale, promoting enlistment, and increasing war bond purchases (Hovland et al. 1949). In the 1950s, the work of psychologists Kenneth and Mamie Clark played a pivotal role in the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision, providing evidence on the psychological harms of segregation (Clark and Clark 1939). From the 1960s through the 1980s, campaigns to reduce smoking incorporated research on behavior change, cognitive dissonance, and social norms to shift public attitudes and behaviors (McGuire 1985). More recently, theories of behavioral economics and choice architecture have informed government policy across areas such as health, finance, and environmental conservation (Thaler and Sunstein 2008). Today, we face a host of existential crises. From climate change to global health threats to degradation of civil rights, social psychology not only offers tools for understanding these challenges, but also strategies for effectively communicating solutions to the public. Throughout this issue, readers will see just how integral a social psychological perspective is to addressing real-world problems. We are not just theorists—we are pragmatists. Supporting and funding social psychology should be a priority for anyone invested in the future of public health, national security, economic resilience, education, environmental sustainability, democratic stability, and the overall well-being of our communities and institutions. This issue was specifically commissioned to document the tangible impacts and costs associated with the implementation of Executive Orders under Donald Trump's administration. In the United States, Executive Orders (EOs) enable the President to issue legally binding directives without requiring approval from Congress. As such, they provide an efficient means to implement unilateral policies. Historically, EOs have been used to take swift administrative action, revise policies (including overturning EOs of prior administrations), respond to emergencies (e.g., natural disasters, economic crises, foreign threats, etc.), communicate policy priorities, bypass Congress, and sometimes enact high-profile policy changes. Notable examples of the latter include Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, Truman's desegregation of the U.S. armed forces, and Roosevelt's authorization of the internment of more than 110,000 Japanese Americans during World War II. It is important to note that other branches of the United States federal government can oppose Presidential EOs. The courts may challenge an EO if the court decides that the EO is unconstitutional and Congress may pass legislation to override an EO or hold hearings to investigate issues of legality. And, of course, Congress may also exercise its power to remove the President from office through impeachment. This issue opens with a rigorous analysis that highlights the measurable impact of social psychology in improving human well-being and advancing the scientific enterprise. Employing a metascientific framework, Albarracín systematically evaluates the influence of social psychological research using a range of bibliometric and impact-related indicators, demonstrating its frequent co-occurrence with a variety of behavioral intervention efforts. Her analysis reflects both widespread recognition of the field's theoretical and practical contributions, as well as the demonstrated efficacy of interventions grounded in social psychological principles. She also provides compelling evidence that these interventions are highly cost-efficient relative to their impact. In line with this cost-effectiveness, Albarracín further notes that social psychological research delivers substantial public benefit despite receiving relatively modest federal funding, underscoring its overall efficiency and societal value. Since taking office on January 20, 2025 and as of the writing of this paper, Trump has executed 214 EOs on a wide range of issues. Of these EOs, several address the central issues we discuss herein. For example, within the first day of assuming office for a second term, Trump issued EO 14162 (Putting America First in International Environmental Agreements), which called for the withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Agreement. This change exemplifies the Trump administration's general disregard for scientific consensus on climate change, favoring potential economic growth over environmental sustainability (but see Meadows et al. 1972). Several papers in this issue lay bare the catastrophic consequences of these policies. McConnell and Jacobs, Miles-Novelo and Anderson, and Swim and Baker (all in this issue) each describe alarming future and present realities linked directly to human-made climate change. Each of these papers tackles a unique problem stemming from this existential crisis. Drawing on a positive psychology framework, McConnell and Jacobs offer a refreshingly optimistic perspective on the climate crisis. They present data showing that the vast majority of Americans recognize climate change as human-caused and, importantly, that individuals across the political spectrum express a strong personal interest in conservation and contributing to solutions. Their paper convincingly argues that existing technologies and systems can be effectively leveraged to address climate change in actionable and impactful ways. Additionally, their work highlights the important role of social psychological principles—particularly self-identity and belongingness—in shaping climate engagement and response. Miles-Novelo and Anderson build on decades of validated and replicated research linking heat to aggressive behavior. Their analysis emphasizes that climate change is likely to increase violent crime, including acts of terrorism, and warns that the withdrawal of federal funding for research and mitigation could result in preventable loss of life. Finally, Swim and Baker underscore the role that social psychology plays in shaping effective sustainability policies and practices, as well as in fostering collective action and a sense of community to strengthen climate resilience. Preservation of democracy is one of the central concerns of many Americans. This worry is justified as upholding democracy requires proactive care and can swiftly unravel, as history has illustrated. Cosme and colleagues (this issue) tackle this problem highlighting the role that voting laws have in upholding democracy. Cosme and colleagues argue that Executive Order 14248 and other such policies undercut trust in voting systems by creating barriers to participation that disproportionately impact young voters (e.g., requiring proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections; disallowing same-day registration, making absentee voting more difficult, etc.). Importantly, their paper reminds us that the vast majority of Americans believe in the vital importance of voting, and implementing fundamental psychological principles like motivation, self-regulation, and social norms drive meaningful increases in democratic participation. Declining confidence in democracy is often accompanied by a broader loss of trust in other societal institutions, a concern addressed in two additional papers in this issue. First, Chan (this issue) reviews societal trends pointing to widespread skepticism in science over recent years and the specific Trump administration policies that foster this lack of trust (e.g., removal of public access to data, government restructuring, massive funding cuts to the sciences, and restricting intellectual exchange, etc.). Chan underscores the long-term consequences of declining trust in science and emphasizes the critical role that communication professionals and psychologists can play in reframing public narratives and redirecting these concerning trajectories. Relatedly, Zárate and Lemieux (this issue) describe disturbing and growing trends in violent extremism, which has recently been linked to mistrust in science (Gligorić et al. 2025). They review social psychological research, much of which was funded in the post-9/11 era in an attempt to uncover the basic scientific processes underlying terrorism and hate-motivated crimes, that could assist in the detection and prevention of violent extremism. Three additional papers in this issue examine the Trump administration's education policies, with two focusing more specifically on the intersection of his anti-DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) and anti-DEIA (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility) policies. Notably, on his first day back in office, President Trump signed Executive Order 14151, Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing. The order mandates a sweeping dismantling of DEI and DEIA infrastructure across federal agencies, eliminating programs and metrics tied to equity goals, and directing that all personnel decisions be merit-based, without regard to demographic considerations. Within the context of education specifically, Trump signed EO 14190 Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling, which prohibits K–12 schools from teaching materials that promote identity-based ideologies related to gender and race, with compliance reinforced through conditions tied to school funding. Ito and colleagues (this issue) present compelling evidence that the US is lagging in scientific innovation and argue that expanding participation in science is essential to reversing this trend. Drawing on decades of research across the sciences, Ito and colleagues review practical strategies for advancing and sustaining diversity at both individual and institutional levels. Their paper presents an unequivocal demonstration that greater diversity in the scientific community drives innovation and benefits society as a whole. Relatedly, Perkins and Dasgupta (this issue) address similar concerns and spotlight challenges in drawing young Americans to STEM professions. As they cite, the US faces a shortage of STEM-trained workers, with demand often exceeding the available supply. This challenge may worsen following recent White House actions that restrict international student mobility (e.g., limitations on nonimmigrant F and J visas under Proclamation 10043, the suspension of entry for new international students at Harvard University, and tightened visa oversight through proposed duration-of-stay limits by the Department of Homeland Security [Department of Homeland Security 2020]). Their paper emphasizes the role that social psychology can play in developing sustainable pathways that engage and retain young talent across STEM disciplines. Oyserman and colleagues (this issue) examine a critical yet often overlooked issue: the importance of data collection and access in assessing and advancing the U.S. education system. From a social scientific perspective, data are foundational for evaluation and effective policy development. The authors emphasize the role of national datasets and federal agencies in shaping policy agendas, informing best practices, and identifying areas for improvement. They argue that sustaining robust, accessible data infrastructure is essential to ensuring students receive innovative, evidence-based educational support. Building on the broader conversation around DEI, Rios et al. (this issue) explore the apparent contradictions in the administration's simultaneous promotion of Christianity in America (e.g., EO 14202 Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias) and its efforts to combat antisemitism (e.g., EO 14188 Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism). They persuasively argue that religion is in and of itself an important dimension of American diversity and one often overlooked in common conceptions of DEI. The authors provide evidence that more intentional inclusion of Christians in scientific domains could help rebuild public trust in science. Their paper provides a social psychological perspective on how this could be accomplished using basic principles within our field. Additionally, they suggest that incorporating religious identity into DEI frameworks could help shift perceptions among skeptics and foster greater acceptance of DEI initiatives. Finally, Green et al. (this issue) and I examine issues related to technology. Green and colleagues highlight the pervasive role of technology and social media in modern social life, warning of the potential risks these tools pose to mental health, physical well-being, and the spread of misinformation. They advocate for continued federal support for research on these topics, emphasizing their widespread influence and societal significance. I explore the impact of EO to American in which for the removal of in the of artificial intelligence The impacts of this EO the of change. I argue that of is in of in this As an of the of this analysis on in face recognition within and the of this to As leading experts in the we in of power to take this issue America is a civil by and social all the of global This issue of the urgent of our these challenges can this is one of the of this issue is that meaningful solutions are within Our science has evidence-based strategies to engage strengthen public trust in science, promote education, and development. Social with its understanding of human motivation, and social offers tools for developing policies. as we have in the social psychology stands to to solutions to the of our The political is Since the for this issue, of new policies have been through and other This EO to American in which for the removal of in the of artificial intelligence EO EO Executive Order on and and of which was signed by President on at the of widespread of EO to national for security, including proactive and to developing and for and addressing of in government through of systems and of experts in and across (e.g., government and Trump's EO effectively these in a to in the of the United global Notably, the EO that ability to in and the of systems that are from or social the EO itself specific as to or social agendas, one that this to more of the as the order prohibits federal agencies from with technology systems not with the administration's The EO presents as to experts that following these may itself reduce and on censorship 2025). the that should be from has to from leading have been For example, and its which have been as the with the administration's have public for This with and skepticism the The of and of history and narratives to the of and and the of systems both the and of existing of The issues of censorship and are just two of the many consequences stemming from this EO (e.g., of potential etc.). the potential impacts of EO are and a of these consequences analyses from science, public national security, and more. The on a specific of within recognition I by first to a of how may in the context of face recognition in The history of can be to the at in when of the school and an to in the of student the for this on the of universal evaluation a potential means for eliminating human in In its first of a of the with leading the school to of the In the years to personnel within the school concern over the lack of diversity in the student leading the for to investigate potential by the an was that and used to individuals as or and that as and systematically that the school in may have been an for but is just one among many such that have is in finance, and can have consequences (e.g., 2021; et al. et al. et al. 2019; et al. and 2024). recognition is one of the within As an technology, recognition systems to and human recognition technologies have been over many years of and and have been across many real-world such as in personal and national security, and and more et al. that the face recognition was at in and is to be by 2025), that this technology will only more of these have demonstrated in as a of demographic such as race, and et al. In one the gender of available analysis and that all systems demonstrated when identifying individuals as to as Notably, each of the on a and the of and the face readers gender and as the gender than gender also substantial such that all gender more for to faces with in the from to Finally, these more when the intersection gender and faces as and of the This of human data that that of are by the et al. that more likely to be as as from more to White to the was for can be at within the et al. but data are one of the for is a in the world of that the that systems on or will or In from data and greater of The is that recognition systems on faces that the on which systems are and these disproportionately White review of the datasets used to these clear of demographic and (e.g., et al. et al. et al. have been using a more and of faces (e.g., and 2019; et al. an issue. implementation of these will likely proactive from is just one of many that face recognition systems are to one of their and practical is in and identity This technology individual faces of on the face to the physical and the face a of these systems are often on datasets as just and research that are more likely to in that individuals are at a of In existing data support this (e.g., et al. as these issues technology using these systems have been and of the to is Within for example, face recognition systems are available that to and potential and these systems have been to be disproportionately likely to of a national in the a the that face recognition systems used in and as potential on The potential for increases when agencies similar And, agencies across the have increasingly recognition technology for and to a by the Government of federal agencies using recognition for and over a in have similar tools into their infrastructure 2021; and federal agencies to to at the Center on over American in face recognition This was from a that this is much and despite available evidence in these the National Association of that are the of used in the technology can be to that are or The potential for in is further by the that are disproportionately in face and the of and of are further by et al. that of recognition technology by to in and several high-profile in which as have the recognition has also been within the of that the of and and of without or in hearings over the and civil of using in this (e.g., U.S. House of the of such systems has further during the second Trump administration. In that using a new to recognition of individuals in public 2025). The and in government and concerns as in the in a 2025 to the of by U.S. et al. 2025), yet oversight are of the such is to the of public data, the of and the barriers many face in their efforts to address these are and progress has been (e.g., et al. of from (e.g., et al. and from civil and Executive Order reflects a concerning disregard for evidence and a at the federal The data are the of and has on a tools that promote or social should be a Government proactive policies, and are as systems pose risks to human and civil rights, existing these in the of and risks public for we to with care and we the I to all to this and to this work through the review I also like to and for their on of the is a of Psychology at and Social at Social and Psychology Her research face social and and