Suchergebnisse

We previously proposed that socioeconomic status (SES) is a fundamental cause of health inequalities and, as such, that SES inequalities in health persist over time despite radical changes in the diseases, risks, and interventions that happen to produce them at any given time. Like SES, race in the United States has an enduring connection to health and mortality. Our goals here are to evaluate whether this connection endures because systemic racism is a fundamental cause of health inequalities and, in doing so, to review a wide range of empirical data regarding racial differences in health outcomes, health risks, and health-enhancing resources such as money, knowledge, power, prestige, freedom, and beneficial social connections. We conclude that racial inequalities in health endure primarily because racism is a fundamental cause of racial differences in SES and because SES is a fundamental cause of health inequalities. In addition to these powerful connections, however, there is evidence that racism, largely via inequalities in power, prestige, freedom, neighborhood context, and health care, also has a fundamental association with health independent of SES.

Social science research on stigma has grown dramatically over the past two decades, particularly in social psychology, where researchers have elucidated the ways in which people construct cognitive categories and link those categories to stereotyped beliefs. In the midst of this growth, the stigma concept has been criticized as being too vaguely defined and individually focused. In response to these criticisms, we define stigma as the co-occurrence of its components–labeling, stereotyping, separation, status loss, and discrimination–and further indicate that for stigmatization to occur, power must be exercised. The stigma concept we construct has implications for understanding several core issues in stigma research, ranging from the definition of the concept to the reasons stigma sometimes represents a very persistent predicament in the lives of persons affected by it. Finally, because there are so many stigmatized circumstances and because stigmatizing processes can affect multiple domains of people's lives, stigmatization probably has a dramatic bearing on the distribution of life chances in such areas as earnings, housing, criminal involvement, health, and life itself. It follows that social scientists who are interested in understanding the distribution of such life chances should also be interested in stigma.

Could the explosion of genetic research in recent decades affect our conceptions of race? In Backdoor to Eugenics, Duster argues that reports of specific racial differences in genetic bases of disease, in part because they are presented as objective facts whose social implications are not readily apparent, may heighten public belief in more pervasive racial differences. We tested this hypothesis with a multi-method study. A content analysis showed that news articles discussing racial differences in genetic bases of disease increased significantly between 1985 and 2008 and were significantly less likely than non–health-related articles about race and genetics to discuss social implications. A survey experiment conducted with a nationally representative sample of 559 adults found that a news-story vignette reporting a specific racial difference in genetic risk for heart attacks (the Backdoor Vignette) produced significantly greater belief in essential racial differences than did a vignette portraying race as a social construction or a no-vignette condition. The Backdoor Vignette produced beliefs in essential racial differences that were virtually identical to those produced by a vignette portraying race as a genetic reality. These results suggest that an unintended consequence of the genomic revolution may be the reinvigoration of age-old beliefs in essential racial differences.

Social scientists have predicted that individuals who occupy socially privileged positions or who have conservative political orientations are most likely to endorse the idea that genes are the root cause of differences among individuals. Drawing on a nationally representative sample of the US population, this study examines belief in the importance of genes for understanding individual differences in a series of broad domains: physical illness, serious mental illness, intelligence, personality, and success in life. We also assess whether the belief that genetics are important for these outcomes is more common among those in relatively advantaged positions or among those who are more politically conservative. Finally, we consider whether such beliefs predict attitudes toward genetics-related social policies. Our analyses suggest that belief in the importance of genetics for individual differences may well have a substantial effect on attitudes toward genetics-related policies, independent of political orientation or other measures. Our study identifies high levels of endorsement for genes as causes of health and social outcomes. We describe a cultural schema in which outcomes that are "closer to the body" are more commonly attributed to genetics. Contrary to expectations, however, we find little evidence that it is more common for whites, the socioeconomically advantaged, or political conservatives to believe that genetics are important for health and social outcomes.

Objective: To investigate effects of school race/ethnic enrollment on mental health in early adolescence by examining both race/ ethnic density (percent non-Latinx [NL] White enrollment) and diversity (range/size of all race/ethnic groups enrolled). Variation by student race/ethnic identity is examined as minority stressors are uniquely experi­enced by race/ethnic minority students.Design: Longitudinal cohort from a broader mental health study.Setting: Fourteen schools in Texas (2011- 2015).Participants: Sixth-grade participants (mean age 11.5 years) linked to publicly available data about their school (N=389).Methods: Generalized estimating equations tested main effects of density/diversity on depressive-anxious symptoms across stu­dent-reported race/ethnic identity, adjusting for student/school factors. Owing to statisti­cally significant Latinx-group differences by acculturative stress, four unique identities were generated: NL-Black, low-stress Latinx, high-stress Latinx, and NL-White—referent. Points of convergence of student mental health profiles across density/diversity were explored.Main Outcome Measures: Self-reported depressive-anxious symptoms over a two-year period.Results: A significant interaction between density and student race/ethnicity was found (P<.01), with NL-Black and low-stress Latinx vs NL-White students experi­encing higher symptoms over the two-year period, net of covariates. In contrast, greater diversity was associated with higher symp­toms, net of controls (P<.05). A marginally significant interaction (P=.06) revealed fewer symptoms for high-stress Latinx vs NL-White students. At about 25%, NL-White density and diversity of .5-.6, all students experienced similar mental health profiles.Conclusions: Greater NL-White density increases mental health risk for NL-Black and low-stress Latinx students, while school diversity lowers risk for high-stress Latinx students. These findings demonstrate how educational settings may produce or lessen minority stress.Ethn Dis. 2021;31(2):205- 216; doi:10.18865/ed.31.2.205