Sept 11 Flashcards
vulnerability/risk factors
variables
associated with maladjustment/negative outcomes
promotive factors
variables
associated with positive outcomes across all levels of the risk
protective factors
variables
disrupt the impact of a risk factor
ie. when risk factor is high, protective factor leads to a better outcome
ie. if discrimination is a risk factor, a protective factor interacts with disc to attenuate its negative effects
variables that only involve vulnerability
presence of variable predicts outcome
but absence of variable doesn’t necessarily lead to positive outcome
ie. child abuse, teen pregnancy
variables that are only promotive
presence of variable predicts outcome
but absence of variable doesn’t necessarily lead to negative outcomes
ie. talent in one specific area, mentor
variables that are both promotive and a risk
both extremes of the variable predict functioning
one extreme positive and one extreme negative
curvilinear effects
the opposite extreme of the variable predict negative outcomes
ie. parental control, poverty and affluence
ie. family income’s effect on drug abuse
moderation
the strength of association between X and Y gets STRONGER or WEAKER depending on M
mediation
X causes M
then M causes Y
X can also directly cause Y (partial mediation) or not directly cause Y (partial mediation)
partial mediation
X can directly cause Y
or not directly cause Y
moderation: example of a protective effect
when social support is LOW, discrimination is associated with depression at Beta = 5
when social support is MEDIUM, discrimination is associated with depression at Beta = 2.5
when social support is HIGH, discrimination is associated with depression at Beta = 0
mediation example
LGBTQ discrimination causes internalized heterosexism (p < 0.05)
Internalized heterosexism causes depression (p < 0.05)
LGBTQ discrimination directly causes depression (p < 0.05)
both DIRECT and INDIRECT effects here:
1. direct - LGBTQ disc causes depression
2. indirect - LGBTQ disc indirectly causes depression VIA internalized heterosexism
protective factors are always…
moderators
ie. social support is a moderator and protective factor because it makes discrimination less predictive of depression
causal chain
mediation
change in strength of association between 2 variables based on 3rd variable
moderation
need for models for those specifically from marginalized groups
lots of psych research take DEFICITS-BASED APPROACHES
deficits-based approaches
white individuals are the REFERENCE group (or men - concept applies beyond race/ethnicity)
any difference relative to White people = abnormality & inferiority
examples of deficits-based approaches
- POC engage in more authoritarian parenting than whites, therefore POC are worse parents
^ISSUE: parenting practices differ across cultures
- Black kids are more likely to get suspended than White kids, therefore Black kids are more deviant
^ignores context that explains why diffs in suspension rates systematically exist
retracted racist deficits-based approach paper - “do pigmentation and the melanocortin system modulate aggression and sexuality in humans as they do in other animals?”
claimed skin pigmentation is related to aggression and sexuality in humans
hypothesis = darker pigment people are more aggressive
proposal that Black people are more psychopathic than White people
thoroughly refuted findings
retracted racist deficits-based approach paper - “poverty and culture”
“attempts to attribute longterm poverty to social barriers, such as racial discrimination or lack of jobs, have failed”
“racial minorities, however, all come from non-Western cultures where most people seek to adjust to outside conditions rather than seeking change”
“these differences best explain why minorities - especially Blacks and Hispanics - typically respond only weakly to chances to get ahead through education and work, and also why crime and other social problems run high in low-income area”
WTF.
retracted racist deficits-based approach paper - “declines in religiosity predict increases in violent crime - but not among countries with relatively high average IQ”
from abstract: “lower rates of religiosity were more strongly associated with higher homicide rates in countries with lower average IQ. These findings raise questions about how secularization might differentially affect groups of different mean cognitive ability”
wtf - assumes certain countries have lower IQs??
also all correlational
used ‘national IQ data’ from a RETRACTED article - it was “plagued by lack of representativeness of the samples, questionable support for some of the measures, an excess of researcher degrees of freedom, and concern about the vulnerability of the data to bias”
homicide data: their proxy for violent crime
homicide data described as “unreliable, given that many countries included in the data set provided no actual data on homicides that had occurred. instead, in these countries, homicide rates were estimated on the basis of other variables that may or may not be closely related to homicide rates”
retracted article: what were the “lower IQ countries?”
Africa and Central & South America
paper’s implication = countries in these regions wouldn’t benefit from ‘rule of law’, ‘widespread concerns for fairness’ or ‘criminal justice reform’ because their people have too low IQ and self-control
…wtf
what model did Cynthia Croll make?
the Integrative Model for the Study of Developmental Competencies in Minority Children
first model that focused on factors that influenced health and wellbeing specifically of minority kids
identified promotive and risk factors
Integrative Model for the Study of Developmental Competencies in Minority Children - motivation behind the model
“when the ethnic and racial factors were taken into account, they were typically incorporated within an EVOLUTIONARY FRAMEWORK that described differences between racial/ethnic groups rather than within groups and conceptualized these differences as evidence for either the GENETIC or the CULTURAL INFERIORITY of the ethnic/racial groups relative to the white mainstream standard”
components of Croll’s Integrative Model for the Study of Developmental Competencies in Minority Children
- social position variables
- racism
- segregation
- promoting/inhibiting environments
- adaptive culture
- child characteristics
- family
- developmental competencies
Croll’s integrative model: social position variables
race/ethnicity
social class
gender
Croll’s integrative model: racism
prejudice
discrimination
oppression
Croll’s integrative model: promoting/inhibiting environments
schools
neighbourhoods
health care
Croll’s integrative model: adaptive culture
traditions & cultural legacies
histories
migration
acculturation
current context
Croll’s integrative model: child characteristics
age
temperament
health status
biological factors
physical characteristics
Croll’s integrative model: family
structure & roles
family values, beliefs, goals
racial socialization
socio-economic status
Croll’s integrative model: what sets all the factors in the model into motion?
social position variables (race/ethnicity, social class, gender)
your social position determines exposure to racism, segregation…
Croll’s integrative model: promoting/inhibiting environments influence what?
our adaptive culture
aspects of your group change/evolve over time in response to your context
also child characteristics, family and developmental competencies
Croll’s integrative model: developmental competencies
cognitive
social
emotional
linguistic
biculturalism
coping with racism
biopsychosocial model of perceived racism broad components
interested in how stress & racism impact health outcomes
- stressful environmental stimuli
moderated by:
a. constitutional factors
b. SES factors
c. psychological factors
^these factors affect our perception of the stressor
- perception
of:
a. racism (results in coping response, physio/psych response, health outcomes)
b. other stressor
c. neither (blunted/no response)
biopsychosocial model of perceived racism: psychological factors
emotional regulation
personality (neuroticism, paranoid etc)
self-esteem
optimism vs cynicism
biopsychosocial model of perceived racism: constitutional factors
skin colour
gender
age
nativity
racial-ethnic group
acculturation & language ability
(like social position factors)
constitutional factors: skin colour
- historical and continuing preference for lighter skin tone
- COLOURISM: discrimination on basis of shade of one’s skin
- harmful to mental health & causes family schisms
- call for psychological approach to colourism research among Asian populations
colourism
discrimination on basis of shade of one’s skin
ie. mixed race siblings - the one with the darker skin will likely face more disc
SES factors: education
- more highly educated people from marginalized groups are more likely to work in PREDOMINATELY WHITE environments
- UNIVERSITY may offer minorities more chances to discuss race & discrimination, increasing AWARENESS of issues
- HIGHER INCOME = risk factor for depression among Black people living in mostly white areas (explained by reports of racial discrimination, lower sense of belonging)
- other studies show more disc among low SES minorities
high income is good for obvious reasons, but…
has diminished returns for people from marginalized groups
constitutional factors: age
as kids age…
- AWARENESS of disc increases
- more likely to THINK people will ACT on PREJUDICE
- more likely to develop NUANCED VIEWS of disc
- more likely to PERCEIVE ADULT and INSTITUTIONAL disc
- no increases in peer disc
as kids age, what increases?
awareness of disc
expectation that people will act on prejudice
nuanced views of disc
perception of adult/institutional disc
what percentage of 10 year olds are familiar with discrimination?
92%
name calling, not sharing, social exclusion
they avoid classification
path a: biopsychosocial model of social & cognitive processes linking discrimination to health
model starts with DISCRIMINATION AT ALL LEVELS (cultural, institutional, interpersonal)
links to SOCIAL COGNITIVE PROCESSES
A: SCHEMAS/APPRAISAL PROCESSES
- schemas and appraisal processes
- schemas about self, others, world
- schemas related to social identity
path b: biopsychosocial model of social & cognitive processes linking discrimination to health
model starts with DISCRIMINATION AT ALL LEVELS (cultural, institutional, interpersonal)
links to SOCIAL COGNITIVE PROCESSES
B: COGNITIVE CONTROL PROCESSES
- attentional control
- cognitive flexibility
- integration of semantic, affective & sensory info
path c: biopsychosocial model of social & cognitive processes linking discrimination to health
path a and b then leads to c
so… schemas & appraisal processes (a) and cognitive control processes (b)
lead to: INTEGRATED OUTCOMES: GOAL ORIENTATION
- motivational goals
- approach/avoidance
- engagement/disengagement
- persistence
what does the “biopsychosocial model of social & cognitive processes linking discrimination to health” begin with?
discrimination at all levels
- cultural
- institutional
- interpersonal
biopsychosocial model: discrimination > social cognitive processes lead to…
- health behaviours
- smoking
- unhealthy eating
- substance use
- risky behaviour
- adherence - emotional & physiological reactivity
- mood & cognition
- neuroendocrine, autonomic & immune systems - emotional & physiological recovery
- mood & cognition
- neuroendocrine, autonomic and immune system
- sleep
biopsychosocial model: all the components lead to…
sustained psychophysiological dysregulation
and
mental health status
minority stress theory was first outlined by…
Meyer in 2003
initial focus on sexual orientation minorities
minority stress’ origin
is in prejudice and stigma against SGM (sexual gender minority) people
stressors can be due to…
- general things (losing job due to poor performance)
- minority stressors (losing job due to SGM status)
minority stress theory talks about…
minority identity being associated with negative health outcomes in long term
foundational premise: SGM people experience more health disparities on average
due to EXCESS EXPOSURE to SOCIAL STRESSORS because of their SGM IDENTITY
additive and multiplicative effect of having minority stressors ON TOP of general stressors
