Stigmas, Stereotypes, Threat, and Cardiovascular Disease Jim Blascovich University of California,...
67
Stigmas, Stereotypes, Threat, and Cardiovascular Disease Jim Blascovich University of California, Santa Barbara UC-Intercampus Health Psychology Conference Center December 2, 2000
-
Upload
madison-ross -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
3
Transcript of Stigmas, Stereotypes, Threat, and Cardiovascular Disease Jim Blascovich University of California,...
Stigmas, Stereotypes, Threat, and
Cardiovascular Disease
Jim BlascovichUniversity of California, Santa
Barbara
UC-Intercampus Health Psychology Conference Center
December 2, 2000
Collaborators
• Wendy Mendes– Sarah Hunter– Mark Seery– Brian Lickel– Neneh Kowai-Bell
Key Motivational States
• Challenge– when personal resources roughly
equal or outweigh situational demands
• Threat– when situational demands outweigh
personal resources.
Demand Components
• Danger• Uncertainty• Required Effort
Resource Components
• Knowledge, skills, & abilities• Dispositions• External Support
Performance
Situation
Affective(Emotional) Evaluation
Cognitive(Semantic)Evaluation
Challenge/Threat
(Dienstbier, 1989)Physiological Toughness
• neuro-endocrine system• states
– physiological toughness – physiological (weakness)
Physiological Toughness SAM Axis
• Neural Response– sympathetic neural stimulation of the
myocardium enhancing cardiac performance particularly contractility
• Endocrine Response– adrenal medullary release of epinephrine
causing vasodilation resulting in a systemic decline in vascular resistance
• Benign
Physiological WeaknessPAC Axis
• Neural– sympathetic neural stimulation of the
myocardium enhancing cardiac performance
• Endocrine– pituitary adrenal cortical inhibition of
adrenal medullary release of epinephrine and norepinephrine resulting in little change or even increases in systemic vascular resistance
• Malignant
Contractility (1/PEP)
Contractility (1/PEP) CO
Contractility (1/PEP)
TPR
Physio. ToughnessPhysio. Weakness
CO
Key Motivational States
• Challenge--when resources roughly equal or outweigh demands– indexed by Dienstbier’s pattern of
physiological toughness
• Threat--when demands outweigh resources.– indexed by Dienstbier’s pattern of
physiological weakness
Motivated Performance Situations
• goal relevant• require instrumental cognitive
responses to “active coping” tasks• minimally metabolically
demanding
Examples of Motivated Performance Situations
• Taking Exams• Decision Making• Giving Speeches• Playing Games• Interviews• Many Social Exchanges
Validational Studies
• correlational• experimental• manipulated physiology
02468
1012141618202224
0
1
2
3
Pre
-eje
ctio
n P
erio
d (s
ec*-
1)
Tot
al P
erip
hera
l Res
ista
nce
(Res
ista
nce
Uni
ts)
-12
-10
-8-6
-4
-2
02
4
6
Challenge
Threat
Car
diac
Out
put
(L/m
)
Correlational(Tomaka, Blascovich, Kelsey, & Leitten, 1996)
PEP
TPR
0
CO
Validational Studies (see Blascovich & Tomaka, 1996, for a review).
• correlational• experimental• manipulated physiology
0
2
4
6
8
-0.5
0.5
1.5
Pre
-eje
ctio
n P
erio
d (s
ec*-
1)
Tot
al P
erip
hera
l Res
ista
nce
(Res
ista
nce
Uni
ts)
-120
-100
-80-60
-40
-20
020
40
60
Read
Sing
Car
diac
Out
put
(L/m
)
Experimental Manipulation(Sarah Hunter, 2000)
PEP
TPR
0
CO
02468
101214161820
-0.5
0.5
1.5
Pre
-eje
ctio
n P
erio
d (s
ec*-
1)
Tot
al P
erip
hera
l Res
ista
nce
(Res
ista
nce
Uni
ts)
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
Positive
Negative
Car
diac
Out
put
(L/m
)
Experimental Manipulation(Mendes, Blascovich, Weisbuch, Seery, in prep)
PEP
TPR
0
CO
Validational Studies (see Blascovich & Tomaka, 1996, for a review).
• correlational• experimental• manipulated physiology
NO EFFECTS!
Application of Indexes• Attitudes (Blascovich, et al., 1993)• Dispositions (Tomaka & Blascovich,
1994; Tomaka et al, 1999)• Social Support (Allen & Blascovich,
1991, 1999)• Social Facilitation (Blascovich, Mendes,
Hunter & Lickel, 1999)• Social Comparison (Mendes, Blascovich,
Major, & Seery, under review)
Stigma and Threat• Many theorists assume that
perceivers are threatened by bearers of social stigmas
• Little evidence to support this basic theoretical assumption– problems with past attempts at
physiological measures – problems with other types of measures
especially self-report
Social Interaction Paradigm
• Partner a participant with a confederate who is either stigmatized or not stigmatized
• Immerse them in dyadic motivated performance situations
• Record physiological (cardiovascular) response marking challenge and threat
Procedures
• Participant and confederate meet and exchange background information
• Participant and confederate are separated and physiological sensors applied and baseline recordings made (of participant)
• Participants engage in a one or two tasks
Speech
CooperativeWordfindingTask
Measures(all continuous)
• Impedance Cardiographic– pre-ejection period (PEP) = contractile force– cardiac-output (CO) = blood volume per minute
• Electrocardiographic– electrocardiogram (ECG)
• Hemodynamic– mean arterial blood pressure (MAP)
• Vascular– total peripheral resistance (TPR)
Stigma-Threat Studies(Perceiver)
• Experiment 1 -- Facial Birthmark
Experiment 1- Speech DeliveryBlascovich et al. (in press)
PEP
TPR
0
CO
0
5
10
15
20
25
Pre
-eje
ctio
n P
erio
d (s
ec*-
1)
Experiment 1- Speech DeliveryBlascovich et al. (in press)
PEP
TPR
0
CO
0
5
10
15
20
25
0
0.5
1
1.5
Pre
-eje
ctio
n P
erio
d (s
ec*-
1)
Car
diac
Out
put
(L/m
)
Experiment 1- Speech DeliveryBlascovich et al. (in press)
PEP
TPR
0
CO
0
5
10
15
20
25
0
0.5
1
1.5
Pre
-eje
ctio
n P
erio
d (s
ec*-
1)
Tot
al P
erip
hera
l Res
ista
nce
(Res
ista
nce
Uni
ts)
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
No Birthmark
Birthmark
Car
diac
Out
put
(L/m
)
Experiment 1- Speech DeliveryBlascovich et al. (in press)
PEP
TPR
0
CO
Experiment 1- Word Finding TaskBlascovich et al. (in press)
PEP
TPR
0
CO
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Pre
-eje
ctio
n P
erio
d (s
ec*-
1)
Experiment 1- Word Finding TaskBlascovich et al. (in press)
PEP
TPR
0
CO
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Pre
-eje
ctio
n P
erio
d (s
ec*-
1)
Car
diac
Out
put
(L/m
)
Experiment 1- Word Finding TaskBlascovich et al. (in press)
PEP
TPR
0
CO
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Pre
-eje
ctio
n P
erio
d (s
ec*-
1)
Tot
al P
erip
hera
l Res
ista
nce
(Res
ista
nce
Uni
ts)
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
No Birthmark
Birthmark
Car
diac
Out
put
(L/m
)
Experiment 1- Word Finding TaskBlascovich et al. (in press)
PEP
TPR
0
CO
0
20No Birthmark
Birthmark
Num
ber
of
Word
s G
enera
ted
Experiment 1- Word Finding TaskBlascovich et al. (in press)
Stigma-Threat Studies(Perceiver)
• Experiment 1 -- Facial Birthmark• Experiment 2 -- Facial Birthmark
Experiment 2 - Word Finding TaskBlascovich et al. (in press)
PEP
TPR
0
CO
Pre
-eje
ctio
n P
erio
d (s
ec*-
1)
Car
diac
Out
put
(L/m
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
Experiment 2 - Word Finding TaskBlascovich et al. (in press)
PEP
TPR
0
CO
Pre
-eje
ctio
n P
erio
d (s
ec*-
1)
Car
diac
Out
put
(L/m
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
Experiment 2 - Word Finding TaskBlascovich et al. (in press)
PEP
TPR
0
CO
Pre
-eje
ctio
n P
erio
d (s
ec*-
1)
Tot
al P
erip
hera
l Res
ista
nce
(Res
ista
nce
Uni
ts)
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
No Birthmark
Birthmark
Car
diac
Out
put
(L/m
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
Experiment 2 - Word Finding TaskBlascovich et al. (in press)
PEP
TPR
0
CO
0
20No Birthmark
Birthmark
Num
ber
of
Word
s G
enera
ted
Experiment 2Blascovich et al. (in press)
Stigma-Threat Studies(Perceiver)
• Experiment 1 -- Facial Birthmark• Experiment 2 -- Facial Birthmark• Experiment 3 -- Race & SES
(males)
PE
P
TP
R
CO
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Advantaged Disadvantaged
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
Experiment 3 - SpeechBlascovich et al. (in prep)
PE
P
TP
R
CO
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Advantaged Disadvantaged
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
PE
P
TP
R
CO
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
White Black
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
-160
-140
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
Experiment 3 - SpeechBlascovich et al. (in prep)
PE
P
TP
R
CO
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Advantaged Disadvantaged
0
5
10
15
20
25
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
Experiment 3 - Word FindingBlascovich et al. (in prep)
PE
P
TP
R
CO
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Advantaged Disadvantaged
0
5
10
15
20
25
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
PE
P
TP
R
CO
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
White Black0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
Experiment 3 - Word FindingBlascovich et al. (in prep)
Stigma-Threat Studies(Perceiver)
• Experiment 1 -- Facial Birthmark• Experiment 2 -- Facial Birthmark• Experiment 3 -- Race & SES
(males)• Experiment 4 -- Race & SES
(females)
PE
P
TP
R
CO
0
0.4
0.8
Advantaged Disadvantaged
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Experiment 4 - Word FindingBlascovich et al. (in press)
PE
P
TP
R
CO
0
0.4
0.8
Advantaged Disadvantaged
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
PE
P
TP
R
CO
0
0.4
0.8
White Black10
10.5
11
11.5
12
12.5
13
13.5
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Experiment 4 - Word FindingBlascovich et al. (in press)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Pre
-eje
ctio
n P
erio
d (s
ec*-
1)
b = -1.2
b = 3.9**
Experiment 4 - Word FindingBlascovich et al. (in press)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
Pre
-eje
ctio
n P
erio
d (s
ec*-
1)
Car
diac
Out
put
(L/m
)
b = -1.2
b = 3.9**
b = .21t
b = .07
Experiment 4 - Word FindingBlascovich et al. (in prep)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
Pre
-eje
ctio
n P
erio
d (s
ec*-
1)
Tot
al P
erip
hera
l Res
ista
nce
(Res
ista
nce
Uni
ts)
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300 Black Partner
White Partner
Car
diac
Out
put
(L/m
)
b = -1.2
b = 3.9**
b = -58.6*
b = -18.2
b = .21t
b = .07
Experiment 4 - Word FindingBlascovich et al. (in press)
Effect Size Summary
• .16
• --
• .10• .18
• .05• .16
• .33
• .20
• .27• .30
• .18• .15
Speech Wordfinding
Exp. 1
Exp. 2
Exp. 3 Race Status
Exp. 4 Race Status
Stigma-Threat Studies(Bearer)
• Experiment 1 -- Facial Birthmark
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
No Birthmark
Birthmark
TPR
msec* -1
dyne-s*cm-5
PEP
Cardiovascular Reactivity from the first minute of Speech Delivery by Perceptions of Stigmatization
Cohen’s d = .61; Multivariate F = 2.78, p < .03
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2CO
Mendes & Blascovich, in prep.
Stigma-Threat Studies(Bearer)
• Experiment 1 -- Facial Birthmark• Experiment 2 -- Race
0123456789
10
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
White
Black
TPR
msec* -1
dyne-s*cm-5
PEP
Cardiovascular Reactivity during the first minute of the Word-Finding by Race of Participant (all cooperating with a White evaluator)
Cohen’s d = .52; Multivariate F = 4.15, p < .002
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2CO
Mendes & Blascovich, in prep.
Stigma-Threat Studies(Bearer)
• Experiment 1 -- Facial Birthmark• Experiment 2 -- Race• Experiment 3 -- Stereotype Threat
Blascovich, Spencer, Quinn, & Steele, in press
• Stereotype Threat Theory• Rationale• Design • Procedures• Results
Blascovich, Spencer, Quinn, & Steele, in press
Implications• Stigmas are threatening.
– perceivers– bearers
• Interactions involving members of stigmatized groups – likely to be aversive to individuals involved
• psychologically• cardiovascular health
– likely to lead to negatively toned behaviors
Implications for Stigma Interventions
• decreasing demand evaluations– danger– uncertainty– required effort
• increase resource evaluations– knowledge, skills, and abilities– dispositions– external support
