The immediate and long-term effects of a lab simulation of discrimination on well being Mindi...
1
The immediate and long-term effects of a lab simulation of discrimination on well being Mindi Foster, Wilfrid Laurier University Rationale In trying to understand the relationship between discrimination and well-being, research has either examined the causal effects of a lab situation of discrimination (Foster, 2001; McCoy & Major, 2003), or, has examined these relationships with the use of retrospective surveys (Branscombe et al., 1999; Foster, 2000; Schmitt et al., 2002). Indeed, both of these methodologies provide crucial information about both the causal impacts of discrimination, and the impact of past events on present-day well-being. Yet, given the scarcity of prospective, longitudinal research, there is less understanding of the longer term impacts of discrimination on well-being, and potential moderators of this relationship. Thus, this study examined how experiencing discrimination in a lab setting would impact well-being both during the experiment and one year later. Method Participants • 133 female students Procedure Lab Simulation (False feedback paradigm) •Women were told this was a study on test-taking anxiety •Told they would either pass/fail a test •Warned about the potential for gender discrimination •The discrimination then occurred by failing all women, passing all men •Outcome measures (perceived discrimination, coping, well- being) were then given Follow-up •Those who participated in the lab simulation (N = 31) as well as a control group of women who had participated in other non- discrimination lab studies (N = 102) completed an online web survey assessing perceived discrimination and well-being. Measures Lab Simulation •Perceived discrimination (“how much did this task discriminate against your gender”?) •BriefCope (Carver, 1997) •Well-being: State Self-Esteem Scale (Heatherton & Polivy, 1991); Life Satisfaction (Schmitt, Branscombe, Kobrynowicz & Owen, 2002); Mood Checklist (Foster & Dion, 2003) Follow-up • Perceived discrimination (Contrada et al., 2001) •Self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965) •Hopkins Symptom Checklist (Derogatis et al., 1974). •Life Satisfaction (Diener et al., 1985) •World Assumptions (Janoff-Bulman, 1989). B = 1.14, p = .001 Greater perceived discrimination predicted better well-being (increased life satisfaction, self-esteem, lower negative mood) among those intending to use more •Social support, •Active coping •Cognitive restructuring ONE YEAR LATER? This research was supported by a Spencer Foundation grant and by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada HOW DID COPING STYLE AFFECT WELL-BEING DURING THE EXPERIMENT? 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 Low High Perceived Discrim ination LifeSatisfaction High SocialSupport Low SocialSupport ns 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 Low High Perceived Discrim ination Performance& Social Self Esteem High SocialSupport Low SocialSupport ns B = .61, p = .01 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 Low H igh P erceived D iscrim inatio n H igh A ction Low A ction B = -.79, p = .001 B = .56, p = .01 B = -.47, p = .04 B = .76, p = .01 Compared to women in other lab studies, only for women in the lab experience of discrimination was their discrimination in the following year associated with greater negative psychological symptoms and lower self-esteem and life satisfaction -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 Correlationbetweenperceiveddiscriminationandwell-being InterpersonalSensitivity O bsessive SelfEsteem Life satisfaction Sim ple effectsforsignificantG roup X Discrim ination Interactions Lab Experience Controlgroup ** ** * ** ** p < .01 * p < .05 COULD EXPERIENCES IN-LAB AFFECT WELL-BEING ONE YEAR LATER? -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Low High Perceived D iscrim ination L ife Satisfaction 1 year late H igh SocialSupport Low SocialSupport -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Low High Perceived D iscrim ination SelfE steem 1 year late H igh SocialSupport Low SocialSupport B = 1.3, p = .001 ns 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 Low H igh P erceived D iscrim inatio n H igh C ognitive R estructuring Low C ognitive R estructuring -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Low High Perceived D iscrim ination L ife Satisfaction 1 year late H igh Action Low A ction ns B = .71, p = .001 B = 1.3, p = .001 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Low High Perceived D iscrim ination SelfE steem 1 year late H igh Action Low A ction B = .56, p = .02 ns -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 Low High Perceived D iscrim ination P ositive W orld A ssum ptions 1 year la H igh SocialSupport Low SocialSupport B = 1.3, p = .001 ns Among those who had intended to use more •Social Support •Active coping a lab experience of discrimination was associated with greater life satisfaction, self-esteem and more positive world assumptions one year later Conclusions: Although a lab experience of discrimination may negatively impact future well-being, social support and active coping styles appear to buffer the negative impact of this experience, both immediately and 1 year later.
-
Upload
blaze-parsons -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
1
Transcript of The immediate and long-term effects of a lab simulation of discrimination on well being Mindi...
The immediate and long-term effects of a lab simulation of discrimination on well being
Mindi Foster, Wilfrid Laurier University
Rationale
In trying to understand the relationship between discrimination and well-being, research has either examined the causal effects of a lab situation of discrimination (Foster, 2001; McCoy & Major, 2003), or, has examined these relationships with the use of retrospective surveys (Branscombe et al., 1999; Foster, 2000; Schmitt et al., 2002). Indeed, both of these methodologies provide crucial information about both the causal impacts of discrimination, and the impact of past events on present-day well-being. Yet, given the scarcity of prospective, longitudinal research, there is less understanding of the longer term impacts of discrimination on well-being, and potential moderators of this relationship. Thus, this study examined how experiencing discrimination in a lab setting would impact well-being both during the experiment and one year later.
Method Participants
• 133 female students Procedure
Lab Simulation (False feedback paradigm)•Women were told this was a study on test-taking anxiety•Told they would either pass/fail a test •Warned about the potential for gender discrimination•The discrimination then occurred by failing all women, passing all men•Outcome measures (perceived discrimination, coping, well-being) were then given
Follow-up•Those who participated in the lab simulation (N = 31) as well as a control group of women who had participated in other non-discrimination lab studies (N = 102) completed an online web survey assessing perceived discrimination and well-being.
MeasuresLab Simulation
•Perceived discrimination (“how much did this task discriminate against your gender”?)•BriefCope (Carver, 1997)•Well-being: State Self-Esteem Scale (Heatherton & Polivy, 1991); Life Satisfaction (Schmitt, Branscombe, Kobrynowicz & Owen, 2002); Mood Checklist (Foster & Dion, 2003)
Follow-up• Perceived discrimination (Contrada et al., 2001)•Self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965)•Hopkins Symptom Checklist (Derogatis et al., 1974).•Life Satisfaction (Diener et al., 1985)•World Assumptions (Janoff-Bulman, 1989).
B = 1.14, p = .001
Greater perceived discriminationpredicted better well-being(increased life satisfaction,self-esteem, lower negative mood)among those intending to use more
•Social support, •Active coping•Cognitive restructuring
ONE YEAR LATER?
This research was supported by a Spencer Foundation grant and by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
HOW DID COPING STYLE AFFECT WELL-BEING DURING THE EXPERIMENT?
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Low High
Perceived Discrimination
Life
Sat
isfac
tion
High Social Support Low Social Support
ns
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Low High
Perceived Discrimination
Perf
orm
ance
& S
ocia
l Self
Este
em
High Social Support Low Social Support
ns
B = .61, p = .01
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Low High
Perceived Discrimination
High Action Low Action
B = -.79, p = .001
B = .56, p = .01
B = -.47, p = .04
B = .76, p = .01
Compared to women in other lab studies, only for women in the lab experience of discrimination was their discrimination in the following year associated with greater negative psychological symptoms and lower self-esteem and life satisfaction
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Corr
elatio
n betw
een p
erce
ived d
iscrim
inat
ion an
d well
-bein
g
Interpersonal Sensitivity Obsessive Self Esteem Life satisfaction
Simple effects for significant Group X Discrimination Interactions
Lab Experience Control group
** **
***
** p < .01 * p < .05
COULD EXPERIENCES IN-LAB AFFECT WELL-BEING ONE YEAR LATER?
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Low High
Perceived Discrimination
Lif
e S
ati
sfa
ctio
n 1
yea
r la
ter
High Social Support Low Social Support
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Low High
Perceived Discrimination
Sel
f E
stee
m 1
yea
r la
ter
High Social Support Low Social Support
B = 1.3, p = .001ns
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Low High
Perceived Discrimination
High Cognitive Restructuring Low Cognitive Restructuring
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Low High
Perceived Discrimination
Lif
e S
ati
sfa
ctio
n 1
yea
r la
ter
High Action Low Action
ns
B = .71, p = .001
B = 1.3, p = .001
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Low High
Perceived Discrimination
Sel
f E
stee
m 1
yea
r la
ter
High Action Low Action
B = .56, p = .02ns
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Low High
Perceived Discrimination
Po
siti
ve
Wo
rld
Ass
um
pti
on
s 1
yea
r la
ter
High Social Support Low Social Support
B = 1.3, p = .001
ns
Among those who had intended to use more
•Social Support•Active coping
a lab experience of discrimination was associated with greater life satisfaction, self-esteem and more positive world assumptions one year later
Conclusions: Although a lab experience of discrimination may negatively impact future well-being, social support and active coping styles appear to buffer the negative impact of this experience, both immediately and 1 year later.
