{"title":"The immediate effect of discrimination on mental health: A meta-analytic review of the causal evidence.","authors":"Christine Emmer, Julia Dorn, Jutta Mata","doi":"10.1037/bul0000419","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This meta-analysis synthesizes experimental studies on the immediate effects of discrimination on mental health, exploring the effects of different paradigms and discrimination types on diverse facets of mental health. We analyzed data from a systematic literature search (73 studies; 12,097 participants; 245 effect sizes) for randomized controlled trials with manipulation of discrimination as a predictor and mental health as an outcome using a three-level random-effects model. Experimentally manipulated discrimination led to poorer mental health (<i>g</i> = -0.30), also after controlling for publication year, region, education level, and methodological quality. Moderator analyses revealed stronger effects for <i>pervasive (g</i> = -0.55) compared to single-event manipulations (<i>g</i> = -0.25) and a trend toward weaker effects for samples with nonmarginalized (<i>g</i> = -0.16) compared to marginalized identities (<i>g</i> = -0.34). Gender and age did not moderate the effect. Discrimination had the largest effects on externalizing (<i>g</i> = -0.66) and distress-related outcomes (<i>g</i> = -0.41); heterosexism (<i>g</i> = -0.66), racism (<i>g</i> = -0.32), and sexism (<i>g</i> = -0.30) had the largest effects on mental health. Convenience sampling compromised generalizability to subgroups and the general population, downgrading methodological quality for all included studies. When interpreting the findings, selective samples (mostly young female adults with higher education), often limited ecological validity, and ethical restrictions of lab-induced discrimination need to be considered. These constraints likely led to conservative estimates of the mental health effects of discrimination in this meta-analysis. Future research should investigate more diverse samples, further explain the heterogeneity of findings, and explore protective factors of the effects of discrimination on mental health. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20854,"journal":{"name":"Psychological bulletin","volume":" ","pages":"215-252"},"PeriodicalIF":17.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000419","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This meta-analysis synthesizes experimental studies on the immediate effects of discrimination on mental health, exploring the effects of different paradigms and discrimination types on diverse facets of mental health. We analyzed data from a systematic literature search (73 studies; 12,097 participants; 245 effect sizes) for randomized controlled trials with manipulation of discrimination as a predictor and mental health as an outcome using a three-level random-effects model. Experimentally manipulated discrimination led to poorer mental health (g = -0.30), also after controlling for publication year, region, education level, and methodological quality. Moderator analyses revealed stronger effects for pervasive (g = -0.55) compared to single-event manipulations (g = -0.25) and a trend toward weaker effects for samples with nonmarginalized (g = -0.16) compared to marginalized identities (g = -0.34). Gender and age did not moderate the effect. Discrimination had the largest effects on externalizing (g = -0.66) and distress-related outcomes (g = -0.41); heterosexism (g = -0.66), racism (g = -0.32), and sexism (g = -0.30) had the largest effects on mental health. Convenience sampling compromised generalizability to subgroups and the general population, downgrading methodological quality for all included studies. When interpreting the findings, selective samples (mostly young female adults with higher education), often limited ecological validity, and ethical restrictions of lab-induced discrimination need to be considered. These constraints likely led to conservative estimates of the mental health effects of discrimination in this meta-analysis. Future research should investigate more diverse samples, further explain the heterogeneity of findings, and explore protective factors of the effects of discrimination on mental health. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
期刊介绍：
Psychological Bulletin publishes syntheses of research in scientific psychology. Research syntheses seek to summarize past research by drawing overall conclusions from many separate investigations that address related or identical hypotheses.
A research synthesis typically presents the authors' assessments:
-of the state of knowledge concerning the relations of interest;
-of critical assessments of the strengths and weaknesses in past research;
-of important issues that research has left unresolved, thereby directing future research so it can yield a maximum amount of new information.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
