种族差异的解释背景在预测COVID - 19期间社会政治态度中的作用

IF 4.8 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Social and Personality Psychology Compass Pub Date : 2023-09-25 DOI:10.1111/spc3.12897
Nader Hakim, Rachel Eggert, Christina La Rosa, Amelia Zhao
{"title":"种族差异的解释背景在预测COVID - 19期间社会政治态度中的作用","authors":"Nader Hakim, Rachel Eggert, Christina La Rosa, Amelia Zhao","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12897","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The COVID‐19 pandemic placed preexisting racial health disparities in stark relief. Recent studies have already established that, among prejudiced Whites, exposure to such racial disparities reduced concern about the pandemic and support for mitigation policies (Harrel & Lieberman, 2021; Stephens‐Dougan, 2022). In response to such results, one cautionary line of reasoning argues that communicating the disparity figures without explanatory context can perpetuate (or at least not undermine) myths that African Americans are more likely to contract COVID‐19 due to genetic predispositions or maladaptive behavioral tendencies (Chowkwanyun & Reed, 2020). In two studies, we test the claims that (a) explanatory context mitigates the tendency to attribute racial disparities to essential racial differences and (b) that perceptions of racial disparities are attuned to specific racial inequalities in the U.S., and not merely expressions of outgroup bias. In Study 1, we found that exposure to racial disparities with explanatory context (vs. without explanatory context) did not reduce racial essentialism or stereotyping, but did promote support for healthcare equity. In Study 2, we found that black disadvantage frames (vs. white vs. Hispanic) uniquely promoted support for equitable healthcare and multicultural inclusion. Importantly, and contrary to other recent findings, exposure to black disadvantage did not preclude support for equity.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The role of explanatory context for racial disparities in predicting sociopolitical attitudes during COVID‐19\",\"authors\":\"Nader Hakim, Rachel Eggert, Christina La Rosa, Amelia Zhao\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/spc3.12897\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The COVID‐19 pandemic placed preexisting racial health disparities in stark relief. Recent studies have already established that, among prejudiced Whites, exposure to such racial disparities reduced concern about the pandemic and support for mitigation policies (Harrel & Lieberman, 2021; Stephens‐Dougan, 2022). In response to such results, one cautionary line of reasoning argues that communicating the disparity figures without explanatory context can perpetuate (or at least not undermine) myths that African Americans are more likely to contract COVID‐19 due to genetic predispositions or maladaptive behavioral tendencies (Chowkwanyun & Reed, 2020). In two studies, we test the claims that (a) explanatory context mitigates the tendency to attribute racial disparities to essential racial differences and (b) that perceptions of racial disparities are attuned to specific racial inequalities in the U.S., and not merely expressions of outgroup bias. In Study 1, we found that exposure to racial disparities with explanatory context (vs. without explanatory context) did not reduce racial essentialism or stereotyping, but did promote support for healthcare equity. In Study 2, we found that black disadvantage frames (vs. white vs. Hispanic) uniquely promoted support for equitable healthcare and multicultural inclusion. Importantly, and contrary to other recent findings, exposure to black disadvantage did not preclude support for equity.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53583,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social and Personality Psychology Compass\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social and Personality Psychology Compass\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12897\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12897","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

COVID - 19大流行使先前存在的种族健康差异凸显出来。最近的研究已经证实,在有偏见的白人中,暴露于这种种族差异会减少对流行病的关注和对缓解政策的支持(Harrel &利伯曼,2021;史蒂芬斯高杜德恒在2022年)。针对这些结果,一种谨慎的推理方法认为,在没有解释背景的情况下传达差异数字可能会延续(或至少不会破坏)非裔美国人更容易感染COVID - 19的神话,因为遗传倾向或适应不良的行为倾向(Chowkwanyun &里德,2020)。在两项研究中,我们测试了以下观点:(a)解释性背景减轻了将种族差异归因于本质种族差异的倾向;(b)对种族差异的看法与美国特定的种族不平等相一致,而不仅仅是外群体偏见的表达。在研究1中,我们发现有解释性背景的种族差异(与没有解释性背景的种族差异相比)并没有减少种族本质主义或刻板印象,但确实促进了对医疗公平的支持。在研究2中,我们发现黑人劣势框架(相对于白人和西班牙裔)独特地促进了对公平医疗和多元文化包容的支持。重要的是,与最近的其他调查结果相反,黑人处于不利地位并不妨碍对平等的支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The role of explanatory context for racial disparities in predicting sociopolitical attitudes during COVID‐19
Abstract The COVID‐19 pandemic placed preexisting racial health disparities in stark relief. Recent studies have already established that, among prejudiced Whites, exposure to such racial disparities reduced concern about the pandemic and support for mitigation policies (Harrel & Lieberman, 2021; Stephens‐Dougan, 2022). In response to such results, one cautionary line of reasoning argues that communicating the disparity figures without explanatory context can perpetuate (or at least not undermine) myths that African Americans are more likely to contract COVID‐19 due to genetic predispositions or maladaptive behavioral tendencies (Chowkwanyun & Reed, 2020). In two studies, we test the claims that (a) explanatory context mitigates the tendency to attribute racial disparities to essential racial differences and (b) that perceptions of racial disparities are attuned to specific racial inequalities in the U.S., and not merely expressions of outgroup bias. In Study 1, we found that exposure to racial disparities with explanatory context (vs. without explanatory context) did not reduce racial essentialism or stereotyping, but did promote support for healthcare equity. In Study 2, we found that black disadvantage frames (vs. white vs. Hispanic) uniquely promoted support for equitable healthcare and multicultural inclusion. Importantly, and contrary to other recent findings, exposure to black disadvantage did not preclude support for equity.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Social and Personality Psychology Compass
Social and Personality Psychology Compass Psychology-Social Psychology
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
2.20%
发文量
59
期刊最新文献
The role of White identity in anti‐racist allyship On the experience of goals: Differentiating goal‐generic value from goal‐specific value The unseen pillar of behavior: A review of maintenance goals Spiritual capital and spiritual entrepreneurship: The new spiritualities and the processes of subjectivation Carving to excise, carving to create: Conversations on creating and sustaining safe spaces in higher education
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1