Tweeting about fatphobia and body shaming: A retrospective infodemiological study.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to analyze reactions to tweets that employed weight-based discrimination terms and to compare them to others posted by the same users on X (formerly Twitter). METHODS: We collected tweets featuring weight-based discrimination terms (the study group) and created a control group by randomly selecting up to five tweets from each account that did not mention any such terms. Descriptive statistics, sentiment analysis, and logistic regression modeling were used to compare the numbers of likes and retweets of the study and control groups, and to understand the emotions associated with these tweets. RESULTS: Our analysis included 22,075 study group tweets and 50,341 control group tweets. Sentiment analysis was conducted on 41,403 (57.2%) tweets, with 65.7% of the study group tweets being found to contain negative sentiments. The study group had a higher median of likes (1 [0-4]) and retweets (0 [0-0]) than the control group (1 [0-2] and 0 [0-0], respectively, with the study group obtaining higher mean ranks in both comparisons, P < 0.001). Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that tweets using weight-based discrimination terms gained more likes (OR = 1.22; 95% CI: 1.16-1.28) and retweets (OR = 1.61; 95% CI: 1.49-1.74), independent of, for example, verification status, follower count, year and season of the tweet, and emotional expression of the tweet. CONCLUSIONS: Tweets concerning fatphobia, body shaming, and similar terms gain more reactions than others posted by the same accounts.

Exploring discrimination and racism in healthcare: a qualitative phenomenology study of Dutch persons with migration backgrounds.

OBJECTIVE: To explore and characterise the discrimination and racism experienced in healthcare from the perspective of Dutch patients with a migration background. DESIGN: This was a qualitative phenomenological study incorporating an inductive thematic analysis of the answers provided to a free form online survey. Descriptive and differential analyses were conducted for the closed-ended questions. SETTING: This study used an online survey distributed in Dutch about experiences of discrimination and racism in healthcare to the general population in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: The survey was completed by 188 participants (Mage=39.89, SDage=10.2). Of whom 80 (Mage=37.92, SDage=10.87) met the eligibility criteria for thematic analysis (ie, has a migration background or a relative with a migration background and experienced discrimination in healthcare based on their background) and were thus included in the analysis. RESULTS: From the total sample, women, relative to men, were 2.31 times more likely to report experiencing healthcare discrimination (OR=2.31; 95% CI 1.23 to 4.37). The majority of the participants (60.1%) had a Moroccan or Turkish background. Six themes were identified relating to experienced discrimination in healthcare based on one's migration background: (1) explicit discrimination, (2) prejudice, (3) not being taken seriously, (4) discriminatory behaviour, (5) language barriers and (6) pain attribution to cultural background. Some participants reported that their attire or religion was linked to their migration background, thus contributing to their experiences of discrimination. CONCLUSION: Dutch patients with a migration background may experience discrimination based on their ethnic identity or other factors related to their backgrounds, such as their faith, culture and skin colour. Discrimination manifests as intersectional and may take different forms (eg, discrimination based on the intersection between race and gender). Therefore, healthcare discrimination may increase health inequities and lead to unequal access to healthcare services. Implicitly or explicitly discriminating against patients is immoral, unethical, illegal and hazardous for individual and public health. Further research on the magnitude of discrimination in healthcare and its relation to health is needed.

Transmission of social bias through observational learning.

People often rely on social learning-learning by observing others' actions and outcomes-to form preferences in advance of their own direct experiences. Although typically adaptive, we investigated whether social learning may also contribute to the formation and spread of prejudice. In six experiments (n = 1550), we demonstrate that by merely observing interactions between a prejudiced actor and social group members, observers acquired the prejudices of the actor. Moreover, observers were unaware of the actors' bias, misattributing their acquired group preferences to the behavior of group members, despite identical behavior between groups. Computational modeling revealed that this effect was due to value shaping, whereby one's preferences are shaped by another's actions toward a target, in addition to the target's reward feedback. These findings identify social learning as a potent mechanism of prejudice formation that operates implicitly and supports the transmission of intergroup bias.

Negativity bias in intergroup contact: Meta-analytical evidence that bad is stronger than good, especially when people have the opportunity and motivation to opt out of contact.

Seventy years of research on intergroup contact, or face-to-face interactions between members of opposing social groups, demonstrates that positive contact typically reduces prejudice and increases social cohesion. Extant syntheses, however, have not considered the full breadth of contact valence (positive/negative) and have treated self-selection as a threat to validity. This research bridges intergroup contact theory with sequential sampling models of impression formation to assess contact effects across all valences. From the premise that positive versus negative contact instigates differential resampling of outgroup experiences when self-selection is possible, we advance and meta-analytically test new predictions for the moderation of valenced contact effects and negativity bias as a function of people's opportunity and motivation to self-select in and out of contact. Our random-effects synthesis of positive and negative intergroup contact studies (238 independent samples, 936 nested effects; total N = 152,985) found significant valenced contact effects: Positive contact systematically associates with lower prejudice, and negative contact associates with higher prejudice. Critically, the detrimental effect of negative contact is significantly larger than the benefit of positive contact. This negativity bias is particularly pronounced under conditions in which one can self-select, is motivated to avoid contact, among male-dominated and prejudiced samples, in contact with stigmatized, low status, low socioeconomic status outgroups, along nonconcealable stigma, with nonintimate contact partners in informal settings and in collectivistic societies. Considering individuals' motivation and opportunity to self-select, together with contact valence, therefore offers a more nuanced and integrated platform to design contact-based interventions and policies across varied contact ecologies. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

[THE EFFECTS OF GENDER ON THE MANIFESTATIONS AND CONSEQUENCES OF WEIGHT STIGMA].

INTRODUCTION: Weight stigma, or weight bias, refers to biased beliefs and negative opinions towards people with excess weight. This phenomenon manifests in prejudice and negative attitudes towards people with obesity, including disrespectful treatment, bullying, discrimination and even abuse, and leading to long-term negative consequences on physical and mental health. The purpose of the current review was to examine the relationship between gender and manifestations of weight stigma. Studies listed in this review show that the phenomenon of weight stigma is more common and severe among women, in numerous life areas, which include education, employment, the healthcare system, social media, sports industry, and interpersonal relationships. Possible reasons for such differences include the existing discrimination against women in various areas of life, and the emphasis on external appearance and the ideal of thinness, which relates mainly to women. In light of the serious consequences of weight stigma on public health and individual well-being, efforts must be made to prevent weight stigma, including the education of the general population, changing policies of healthcare, education and media systems, and legislation to prevent weight-based discrimination.

Does Digital Intergroup Contact Reduce Prejudice? A Meta-Analysis.

With the ubiquity of technology in the modern life, contact between different social groups via different digital means is an everyday reality. Can such a digital intergroup contact reduce prejudice, or does it exacerbate it? In this study, we summarize the present evidence on the links between intergroup digital contact and prejudice in a variety of intergroup contexts. We meta-analyzed experimental and correlational evidence from 88 independent samples (n = 9,385). Digital intergroup contact showed a small but significant effect consistent with prejudice reduction (g = 0.25). Direct digital contact showed larger effect than indirect forms of contact, and contact via computer-mediated communication showed larger effects than contact achieved via other activities such as interacting with nonplayable characters or embodiment. The effects were similar regardless of the type of out-group targeted by prejudice. Overall, meta-analytical results suggest that digital intergroup contact may reduce prejudice.

The Formation of Negative Attitudes Toward Novel Groups.

People perceive out-groups, minorities, and novel groups more negatively than in-groups, majorities, and familiar groups. Previous research has argued that such intergroup biases may be caused by the order in which people typically encounter social groups. Groups that are relatively novel to perceivers (e.g., out-groups, minorities) are primarily associated with distinct attributes that differentiate them from familiar groups. Because distinct attributes are typically negative, attitudes toward novel groups are negatively biased. Five experiments (N = 2,615 adults) confirmed the generalizability of the novel groups' disadvantage to different aspects of attitude formation (i.e., evaluations, memory, stereotyping), to cases with more than two groups, and to cases in which groups were majority/minority or in-groups/out-groups. Our findings revealed a remarkably robust influence of learning order in the formation of group attitudes, and they imply that people often perceive novel groups more negatively than they actually are.

The immediate effect of discrimination on mental health: A meta-analytic review of the causal evidence.

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).

Historical narratives about the COVID-19 pandemic are motivationally biased.

How people recall the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is likely to prove crucial in future societal debates on pandemic preparedness and appropriate political action. Beyond simple forgetting, previous research suggests that recall may be distorted by strong motivations and anchoring perceptions on the current situation1-6. Here, using 4 studies across 11 countries (total n = 10,776), we show that recall of perceived risk, trust in institutions and protective behaviours depended strongly on current evaluations. Although both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals were affected by this bias, people who identified strongly with their vaccination status-whether vaccinated or unvaccinated-tended to exhibit greater and, notably, opposite distortions of recall. Biased recall was not reduced by providing information about common recall errors or small monetary incentives for accurate recall, but was partially reduced by high incentives. Thus, it seems that motivation and identity influence the direction in which the recall of the past is distorted. Biased recall was further related to the evaluation of past political action and future behavioural intent, including adhering to regulations during a future pandemic or punishing politicians and scientists. Together, the findings indicate that historical narratives about the COVID-19 pandemic are motivationally biased, sustain societal polarization and affect preparation for future pandemics. Consequently, future measures must look beyond immediate public-health implications to the longer-term consequences for societal cohesion and trust.

Workplace Harassment, Cyber Incivility, and Climate in Academic Medicine.

Importance: The culture of academic medicine may foster mistreatment that disproportionately affects individuals who have been marginalized within a given society (minoritized groups) and compromises workforce vitality. Existing research has been limited by a lack of comprehensive, validated measures, low response rates, and narrow samples as well as comparisons limited to the binary gender categories of male or female assigned at birth (cisgender). Objective: To evaluate academic medical culture, faculty mental health, and their relationship. Design, Setting, and Participants: A total of 830 faculty members in the US received National Institutes of Health career development awards from 2006-2009, remained in academia, and responded to a 2021 survey that had a response rate of 64%. Experiences were compared by gender, race and ethnicity (using the categories of Asian, underrepresented in medicine [defined as race and ethnicity other than Asian or non-Hispanic White], and White), and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer (LGBTQ+) status. Multivariable models were used to explore associations between experiences of culture (climate, sexual harassment, and cyber incivility) with mental health. Exposures: Minoritized identity based on gender, race and ethnicity, and LGBTQ+ status. Main Outcomes and Measures: Three aspects of culture were measured as the primary outcomes: organizational climate, sexual harassment, and cyber incivility using previously developed instruments. The 5-item Mental Health Inventory (scored from 0 to 100 points with higher values indicating better mental health) was used to evaluate the secondary outcome of mental health. Results: Of the 830 faculty members, there were 422 men, 385 women, 2 in nonbinary gender category, and 21 who did not identify gender; there were 169 Asian respondents, 66 respondents underrepresented in medicine, 572 White respondents, and 23 respondents who did not report their race and ethnicity; and there were 774 respondents who identified as cisgender and heterosexual, 31 as having LGBTQ+ status, and 25 who did not identify status. Women rated general climate (5-point scale) more negatively than men (mean, 3.68 [95% CI, 3.59-3.77] vs 3.96 [95% CI, 3.88-4.04], respectively, P < .001). Diversity climate ratings differed significantly by gender (mean, 3.72 [95% CI, 3.64-3.80] for women vs 4.16 [95% CI, 4.09-4.23] for men, P < .001) and by race and ethnicity (mean, 4.0 [95% CI, 3.88-4.12] for Asian respondents, 3.71 [95% CI, 3.50-3.92] for respondents underrepresented in medicine, and 3.96 [95% CI, 3.90-4.02] for White respondents, P = .04). Women were more likely than men to report experiencing gender harassment (sexist remarks and crude behaviors) (71.9% [95% CI, 67.1%-76.4%] vs 44.9% [95% CI, 40.1%-49.8%], respectively, P < .001). Respondents with LGBTQ+ status were more likely to report experiencing sexual harassment than cisgender and heterosexual respondents when using social media professionally (13.3% [95% CI, 1.7%-40.5%] vs 2.5% [95% CI, 1.2%-4.6%], respectively, P = .01). Each of the 3 aspects of culture and gender were significantly associated with the secondary outcome of mental health in the multivariable analysis. Conclusions and Relevance: High rates of sexual harassment, cyber incivility, and negative organizational climate exist in academic medicine, disproportionately affecting minoritized groups and affecting mental health. Ongoing efforts to transform culture are necessary.

Users choose to engage with more partisan news than they are exposed to on Google Search.

If popular online platforms systematically expose their users to partisan and unreliable news, they could potentially contribute to societal issues such as rising political polarization1,2. This concern is central to the 'echo chamber'3-5 and 'filter bubble'6,7 debates, which critique the roles that user choice and algorithmic curation play in guiding users to different online information sources8-10. These roles can be measured as exposure, defined as the URLs shown to users by online platforms, and engagement, defined as the URLs selected by users. However, owing to the challenges of obtaining ecologically valid exposure data-what real users were shown during their typical platform use-research in this vein typically relies on engagement data4,8,11-16 or estimates of hypothetical exposure17-23. Studies involving ecological exposure have therefore been rare, and largely limited to social media platforms7,24, leaving open questions about web search engines. To address these gaps, we conducted a two-wave study pairing surveys with ecologically valid measures of both exposure and engagement on Google Search during the 2018 and 2020 US elections. In both waves, we found more identity-congruent and unreliable news sources in participants' engagement choices, both within Google Search and overall, than they were exposed to in their Google Search results. These results indicate that exposure to and engagement with partisan or unreliable news on Google Search are driven not primarily by algorithmic curation but by users' own choices.

Monoracials' perceptions of biracials in Singapore.

OBJECTIVES: Drawing on social identity theory, present research examined the effects of overlapping racial membership on monoracials' categorization of biracials as in-/out-group members, as well as its impact on monoracials' social perceptions of biracials in Singapore. Within Singapore, it is hypothesized that biracials who share racial membership with monoracials would be rated more as monoracials' racial in-group and be evaluated more positively. Furthermore, monoracials' positive perceptions of biracials with (vs. without) shared racial membership would be less influenced by biracials' confrontation of racial prejudice. METHOD: Studies 1 (N = 242) and 2 (N = 153) sampled Chinese Singaporeans to assess their perceptions of several fictitious biracial targets. Utilizing an experimental confrontation paradigm, Studies 3 (N = 170) and 4 (N = 225) investigated the effects of confronting racial prejudice on Chinese Singaporeans' perceptions of biracials. RESULTS: Studies 1 and 2 revealed that Chinese Singaporeans perceive Chinese-other (vs. non-Chinese) biracials as more racially similar to themselves and were more likely to report positive social perceptions of Chinese-other biracials. Compared to non-Chinese biracials, Studies 3 and 4 found that Chinese-other biracials' response to racial prejudice did not negatively affect Chinese Singaporeans' perception of them. Findings revealed that Chinese-other biracials were well-liked regardless of their response to racial prejudice, demonstrating Chinese Singaporeans' recognition of shared racial membership. Interestingly, Chinese Singaporeans increased their liking for Indian-Malay biracials when they confronted antimajority racial prejudice. CONCLUSION: Perceiving shared racial membership positively influenced Chinese Singaporeans' perceptions and feelings toward biracials. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Social impression formation and depression: examining cognitive flexibility and bias.

Depression is associated with a bias toward negative interpretations of social situations and resistance to integrating evidence consistent with positive interpretations. These features could contribute to social isolation by generating negative expected value for future social interactions. The present study examined potential associations between depressive symptoms and positive (i.e. trust and liking) and negative (i.e. distrust and disliking) social impression formation of individuals who previously appeared in positive or negative contexts. Participants (N = 213) completed the Interpretation Inflexibility Task and were subsequently asked to provide social impression ratings of characters from each scenario type of the task (i.e. positive and negative) as well as characters not previously encountered. In examining social impression formation, higher severity of depressive symptoms was associated with higher negative social impression ratings regardless of scenario outcome, as well as lower positive social impression ratings, but only for characters who previously appeared in positive contexts. Those higher in depression also rated novel characters as significantly more unlikeable and untrustworthy and to an equivalent degree as the characters previously encountered. These findings suggest a role of negative interpretation bias and inflexibility in contributing to negative evaluations of potential social interaction partners in depression.

The Binary Order of Things: A Discursive Study of Nursing Students' Talk on Providing, and Learning About, LGBT Patient Care.

Against the backdrop of the healthcare inequities and maltreatment facing LGBT patients, recommendations have been made for the inclusion of LGBT health topics in nursing curricula. Based on data collected in focus group discussions with South African nursing students, we complicate the assumption that training focused on health-specific knowledge will effectively reform providers' prejudicial practices. Findings reveal ambivalence: silence and discrimination versus inclusive humanism. Participants drew on discourses of ignorance, religion, and egalitarian treatment to justify their inadequacy regarding LGBT patients; while doing so, however, they deployed othering discourses in which homophobic and transphobic disregard is rendered acceptable, and "scientifically" supported through binary, deterministic views of sexuality and gender. Such "expert" views accord with Foucault's notion of "grotesque discourse." We conclude with a discussion of the findings' implications for nursing education; we call for the recognition and teaching of binary ideology as a form of discursive violence over LGBT lives.

Discriminatory attitudes against unvaccinated people during the pandemic.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, sizeable groups of unvaccinated people persist even in countries with high vaccine access1. As a consequence, vaccination became a controversial subject of debate and even protest2. Here we assess whether people express discriminatory attitudes in the form of negative affectivity, stereotypes and exclusionary attitudes in family and political settings across groups defined by COVID-19 vaccination status. We quantify discriminatory attitudes between vaccinated and unvaccinated citizens in 21 countries, covering a diverse set of cultures across the world. Across three conjoined experimental studies (n = 15,233), we demonstrate that vaccinated people express discriminatory attitudes towards unvaccinated individuals at a level as high as discriminatory attitudes that are commonly aimed at immigrant and minority populations3-5. By contrast, there is an absence of evidence that unvaccinated individuals display discriminatory attitudes towards vaccinated people, except for the presence of negative affectivity in Germany and the USA. We find evidence in support of discriminatory attitudes against unvaccinated individuals in all countries except for Hungary and Romania, and find that discriminatory attitudes are more strongly expressed in cultures with stronger cooperative norms. Previous research on the psychology of cooperation has shown that individuals react negatively against perceived 'free-riders'6,7, including in the domain of vaccinations8,9. Consistent with this, we find that contributors to the public good of epidemic control (that is, vaccinated individuals) react with discriminatory attitudes towards perceived free-riders (that is, unvaccinated individuals). National leaders and vaccinated members of the public appealed to moral obligations to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake10,11, but our findings suggest that discriminatory attitudes-including support for the removal of fundamental rights-simultaneously emerged.