Justifying treatment bias: The legitimizing role of threat perception and immigrant-provider contact in healthcare.

OBJECTIVE: Immigrants tend to receive a lower quality of healthcare, which can be a sign of healthcare bias. We examined whether this bias in medical care is associated with a legitimizing process involving two psychosocial factors: threat perception and level of intergroup contact. METHOD: One hundred eighty six Portuguese health professionals (55.6% clinicians; 44.4% nurses; 78.5% female; Mage = 45.83, range = 23 and 71) completed a questionnaire on prejudiced attitudes toward immigrants, perceptions of health-specific threats, bias in medical practice and level of contact with immigrant patients. RESULTS: For healthcare providers who have more contact with immigrant patients, the perceived health threat mediated the relationship between prejudiced attitudes and treatment bias. In contrast, for healthcare providers with less contact with immigrant patients, the perceived threat was not associated with treatment bias. CONCLUSIONS: These findings help to understand the persistence of lower quality medical treatment among immigrants, providing guidelines for future research. In particular, they suggest that perceiving immigrants as a threat to public health is indicative of the providers' engagement in a legitimizing process of self-reported biased treatment, making this engagement necessary only for providers with greater levels of contact with immigrant patients. (PsycINFO Database Record

Primes and Consequences: A Systematic Review of Meritocracy in Intergroup Relations.

Psychological interest in Meritocracy as an important social norm regulating most of the western democratic societies has significantly increased over the years. However, the way Meritocracy has been conceptualized and operationalized in experimental studies has advanced in significant ways. As a result, a variety of paradigms arose to understand the social consequences of Meritocracy for intergroup relations; in particular, to understand the adverse consequences of Meritocracy for disadvantaged group members. The present research seeks to understand whether there is strong support for the idea that (manipulated) Meritocracy disproportionally affects members of low status groups, and also to understand which specific components of this norm have been successfully manipulated and to what consequences. And this is particularly important given the recent call for greater transparency in how the success of experimental manipulations is reported. Thus, we carried out a systematic review examining the content of different prime tasks, summarizing prime manipulation checks' effectiveness, and analyzing whether priming Meritocracy leads to less favorable orientations toward low status groups. Results across 33 studies revealed that despite the existing differences in the components highlighted, the salience of any of the Meritocracy dimensions facilitates the use of internal causal attributions, negative evaluations and stereotyping toward low status groups, affecting negatively decisions involving low-status group members, particularly in specific domains, as organizational contexts. These results carry both practical and theoretical implications for future research on the role of Meritocracy in intergroup settings.