Intersectional discrimination from black women, white women, black men, or white men impacts young adult black women's affective states and risky health cognitions.

OBJECTIVE: Black women experience pronounced inequalities in alcohol use and sexual risk outcomes. Racial discrimination is a known contributor to health inequalities. However, Black women face unique and intersectional forms of discrimination beyond racial discrimination. The current study investigates how exclusion from four distinct social groups effects Black women's negative affect and risky health cognitions. DESIGN: Black women (N = 124; ages 18-29) were randomly assigned to be excluded in Cyberball by Black women, Black men, White women, or White men. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants responded to measures of internalising (depressive, anxious) and externalising (anger) affect, heavy alcohol use willingness, and risky sex expectations. RESULTS: Participants primarily attributed exclusion from White women to racial discrimination, exclusion from Black men to gender discrimination, and exclusion from White men to both gender and racial discrimination. When excluded by White women, participants reported the highest levels of anger, depressive affect, and anxiety. Exclusion by White men predicted the greatest heavy drinking willingness, though exclusion by Black men predicted the greatest risky sex expectations. CONCLUSION: This study is the first to demonstrate that exclusion from different social groups leads to differing patterns of negative affect and risky health cognitions in young adult Black women.

It only takes once: The absent-exempt heuristic and reactions to comparison-based sexual risk information.

Three studies (N = 545) investigated the effects of social comparison on the "absent-exempt" (AE) heuristic (feeling exempt from future risk). Study 1 examined how comparison with an infected peer (comparison target) who was similar or nonsimilar in terms of sexual risk (number of partners, lack of condom use), influenced willingness and intentions to engage in sex without a condom, and conditional perceived vulnerability to an STD. Participants generally reported lower willingness and higher conditional vulnerability if they compared with a similar-risk level target. However, high-risk students who compared with a low-risk target engaged in what appeared to be AE thinking, reporting the highest willingness and lowest conditional vulnerability. Intentions to have sex without a condom were not influenced. Study 2 included a direct measure of AE thinking and compared the impact of a low-risk comparison target with a Public Service Announcement (PSA) stating that negative outcomes (STDs) can happen even to low-risk targets. Among high-risk participants, comparing with the low-risk target increased AE thinking. The effects in Studies 1 and 2 were strongest among participants high in tendencies to socially compare. Study 3 explored whether AE thinking could be decreased by encouraging more reasoned processing. Results indicated that asking participants to think about the illogicality of AE thinking reduces AE endorsement and increases STD testing intentions. Findings suggest that comparison-based information can have a stronger influence on health cognitions than analytic-based information (e.g., most PSAs). Implications for dual-processing models of decision-making and their applicability to health messages are discussed.