This study tested the hypothesis that appraisals of discrimination (i.e. its perceived severity, global aspects, stability, and uncontrollability) mediate the relationship between attributions to discrimination and personal self-esteem. It also tested three models of how ethnic group identification is related to discrimination attributions, discrimination appraisals, and personal self-esteem. In a cross-sectional study of 160 Latino-American students, group identification was positively related to attributing ambiguous negative events to discrimination. Discrimination attributions were related to appraising discrimination as more global and severe. These latter appraisals, in turn, were related to lower self-esteem. No direct relationships were observed between self-esteem and either group identification or discrimination attributions. Results illustrate the importance of appraisals in understanding the relationship between perceived discrimination and self-esteem.

Objective This study examined the independent effect of a patient's weight on medical students' attitudes, beliefs, and interpersonal behavior toward the patient, in addition to the clinical recommendations they make for her care. Design Seventy-six clinical-level medical students were randomly assigned to interact with a digital, virtual female patient who was visibly either obese or non-obese. Methods Interactions with the patient took place in an immersive virtual clinical environment (i.e., virtual reality) which allowed standardization of all patient behaviors and characteristics except for weight. Visual contact behavior was automatically recorded during the interaction. Afterward, participants filled out a battery of self-report questionnaires. Results Analyses revealed more negative stereotyping, less anticipated patient adherence, worse perceived health, more responsibility attributed for potentially weight-related presenting complaints, and less visual contact directed toward the obese version of a virtual patient than the non-obese version of the patient. In contrast, there was no clear evidence of bias in clinical recommendations made for the patient's care. Conclusion Biases in attitudes, beliefs, and interpersonal behavior have important implications because they can influence the tone of clinical encounters and rapport in the patient-provider relationship, which can have important downstream consequences. Gaining a clear understanding of the nature and source of weight bias in the clinical encounter is an important first step toward development of strategies to address it.

Group status and status legitimacy were tested as moderators of devaluing in response to threatening intergroup comparisons. In 3 experiments, participants received feedback comparing their in-group (based on school or gender) to a higher or lower status out-group. When the legitimacy of group status differences was assumed (Studies 1 and 2) or manipulated (Study 3), participants devalued the domain when their in-group compared unfavorably with a lower status out-group but did not devalue the domain when their in-group compared unfavorably with a higher status out-group. In Study 3, this status value asymmetry was eliminated when status differences were delegitimized. Mediational analyses suggested that the status value asymmetry was explained by the perceived utility of the domain for gaining status-relevant rewards.

This study used an intersectional approach (operationalized as the combination of more than one social identity) to examine the relationship between aspects of social identity (i.e., race, gender, age, and socioeconomic status [SES]), self-reported level of mistreatment, and attributions for discrimination. Self-reported discrimination has been researched extensively and there is substantial evidence of its association with adverse physical and psychological health outcomes. Few studies, however, have examined the relationship of multiple demographic variables (including social identities) to overall levels self-reported mistreatment as well the selection of attributions for discrimination. A diverse community sample (N = 292; 42.12% Black; 47.26% male) reported on experiences of discrimination using the Everyday Discrimination Scale. General linear models were used to test the effect of sociodemographic characteristics (i.e., race, gender, age, and SES) on total discrimination score and on attributions for discrimination. To test for intersectional relationships, we tested the effect of two-way interactions of sociodemographic characteristics on total discrimination score and attributions for discrimination. We found preliminary support for intersectional effects, as indicated by a significant race by age interaction on the selection of the race attribution for discrimination; gender by SES on the age attribution; age by gender on the education attribution; and race by SES on the economic situation attribution. Our study extends prior work by highlighting the importance of testing more than one factor as contributing to discrimination, particularly when examining to what sources individuals attribute discrimination.

Background-Health care providers will increasingly encounter information about the genetics of obesity as genetics research progresses.