Discrimination, Stress and Reactivity to Alcohol Cues

Abstract

Introduction: Our study investigated whether discrimination affects psychologi-cal/physiological stress and alcohol craving. Method: Participants (N = 92) were asked to recall and write about (a) a neutral, (b) a negative, or (c) a discriminatory experience in the past and then completed a cue-reactivity procedure assessing their alcohol craving. In addition, we assessed levels of perceived stress before and after the discrimination manipulation, chronic substance use and craving, prior perceived discrimination, and strength of racial/ethnic identity. Results: Results revealed a small effect in which the discrimination condition increased alcohol cue-elicited craving relative to the other conditions. Chronic craving moderated effects of discrimination on cortisol levels. Self-reported stress levels were increased in the discrimination and negative memory conditions relative to baseline. Strength of racial identity served as a protective factor for substance abuse in those who reported chronic high levels of discrimination. Discussion: We discussed the direct link established between acute exposure to discrimination and craving, and experimental evidence for the relationship between discrimination and self-reported stress, but also addressed potential limitations of this work. It is further discussed how some individual differences factors (e.g., chronic craving) predict physiological stress in discriminatory settings. This work underscored the role of racial identity as a protective factor against alcohol abuse in individuals reporting high levels of discrimination.

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

“…Thus, these comparisons were included separately with shared experimental (or control) conditions divided out evenly among comparisons so that each pairwise comparison could be investigated (based on the recommendations by Higgins et al, 2022). This affected eight effect sizes from two studies for single-event and pervasive experimental conditions (Lin, 2012; Schmitt et al, 2003), six effect sizes from two studies for neutral and nondiscriminatory stress (Shentow-Bewsh et al, 2016; Stepanova et al, 2019), and 24 effect sizes from three studies for personal and external attributions as control conditions (Hansen & Sassenberg, 2006; Major, Quinton, & Schmader, 2003; Schmitt, 2002).…”

“…Participants are asked to recall and write at least 300 words in 15 min about a situation when they felt they were discriminated against (Stepanova et al, 2019)…”

“…Participants are in a room with two men disparaging a female colleague (who is out of the room) for refusing a dating request(Cunningham et al, 2012) -Participants receive sexist feedback regarding their score on a standardized test (i.e., remote associates test by Mendnick, 1968; Fisher, 2020) -Participants wear a "fat suit" -Participants receive social rejection feedback from a different-race evaluator(Mendes et al, 2008) Task performance after induction of stereotype threatStereotype threat is induced and then participants perform a test/task -Participants are asked to speak in front of a camera for a few minutes after reading a supposedly scientific abstract stating that women have more problems than men managing their anxiety(Désert et al, 2013) -Participants record their gender before they complete questionnaires about evaluations of a local automotive repair service(Lee et al, 2011) -Participants are asked questions about ethnicity immediately preceding a verbal ability test (Participants are asked to tell the instructor of a stressful event in their life for which they feel as though race played a part in the event(Arriola et al, 2021) -Participants are asked to recall and write at least three hundred words in 15 min. about a situation when they felt they were discriminated against(Stepanova et al, 2019) Make general stereotypes about one's group salient…”

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

“…Thus, these comparisons were included separately with shared experimental (or control) conditions divided out evenly among comparisons so that each pair-wise comparison could be investigated (based on the recommendations by Higgins et al, 2022). This affected eight effect sizes from two studies for single-event and pervasive experimental conditions (Lin, 2012;Schmitt et al, 2003), six effect sizes from two studies for neutral and nondiscriminatory stress (Shenton-Bewsh et al, 2016;Stepanova et al, 2019), and 24 effect sizes from three studies for personal and external attributions as control conditions (Hansen & Sassenberg, 2006;Schmitt, 2002).…”