Aller au contenu principal
Accès ouvert déclaré2026article

Psychological distress, racism, sexism, cissexism, heterosexism, ageism, and sizeism: analyzing patterns of association using explicit and implicit measures of discrimination

0Citations signalées
8Institutions associées
2Pays d’affiliation

Résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Research on discrimination and health has predominantly relied on explicit self-report data for single types of discrimination; use of implicit measures is scant. Our exploratory cross-sectional study investigated associations between psychological distress (Kessler-6 [K6] score) and implicit and explicit measures for 6 types of discrimination: racism, sexism, heterosexism, cissexism, ageism, and sizeism. The 699 participants were recruited (May 28, 2020 to August 4, 2022) from rosters of 3 Boston, MA, community health centers. Covariate-adjusted linear regression models estimated associations between K6 scores and the discrimination measures. Participants’ mean K6 score was 7.47 (SD = 5.15); 17.0% experienced “severe psychological distress” (K6 ≥ 13). Target vs dominant groups experienced higher discrimination for both the implicit and explicit measures (P < .01). Participants who both self-reported and implicitly recognized 4-6 vs 0-3 types of discrimination had elevated K6 (adjusted model β: 0.29 [95% CI, 0.07-0.51]). In crude models, K6 scores were positively associated with self-reported discrimination for all 6 types, and with implicit measures for sexism, heterosexism, cissexism, and ageism. In adjusted models, K6 was positively associated with both explicit and implicit metrics only for sexism, for example, for self-reported experiences of sexism among women (β: 0.25 [95% CI, 0.13-0.36]) and nonbinary/genderqueer participants (β: 0.26 [95% CI, 0.13-0.39]), and for implicit recognition of sexism toward women among women (β: 0.12 [95% CI, –0.01 to 0.24]). Using both implicit and explicit measures for multiple discrimination types, with attention to differences between target vs dominant groups, is warranted.

Institutions

Sujets associés

Racial and Ethnic Identity ResearchSocial and Intergroup PsychologyLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy

BNTIC News n’est pas le producteur de ces données. Métadonnées interrogées à la demande auprès de OpenAlex (CC0). Sources et limites.