The effects of meritocracy beliefs on women's well-being after first-time gender discrimination

The relationship between gender discrimination and wellbeing in middle-aged and older women

BACKGROUND

Emerging evidence suggests that perceived gender discrimination negatively impacts mental wellbeing in young women.

PURPOSE

This study explored whether a similar relationship exists in middle-aged and older women.

METHODS

A total of 3081 women (aged ≥52 years) from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing provided data on perceived gender discrimination in 2010/11. Depressive symptoms, loneliness, quality of life and life satisfaction were assessed in 2010/11 and in 2016/17.

RESULTS

Perceived gender discrimination was reported by 282 (9.2%) participants. Cross-sectionally, women who perceived gender discrimination reported more depressive symptoms (β = 0.34, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.57) and had higher loneliness scores (β = 0.14, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.20) than women who did not perceive gender discrimination. They also reported significantly lower quality of life (β = -2.50, 95% CI -3.49 to -1.51) and life satisfaction (β = -1.07, 95% CI -1.81 to -0.33). Prospectively, perceived gender discrimination was associated with greater loneliness scores (β = 0.08, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.14), as well as lower ratings of quality of life (β = -0.98, 95% CI -0.09 to -1.86), and life satisfaction (β = -1.04, 95% CI -0.34 to -1.74), independent of baseline values.

CONCLUSIONS

Middle-aged and older women who perceive gender discrimination report poorer mental wellbeing than those who do not perceive discrimination. Further, this type of discrimination may be predictive of declining mental wellbeing over time. These findings highlight the need for interventions to target gender-based discrimination to improve the wellbeing of women at mid- and older age.

Causal Beliefs for Socioeconomic Status Attainment Scale: Development and Validation

That individuals attain socioeconomic status (SES) through their own effort and ability, which is a staple pillar of the meritocratic ethos and has been a popular topic of inquiry within social psychology. However, this focus on merit overshadowed other important causal factors that contribute to one's SES, such as opportunity and chance. This study presents psychometrically validated scales measuring one's causal beliefs of SES attainment for themselves (agency beliefs) and others (society beliefs). Utilizing a nationally representative sample, participants completed 68 items of causal agency and society beliefs for low and high SES attainment. Through factor analyses, item response theory, and careful item reduction, three subscales and six dimensions measuring (1) merit (effort and ability), (2) opportunity (social connections and privilege), and (3) chance (luck and fate) are introduced for each belief system. Correlation analyses reveal general support for construct validity. Implications and future directions are discussed.

Appropriated racial oppression: Implications for mental health in Whites and Blacks

Racism has been examined in its many forms. Scholarship regarding how individuals personally experience, cope with, and manage racial oppression is still developing. The term "appropriated racial oppression" reframes the construct "internalized racism" as a process whereby members of a group appropriate a dominant group's ideology, adapt their behavior, and perceive a subordinate status as deserved, natural, and inevitable. The expression of appropriated racial oppression is based on a variety of complicated and interacting processes, such as incentivized societal norms, critical consciousness, and racial socialization. We conceptualize appropriated racial oppression as a mediated process that yields both direct and indirect health outcomes for both non-dominant and dominant groups. The latter is critical because little research examines how racism affects dominant groups and their health. In this commentary, we examine two examples where appropriating racial oppression may confer both negative and adaptive outcomes. Although we highlight examples rooted in White and Black racial experiences, we briefly consider implications for intersectional and multiple marginalized identities as well. Future research recommendations for psychology, public health and interdisciplinary research are discussed.

System Justification's Opposite Effects on Psychological Wellbeing: Testing a Moderated Mediation Model in a Gay Men and Lesbian Sample in Chile

Those who adhere to system-justifying beliefs benefit from a palliative function that buffers negative effects on psychological wellbeing. This has been consistently observed for high-status groups, whereas for members of low-status groups, it remains rather unclear whether system justification exerts a positive or a negative effect. This study tested the palliative effect of system justification on symptoms of anxiety-depression in a gay men and lesbian sample (N = 467) in Chile. Results from moderated mediation analyses revealed that system justification beliefs buffer symptoms of anxiety and depression. However, system justification enhances anxious and depressive symptoms through internalized homonegativity; this mediation effect was significant for gay men. We pose that justifying the social order comprises two contradictory functions: system justification as a coping source and, otherwise, as a source of distress under conditions of in-group derogation, posing a threat to wellbeing among members of low-status groups (as observed in gay and lesbian individuals). Implications of the opposing effects and gender differences are further discussed in this study.

Responding to Discrimination as a Function of Meritocracy Beliefs and Personal Experiences: Testing the Model of Shattered Assumptions

We examined whether the model of shattered assumptions (Janoff-Bulman, 1992) could be applied to the reactions of victims of discrimination. Consistent with this model, it was hypothesized that those whose positive world assumptions are inconsistent with their negative experiences of discrimination would report more negative responses than those whose world assumptions match their experience. Disadvantaged group (both gender and ethnicity) members' responses to discrimination (self-esteem, collective action, intergroup anxiety) were predicted from their meritocracy beliefs and personal experiences of discrimination. Regression analyses showed a significant interaction between meritocracy beliefs and personal discrimination such that among those who reported personal discrimination, stronger beliefs that the meritocracy exists predicted decreased self-esteem and collective action as well as increased intergroup anxiety. Among those who reported little personal discrimination, stronger beliefs that the meritocracy exists predicted increased self-esteem. Implications for promoting a critical view of the social system is discussed.

The differential impact of discrimination on health among Black and White women

Despite a large body of research examining the impact of discrimination on health, the ways in which perceived discrimination may lead to disparate health outcomes through a sense of self and system consciousness is less understood. The current paper is concerned with both mental and physical health consequences of discrimination, as well as mediating pathways among African American and White women. Indirect effects analyses examine mediating paths from discrimination to health outcomes via structural awareness and self-esteem, using data from the Women's Life Path Study (N = 237). Our findings suggest that discrimination is both directly and indirectly associated with health outcomes for both Black and White women, mediated by individual (self-esteem) and group-level (structural awareness) processes. Evidence from this study indicates that discrimination is associated with heightened structural awareness, as well as lower self-esteem - both of which are related to poorer health. Discrimination negatively affected health across three domains, although the mechanisms varied somewhat for Black and White women. Broad implications of this research for interdisciplinary scholarship on the effects of discrimination on health and health disparities are discussed.

Relative Deprivation

Discussions of the impact of growing inequality have focused on objective indicators. Focusing on what individuals have or do not have can be misleading without understanding how they subjectively interpret the availability of resources. Relative deprivation (RD) occurs when individuals compare themselves with better-off others and conclude that they do not deserve their disadvantage. These upward comparisons, whether imposed or chosen, can damage people’s emotions, behavior, and even mental and physical health. How people respond to RD depends on whether they (a) experience the disadvantage directed toward them as a unique individual or as a member of a group (e.g., ethnic category, occupation), (b) feel anger or another emotion (e.g., sadness), and (c) view the system (e.g., workplace, nation) as open to change. Mobility interventions (e.g., housing and school vouchers) may have unexpected adverse consequences that direct improvements to the local infrastructure and community do not. Costs of RD (including physical illness) increase if people cannot address perceived inequities effectively. RD explains why simply enumerating resources and opportunities does not fully explain how relative disadvantage produces outcomes ranging from social protest to illness. Insights from psychological science that show how individuals respond to social inequities can inform policies for building communities and improving well-being.

Bolstering system-justifying beliefs in response to social exclusion

Integrating research on social exclusion with the broader literature on system justification and flexible responses to threats, we propose a novel coping strategy that individuals may use in the face of social exclusion. In particular, we suggest that because exclusion often feels unexpected, it will lead individuals to bolster the system-justifying worldview that people get what they deserve, as excluded individuals attempt to cognitively cope with the threatened order and predictability of their world. Supporting our prediction, in Study 1, social exclusion (vs. inclusion) led participants to increasingly endorse descriptive meritocratic beliefs suggesting that hard work leads to success in society. This effect was mediated by the perceived unexpectedness of the interaction outcome, providing key evidence for our hypothesized process. Study 2 used individual differences in rejection sensitivity to provide further support for our unexpectedness account, demonstrating that exclusion heightens meritocratic beliefs only insofar as participants tend to find exclusions unexpected. The results expand our understanding of the cognitive mechanisms by which people cope with social exclusion and highlight the malleability of system-justifying ideologies in response to interpersonal factors.

Is the Belief in Meritocracy Palliative for Members of Low Status Groups? Evidence for a Benefit for Self-Esteem and Physical Health via Perceived Control

Consensually held ideologies may serve as the cultural "glue" that justifies hierarchical status differences in society (e.g. Augustinos, 1998). Yet to be effective these beliefs need to be embraced by low-status groups. Why would members of low-status groups endorse beliefs that justify their relative disadvantage? We propose that members of low-status groups in the United States may benefit from some system-justifying beliefs (such as the belief in meritocracy) to the extent that these beliefs emphasize the perception of control over future outcomes. In 2 studies, among women, lower-SES women, and women of color, we found a positive relationship between the belief in meritocracy and well-being (self-esteem and physical health) that was mediated by perceived control. Members of low-status groups may benefit from some system-justifying beliefs to the extent that these beliefs, like the belief in meritocracy, emphasize the perception of control over future outcomes.

Not All Nonlabelers Are Created Equal

Past research regarding feminist identity has revealed that a significant number of women endorse feminist attitudes yet reject a feminist identity. In the current study, we sought to examine whether these nonlabeling women fall into two distinct groups: (a) one that falls on the same ideological continuum of their feminist peers and (b) the other that represents an attitudinally unique group of women characterized by their neoliberal beliefs that prioritize individual merit as the sole determinant of success. Two samples of undergraduate women self-reported their feminist identity and political and sexist attitudes. In our first sample ( N = 231), we used k-means cluster analysis to identify two types of nonlabelers: quasi-feminists and neoliberals. Results revealed that, despite both groups’ shared belief in gender equality, quasi-feminists reported relatively lower levels of meritocratic, just world, and modern sexist beliefs, all of which were similar to those of their feminist-identified peers, whereas neoliberals indicated stronger meritocratic, just world, and modern sexist beliefs. In our second sample ( N = 351), we replicated findings from our first sample and subsequently validated these groupings. Specifically, multivariate analysis of variance results demonstrated that, separate from the differences found in relation to the measures used for cluster analysis, quasi-feminists scored lower than neoliberals on measures of ambivalent sexism, social dominance, and equal opportunity beliefs. Women’s individual and collective welfare often hinges on their endorsement of neoliberal and feminist beliefs, especially in the face of unfair treatment. We suggest that activists and policy makers tailor strategies for engaging nonlabelers in the movement toward gender equality to the subtype of nonlabeler in question.

Is the world a just place? Countering the negative consequences of pervasive discrimination by affirming the world as just

Two studies (a) explored the role of pervasiveness of discrimination (pervasive vs. rare) in determining targets' responses to discrimination, and (b) examined the extent to which threats to participants' worldview can account, in part, for detrimental effects of pervasive discrimination. As predicted, across both studies, pervasiveness of discrimination moderated the relationship between attributions to prejudice for failure to obtain a job and psychological well-being (depressed affect and state self-esteem). When discrimination was presented as pervasive, attributions to prejudice related to lower state self-esteem and greater depressed affect. When discrimination was portrayed as rare, attributions to prejudice were related to higher state self-esteem and unrelated to depressed affect. Study 2 further showed that being able to affirm the world as just countered the negative consequences of pervasive discrimination, whereas it did not influence responses to discrimination that was perceived as rare.

Can the absence of prejudice be more threatening than its presence? It depends on one's worldview

The present research used validated cardiovascular measures to examine threat reactions among members of stigmatized groups when interacting with members of nonstigmatized groups who were, or were not, prejudiced against their group. The authors hypothesized that people's beliefs about the fairness of the status system would moderate their experience of threat during intergroup interactions. The authors predicted that for members of stigmatized groups who believe the status system is fair, interacting with a prejudiced partner, compared with interacting with an unprejudiced partner, would disconfirm their worldview and result in greater threat. In contrast, the authors predicted that for members of stigmatized groups who believe the system is unfair, interacting with a prejudiced partner, compared with interacting with an unprejudiced partner, would confirm their worldview and result in less threat. The authors examined these predictions among Latinas interacting with a White female confederate (Study 1) and White females interacting with a White male confederate (Study 2). As predicted, people's beliefs about the fairness of the status system moderated their experiences of threat during intergroup interactions, indicated both by cardiovascular responses and nonverbal behavior. The specific pattern of the moderation differed across the 2 studies.

Perceived discrimination and health: a meta-analytic review

Perceived discrimination has been studied with regard to its impact on several types of health effects. This meta-analysis provides a comprehensive account of the relationships between multiple forms of perceived discrimination and both mental and physical health outcomes. In addition, this meta-analysis examines potential mechanisms by which perceiving discrimination may affect health, including through psychological and physiological stress responses and health behaviors. Analysis of 134 samples suggests that when weighting each study's contribution by sample size, perceived discrimination has a significant negative effect on both mental and physical health. Perceived discrimination also produces significantly heightened stress responses and is related to participation in unhealthy and nonparticipation in healthy behaviors. These findings suggest potential pathways linking perceived discrimination to negative health outcomes.

Perceived discrimination and health: a meta-analytic review

Perceived discrimination has been studied with regard to its impact on several types of health effects. This meta-analysis provides a comprehensive account of the relationships between multiple forms of perceived discrimination and both mental and physical health outcomes. In addition, this meta-analysis examines potential mechanisms by which perceiving discrimination may affect health, including through psychological and physiological stress responses and health behaviors. Analysis of 134 samples suggests that when weighting each study's contribution by sample size, perceived discrimination has a significant negative effect on both mental and physical health. Perceived discrimination also produces significantly heightened stress responses and is related to participation in unhealthy and nonparticipation in healthy behaviors. These findings suggest potential pathways linking perceived discrimination to negative health outcomes.

Perceiving Pervasive Discrimination Over Time: Implications for Coping

This study provides evidence that the effects of perceived pervasive discrimination may be dynamic over time. It was expected that participants who perceived discrimination to be highly pervasive would initially be more likely to engage in inactive coping strategies than those who perceived low pervasiveness; however, those who continued to perceive high pervasiveness over time were expected ultimately to engage in more active strategies than those perceiving low pervasiveness. Using a 28-day diary, women and ethnic minorities described their daily experiences of discrimination and indicated their appraisals of its pervasiveness as well as their coping strategies. Results showed that participants who initially perceived low pervasiveness reported more active coping and religion use as well as less behavioral disengagement than those initially perceiving high pervasiveness. However, this pattern was reversed by the end of the study. Implications for integrating time into the assessment of coping with discrimination are discussed.

Does gender discrimination impact regular mammography screening? Findings from the race differences in screening mammography study

ABSTRACT Objective: To determine if gender discrimination, conceptualized as a negative life stressor, is a deterrent to adherence to mammography screening guidelines.

METHODS

African American and white women (1451) aged 40-79 years who obtained an index screening mammogram at one of five urban hospitals in Connecticut between October 1996 and January 1998 were enrolled in this study. This logistic regression analysis includes the 1229 women who completed telephone interviews at baseline and follow-up (average 29.4 months later) and for whom the study outcome, nonadherence to age-specific mammography screening guidelines, was determined. Gender discrimination was measured as lifetime experience in seven possible situations.

RESULTS

Gender discrimination, reported by nearly 38% of the study population, was significantly associated with nonadherence to mammography guidelines in women with annual family incomes of > or =$50,000 (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.33, 2.98) and did not differ across racial/ethnic group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that gender discrimination can adversely influence regular mammography screening in some women. With nearly half of women nonadherent to screening mammography guidelines in this study and with decreasing mammography rates nationwide, it is important to address the complexity of nonadherence across subgroups of women. Life stressors, such as experiences of gender discrimination, may have considerable consequences, potentially influencing health prevention prioritization in women.