Paranoid Thinking as a Function of Minority Group Status and Intersectionality: An International Examination of the Role of Negative Beliefs

BACKGROUND

Paranoia is higher in minority group individuals, especially those reporting intersecting aspects of difference. High negative and low positive self and other beliefs, and low social rank, are predictive of paranoia overtime; however, data are typically from majority group participants. This study examined whether social defeat or healthy cultural mistrust best characterizes paranoia in minority groups.

STUDY DESIGN

Using cross-sectional, survey design, with a large (n = 2510) international sample, moderation analyses (PROCESS) examined whether self and other beliefs, and perceived social rank, operate similarly or differently in minority vs majority group participants. Specifically, we tested whether beliefs moderated the influence of minority group, and intersecting aspects of difference, on paranoia.

STUDY RESULTS

Paranoia was consistently higher in participants from minority vs majority groups and level of paranoid thinking was significantly higher at each level of the intersectionality index. Negative self/other beliefs were associated with elevated paranoia in all participants. However, in support of the notion of healthy cultural mistrust, low social rank, and low positive self/other beliefs were significantly associated with paranoia in majority group participants but unrelated to paranoia in respective minority group members.

CONCLUSIONS

Although mixed, our findings signal the need to consider healthy cultural mistrust when examining paranoia in minority groups and bring into question whether "paranoia" accurately describes the experiences of marginalized individuals, at least at low levels of severity. Further research on paranoia in minority groups is crucial to developing culturally appropriate ways of understanding people's experiences in the context of victimization, discrimination, and difference.

Fluoride occurrence in the lower East African Rift System, Southern Malawi

Countries located on the East African Rift System (EARS) are vulnerable to fluoride in their groundwater; a vulnerability for the developing country of Malawi at the southern rift periphery that is not well characterised. Groundwater fluoride occurrence in Malawi is documented here to better understand and manage fluoride risks posed. Available literature and Gov't of Malawi archive fluoride data spanning some fifty years have been collated and augmented by our own 2016-18 surveys of groundwater quality in Southern Malawi, targeting deep-sourced springs. In total, fluoride data for 1365 borehole, spring and hot spring samples were assembled. Statistically, 83% of samples were below the 1.5 mg/l WHO limit, concentrations in the 1.5-6 mg/l range between former (pre-1993) and current WHO guidelines at 14%, and those with fluoride above the current Malawi (former WHO) 6 mg/l guideline, at 3%. A lower occurrence than in other zones of the EARS, but indicative of a need for a Malawi Gov't management policy revision and associated management strategies endorsed by several documented incidences of dental fluorosis in proximity to high fluoride groundwater. Increased fluoride is related to increased groundwater temperatures signifying the importance of geothermal groundwater provenance. Temperature data may indeed be used as a proxy indicator of fluoride risk; samples with a temperature >32 °C, contained >6 mg/l fluoride. Structural geological controls appear to allow deep geothermal groundwaters to come to the near surface, as evidenced by increased fluoride in springs and boreholes close to faulted areas. Hydrochemical evaluation shows that fluoride concentrations are influenced by fluorite equilibration and sensitivity to calcium and pH. Recommendations are made to further document the occurrence of fluoride and enhance management of risks due to fluoride in drinking water in Malawi. With fluoride as a key indicator within Sustainable Development Goal number 6, the current Malawi standard and waters with concentration between 1.5 and 6 mg/l will come under increased scrutiny and pose a key challenge to assessment and management efforts.