We stand in solidarity with you (if it helps our ingroup)

Intraminority solidarity research has previously focused on how similarities in discrimination experiences can facilitate stigma-based solidarity. Yet, research on a lay theory of generalized prejudice has demonstrated that people tend to perceive attitudes towards stigmatized social groups as co-occurring. Integrating these lines of research, the present studies sought to examine if the extent to which prejudices are perceived to co-occur can facilitate stigma-based solidarity for marginalized social groups, and in turn promote interest in coalitional justice. Recruiting heterosexual Black Americans (Study 1), White women (Studies 2–3), and White men (Study 4), the present research demonstrates that perceiving prejudices as co-occurring increases stigma-based solidarity that in turn produces greater interest in coalitional justice efforts that include the ingroup. The present findings demonstrate the importance of focusing on beliefs about perpetrators’ attitudes when examining intraminority solidarity and highlight the limitations of a lay theory of generalized prejudice to fight prejudices broadly.

White (but Not Black) Americans Continue to See Racism as a Zero-Sum Game; White Conservatives (but Not Moderates or Liberals) See Themselves as Losing

Norton and Sommers (2011) assessed Black and White Americans’ perceptions of anti-Black and anti-White bias across the previous six decades—from the 1950s to the 2000s. They presented two key findings: White (but not Black) respondents perceived decreases in anti-Black bias to be associated with increases in anti-White bias, signaling the perception that racism is a zero-sum game; White respondents rated anti-White bias as more pronounced than anti-Black bias in the 2000s, signaling the perception that they were losing the zero-sum game. We collected new data to examine whether the key findings would be evident nearly a decade later, and whether political ideology would moderate perceptions. Liberal, moderate, and conservative White (but not Black) Americans alike believed that racism is a zero-sum game. Liberal White Americans saw racism as a zero-sum game they were winning by a lot, moderate White Americans saw it as a game they were winning by only a little, and conservative White Americans saw it as a game they were losing. This work has clear implications for public policy and behavioral science, and lays the groundwork for future research that examines to what extent racial differences in perceptions of racism by political ideology are changing over time.

Plant-based diets and incident cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality in African Americans: A cohort study

Background Prior studies have documented lower cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk among people with a higher adherence to a plant-based dietary pattern. Non-Hispanic black Americans are an understudied group with high burden of CVD, yet studies of plant-based diets have been limited in this population. Methods and findings We conducted an analysis of prospectively collected data from a community-based cohort of African American adults (n = 3,635) in the Jackson Heart Study (JHS) aged 21–95 years, living in the Jackson, Mississippi, metropolitan area, US, who were followed from 2000 to 2018. Using self-reported dietary data, we assigned scores to participants’ adherence to 3 plant-based dietary patterns: an overall plant-based diet index (PDI), a healthy PDI (hPDI), and an unhealthy PDI (uPDI). Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate associations between plant-based diet scores and CVD incidence and all-cause mortality. Over a median follow-up of 13 and 15 years, there were 293 incident CVD cases and 597 deaths, respectively. After adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics (age, sex, and education) and health behaviors (smoking, alcohol intake, margarine intake, physical activity, and total energy intake), no significant association was observed between plant-based diets and incident CVD for overall PDI (hazard ratio [HR] 1.06, 95% CI 0.78–1.42, p-trend = 0.72), hPDI (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.80–1.42, p-trend = 0.67), and uPDI (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.71–1.28, p-trend = 0.76). Corresponding HRs (95% CIs) for all-cause mortality risk with overall PDI, hPDI, and uPDI were 0.96 (0.78–1.18), 0.94 (0.76–1.16), and 1.06 (0.86–1.30), respectively. Corresponding HRs (95% CIs) for incident coronary heart disease with overall PDI, hPDI, and uPDI were 1.09 (0.74–1.61), 1.11 (0.76–1.61), and 0.79 (0.52–1.18), respectively. For incident total stroke, HRs (95% CIs) for overall PDI, hPDI, and uPDI were 1.00 (0.66–1.52), 0.91 (0.61–1.36), and 1.26 (0.84–1.89) (p-trend for all tests > 0.05). Limitations of the study include use of self-reported dietary intake, residual confounding, potential for reverse causation, and that the study did not capture those who exclusively consume plant-derived foods. Conclusions In this study of black Americans, we observed that, unlike in prior studies, greater adherence to a plant-based diet was not associated with CVD or all-cause mortality.

“Sounding Black”: Speech Stereotypicality Activates Racial Stereotypes and Expectations About Appearance

Black Americans who are perceived as more racially phenotypical—that is, who possess more physical traits that are closely associated with their race—are more often associated with racial stereotypes. These stereotypes, including assumptions about criminality, can influence how Black Americans are treated by the legal system. However, it is unclear whether other forms of racial stereotypicality, such as a person’s way of speaking, also activate stereotypes about Black Americans. We investigated the links between speech stereotypicality and racial stereotypes (Experiment 1) and racial phenotype bias (Experiment 2). In Experiment 1, participants listened to audio recordings of Black speakers and rated how stereotypical they found the speaker, the likely race and nationality of the speaker, and indicated which adjectives the average person would likely associate with this speaker. In Experiment 2, participants listened to recordings of weakly or strongly stereotypical Black American speakers and indicated which of two faces (either weakly or strongly phenotypical) was more likely to be the speaker’s. We found that speakers whose voices were rated as more highly stereotypical for Black Americans were more likely to be associated with stereotypes about Black Americans (Experiment 1) and with more stereotypically Black faces (Experiment 2). These findings indicate that speech stereotypicality activates racial stereotypes as well as expectations about the stereotypicality of an individual’s appearance. As a result, the activation of stereotypes based on speech may lead to bias in suspect descriptions or eyewitness identifications.

COVID-19 Disparities and Vaccine Hesitancy in Black Americans: What Ethical Lessons Can Be Learned?

Objective This state of the art review focuses on bioethical questions and considerations from research findings and methodological issues, including design and recruitment of participants, in studies related to COVID-19 vaccine hesitation in Black individuals. Ethical concerns identified were applied to otolaryngology with recommendations for improving health inequities within subspecialties. Data Sources An internet search through PubMed, CINAHL, and socINDEX was conducted to identify articles on COVID-19 vaccine hesitation among the Black population between 2020 and 2021. Review Methods A systematic review approach was taken to search and analyze the research on this topic, which was coupled with expert analysis in identifying and classifying vital ethical considerations. Conclusions The most common COVID-19 vaccine hesitation factors were related to the development of the vaccine, mistrust toward government agencies, and misconceptions about safety and side effects. These findings raised bioethical concerns around mistrust of information, low health literacy, insufficient numbers of Black participants in medical research, and the unique positions of health professionals as trusted sources. These bioethical considerations can be applied in otolaryngology and other health-related areas to aid the public in making informed medical decisions regarding treatments, which may reduce health inequalities among Black Americans and other racial and ethnic minority groups. Implications for Practice Addressing ethical questions by decreasing mistrust, tailoring information for specific populations, increasing minority representation in research, and using health professionals as primary sources for communicating health information and recommendations may improve relationships with Black communities and increase acceptance of new knowledge and therapies such as COVID-19 vaccination.

Reconsidering Group Interests

This paper aims to explore attitudes toward immigration among two non-White groups, Asian Americans and Black Americans. For more than a decade, individuals from Asia have comprised the majority of immigrants entering the United States each year. Today, the majority of the Asian American U.S. population remains foreign-born. Yet using data collected from the 2016 Collaborative Multiracial Post-Election Survey and the 2016 National Asian American Survey—a time period marked by high levels of saliency with regard to immigration issues—we find that Black Americans, the majority of whom are U.S.-born, exhibit even more progressive attitudes towards immigration, both legal and undocumented, than mostly foreign-born Asian Americans. Our research challenges economic and material theories related to immigration attitudes and suggests that political connections to and “linked fate” with other minorities better explain why Black Americans exhibit more progressive attitudes toward immigration than Asian Americans.