Factor analysis of the heterosexist harassment,rejection, and discrimination scale in lesbian,gay, bisexual,transgender, and queer people of colour

The factor structure of the Heterosexist Harassment, Rejection, and Discrimination Scale (HHRDS) was examined in lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people of colour. Two hundred participants completed a survey with the HHRDS and several mental health scales. A confirmatory factor analysis suggested the original HHRDS structure fit the data poorly. Exploratory factor analyses found a different 2-factor structure, consisting of harassment/rejection and family discrimination. Convergent validity analyses demonstrated that family discrimination had the largest association with depression and anxiety, indicating that family discrimination may be particularly salient among LGBTQ people of colour. This study supports the use of the HHRDS in racially/ethnically diverse samples, but with a slightly different factor structure. Examining discriminatory experiences from family members is an important direction for future research in LGBTQ people of colour.     

Perceived racism and cardiovascular reactivity and recovery to personally relevant stress.

This study evaluated cardiovascular responses (CVR) to an active speech task with blatantly discriminatory (BRC) versus neutral (NRC) stimuli and an anger recall task in a sample of Black men (N = 73; age 18 to 47). Diastolic blood pressure scores were higher for NRC versus BRC stimuli during anger recall (p = .05). Moreover, persons in the NRC group who perceived high levels of racism (vs. no racism or BRC group) during active speech showed larger increases in blood pressure across postspeech rest, anger recall, and subsequent rest (p = .03). The notable elevation in CVR in response to an ambiguous event extends current models of racism suggesting that subtle racism is a psychosocial stressor that erodes health through chronically elevated CVR.     

The impact of informant gender on children’s endorsement of scientific and non-scientific information

By roughly 6 years of age, children acquire the stereotype that men are more competent than women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), potentially leading to greater trust in scientific information provided by men. This study tested whether 3- to 8-year-old children differentially endorsed conflicting information about science and toys presented by male and female informants depicted as a ‘man’ and ‘woman’ (Exp1) or ‘scientists’ (Exp2). Children were expected to endorse toy testimony from gender-matched informants; thus, the key question concerned endorsement of science testimony. In Exp1 (N = 149), boys and girls showed a same-gender informant preference for toy testimony; however, girls endorsed the male informant's testimony more for science than for toys – but only when tested by a male experimenter. In Exp2 (N = 264), boys and girls showed a same-gender preference, irrespective of content. Findings suggest that STEM-related gender stereotypes might lead girls to trust scientific information presented by men over women in certain contexts.