The Impact of Region and Urbanicity on the Discrimination-Cognitive Health Link Among Older Blacks

Little research has examined how the link between discrimination and cognitive health varies by where people live. This study investigates how living in non-urban versus urban areas in different regions in the United States moderates the discrimination-cognitive health link among older non-Hispanic Blacks. Data are from the 2012 and 2014 waves of the Health and Retirement Study (HRS; N = 2,347). Regression analyses indicate that experiencing more everyday discrimination is significantly associated with lower episodic memory when living in urban areas. Among non-Hispanic Blacks, the discrimination-episodic memory link does not significantly vary across U.S. regional contexts. Findings highlight variation in the association between everyday discrimination and cognitive health by where older non-Hispanic Blacks live. Results suggest the importance of socio-environmental factors in shaping how stressful experiences such as discrimination are linked to cognitive health in later life.     

Affective Comorbidity Associated with Symptoms,Lung Function,and Differences Between Patients with COPD for Biomass and Tobacco Smoke Exposure

Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings - Anxiety and depression are common entities in patients diagnosed with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). This study aimed to...     

Normality as Background Causality

Husserl Studies - Normality, for Husserl, is said in many ways. While the most detailed treatments of this technical Husserlian concept are usually found in discussions concerning the constitutive...     

Grammatical gender processing in bilinguals: An analytic review

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review - In this review article, we analyze how grammatical gender is represented and processed in the bilingual mind. To that end, we review the data from 13 existing...     

Democratic Legitimacy and the Paradox of Persisting Opposition

The paradox of persisting opposition raises a puzzle for normative accounts of democratic legitimacy. It involves an outvoted democrat who opposes a given policy (because she takes it to be unjust) while supporting it (because it is the upshot of majority rule). The article makes a threefold contribution to the existing literature. First, it considers pure proceduralist and pure instrumentalist alternatives to solve the paradox and finds them wanting — on normative, conceptual, and empirical grounds. Second, it presents a solution based on a two‐level distinction between substantive and procedural legitimacy that shows that citizens are consistent in endorsing the upshot of democratic procedures while opposing it. Third, it unpacks three reasons to non‐instrumentally endorse such procedures — namely, the presence of reasonable disagreement, non‐paternalism, and the right to democratically do wrong. In so doing, the article shows that those accounts of democratic legitimacy that rely on reasonable disagreement as a necessary condition for democratic procedures being called for are flawed, or at least incomplete, and offers a more complete alternative.