Cumulative consequences of stigma: Possessing multiple concealable stigmatized identities is associated with worse quality of life

Large health disparities exist between stigmatized and nonstigmatized groups. In addition to experiencing and anticipating greater discrimination, members of stigmatized groups also tend to demonstrate greater ruminative tendencies in response, which may lead to these poor health outcomes. Even among stigmatized groups, differences in the visibility of stigma lead to different mechanisms through which stigma takes its toll. Previous work has primarily focused on the impact of belonging to a single marginalized group; however, people often belong to multiple marginalized groups, and this likely affects both their health outcomes and their anticipation of stigma. In the current study, we focused on individuals with concealable stigmatized identities (CSIs)—socially stigmatized identities that are not immediately apparent to others—and created a measure of concealable marginalization that captures multiple group memberships. We predicted that those possessing a greater number of CSIs would anticipate more stigma from others, and, in turn, ruminate more about the stigma, which would negatively impact the health. Surveying N = 288 adults with CSIs, we found that possessing a greater number of marginalized concealable identities predicted worse self-reported physical quality of life. These relationships were partially mediated by greater anticipated stigma and brooding rumination in regard to their CSI. This work illuminates a more complete picture of how living with CSIs can take its toll on health.     

Ingroup role models and underrepresented students’ performance and interest in STEM: A meta-analysis of lab and field studies

This meta-analysis synthesizes research on using ingroup role models to improve the performance and interest of underrepresented students in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). A systematic literature search resulted in forty-five studies that met the selection criteria, including the presence of a comparison group. Both lab and field studies suffered from small sample bias, with smaller sample sizes predicting larger effect sizes among lab studies, but smaller effect sizes among field studies. Correcting for small sample bias, ingroup role models had a small, but significant positive overall effect (d?=?0.20) among field studies and a non-significant overall effect (d?=?0.04) among lab studies. The only significant moderator was level of interaction, with in-person role models having smaller effects among lab studies (p?=?.008). Implications for interventions to increase the representation of female and underrepresented minority students in STEM and future directions for research are discussed.