Discrimination and risk-taking , 1 Experiencing discrimination increases risk-taking

Prior research has revealed racial disparities in health outcomes and more health-compromising behaviors, such as smoking and drug abuse. It has been suggested that discrimination may contribute to such disparities, but the mechanisms through which this occurs are not well understood. Here, we examined whether the experience of discrimination affects acute physiological stress responses and increases risk-taking behavior. Black and White participants received rejecting feedback from partners who were either the same race (in-group rejection) or a different race (out-group rejection/discrimination). Physiological (cardiovascular and neuroendocrine) changes, cognitive processes (memory and attentional bias), and risk-taking behavior were assessed. Significant participant-race by partner-race interactions were observed. Cross-race, compared to same-race, rejection was associated with lower cortisol, increased cardiac output, decreased vascular resistance, greater anger, and more risk-taking behavior. These data suggest distinct profiles of physiological reactivity, cognitive processing, and risktaking in response to discrimination implicating direct and indirect pathways to health disparities. Discrimination and risk-taking, 3 Experiencing discrimination increases risk-taking Being rejected is a powerful aversive experience. In the short-term it affects emotions, thoughts, and behavior (Williams, 2001), and in the long-term can influence physical (Cacioppo, Hawkley, & Berntson, 2003) and mental health (Williams, 2001). However, not all types of social rejection affect us similarly. Rejection by out-group members (persons from different social categories) can be interpreted as discrimination, which may set in motion a distinct set of attributions, emotions, and behaviors compared to when rejection comes from in-group members (Crocker, Voelkl, Testa, & Major, 1991; Mendes, Major, McCoy, & Blascovich, 2008). We explored the effects of in-group compared to out-group social rejection with two specific goals. The first goal was to measure the physiological consequences of in-group compared to out-group rejection. The second goal was to examine how rejection influenced risk-taking behavior with the prediction that because discrimination typically evokes anger and approach-motivation, outgroup rejection would lead to more risk-taking relative to in-group rejection. Several lines of research have examined the physiological consequences of discrimination in an attempt to understand health disparities between Europeanand AfricanAmericans (Pascoe & Smart-Richman, 2009). In large scale epidemiological studies, for example, African-Americans tend to have higher resting blood pressure than their age-matched European-American counterparts (Krieger & Sidney, 1996), and Black and lower socioeconomic status adults, on average, have flatter (more dysregulated) diurnal cortisol cycles than Whites and higher socioeconomic status adults (Fuller-Rowell, Doan, & Eccles, 2011). Laboratory based studies have shown that participants who experience, view, or recall an episode of discrimination are angrier, exhibit a stronger cardiac reaction, and have a slower recovery profile than those not exposed to discrimination (e.g., Guyll, Matthews, & Bromberger, 2001; Mendes et al., 2008). Discrimination and risk-taking, 4 However, the data on acute responses to discrimination are not always straightforward, with some studies showing inconclusive results (e.g., Brondolo, Rieppi, Kelly, & Gerin, 2003). Even less consistent are the studies attempting to link experiences of discrimination with HPA activation, specifically cortisol responses. For example, in the Fuller-Rowell study cited above, African-Americans who perceived more discrimination had healthier diurnal cortisol cycles than those who perceived less discrimination. There is certainly reason to speculate that discrimination would acutely activate the HPA system – one of two primary stress systems. For example, non-human primate studies find that in stable hierarchies subordinate compared to dominant baboons exhibit greater HPA reactivity, higher basal cortisol levels, and impaired sensitivity of the HPA to negative feedback regulation (Sapolsky, 1982). In humans, HPA activation has been linked to loss of social standing (Mehta, Jones, & Josephs, 2008), negative social feedback (Koslov, Mendes, Patjas, & Pizzagalli, 2011), and with feelings of shame (Dickerson & Kemeny, 2004). Indeed, in a meta-analysis of cortisol reactivity the situational factors most consistently linked to cortisol increases were situations when “an important aspect of the self-identity is or could be negatively judged by others” (Dickerson & Kemeny, 2004, p. 358). Sapolsky’s baboon research and the cortisol meta-analysis suggest that perceptions and experiences of discrimination might activate the HPA, which may be implicated in the observed racial health disparities; however, we view this perspective as tenuous. For one, though rejection clearly engenders feelings of shame, discrimination based on uncontrollable factors (e.g., race) typically does not elicit shame but rather anger (Gibbons, Etcheverry, Stock, Gerrard, Weng, et al., 2010; Smart-Richman & Leary, 2009). At a neurobiological level, although shame might activate HPA responses (Dickerson & Kemeny, 2004) anger tends to elicit activation of the Discrimination and risk-taking, 5 sympathetic adrenal-medullary axis (SAM) (Stemmler, 2004). Though these two systems (HPA and SAM) are relatively independent, increases in cortisol tend to be associated with reduced sympathetic nervous system activity (Golczynska, Lenders, & Goldstein, 1995; Pavcovich & Valentino, 1997). Secondly, previous data suggest that an acute experience of out-group rejection (i.e., discrimination) is associated with increased cardiac activity (specifically cardiac output) and a decline in vasculature resistance (the primary determinant of blood pressure) – a profile of responses linked to challenge states (Mendes, et al., 2008). In contrast, same-race rejection was associated with lower cardiac output (less cardiac efficiency) and an increase in vasculature resistance – a profile of responses linked to threat states. Though these cardiovascular profiles are not perfect proxies for neuroendocrine activity, theoretically the threat pattern is more likely to be associated with cortisol increases than the challenge pattern. Therefore, we anticipated that social rejection from same-race compared to cross-race partners would activate the HPA, increase feelings of shame, and show cognitive consequences of HPA activation, like impaired short term memory. The second goal of this work was to examine how discrimination influences behavior, specifically risk-taking. A large corpus of research on racial health disparities suggests AfricanAmericans exhibit worse health outcomes and engage in riskier behaviors, such as substance abuse, overeating, and smoking, compared to their European-American counterparts (e.g., Gibbons, Gerrard, Cleveland, Wills, & Brody, 2004; Hertz, Unger, Cornell, & Saunders, 2005; Williams, Neighbors, & Jackson, 2008). For instance, in a longitudinal study African-American adolescents’ self-reported experiences of discrimination predicted their substance use over time, and this relation was mediated by anger (and reduced self-control) (Gibbons et al., 2010). In a Discrimination and risk-taking, 6 complementary lab study, imagining an experience of discrimination increased the accessibility of words associated with substance use. And again, anger mediated this effect. Anger may be an especially important emotion when examining behaviors associated with risk-taking. For example, dispositionally angry people and those made angry via writing vignettes express optimistic risk estimates and choose riskier options compared to fearful individuals (Lerner & Keltner, 2001). Furthermore, approach motivation resulting from the experience of anger can lead to performance improvements (Lerner & Tiedens, 2006). In the race-rejection study cited above (Mendes, et al., 2008), participants who experienced out-group rejection (i.e., discrimination) showed more anger and performed better on a word-finding task compared to participants receiving in-group rejection, indicating more approach-oriented behavior. In the current study, we examined the effects of in-group and out-group social rejection on physiological reactivity, cognitive and affective outcomes, and risk-taking. We anticipated that in-group compared to out-group rejection would be associated with larger cortisol increases, threat reactivity, and memory impairments, whereas out-group, relative to in-group, rejection would be associated with more approach/challenge responses, expressed anger, greater vigilance for danger, and more risk-taking behavior. To test predictions, we induced social rejection by giving participants negative feedback during a computer interaction task. We manipulated whether Black and White participants thought they were interacting with sameor different-race partners and all participants received rejecting social feedback. Immediately after the interaction, participants completed cognitive tasks and a risk-behavior measure. Cortisol and cardiovascular reactivity were measured throughout the study and we coded behavior for displays of anger and shame. Discrimination and risk-taking, 7 Method Participants Ninety-one participants (55% females; 49 Caucasian, 42 African-American; 50 students, 41 community members; race and student status were unrelated [p > .50]) were recruited from the Cambridge, MA area and were compensated two credit-hours or $30. Participants (Mage = 24.11 years, SD = 6.11; range 18-39) were excluded for hypertension, pacemakers, cardiac medications, and/or pregnancy. Procedure Upon arrival participants provided consent, completed an initial memory task, and then selected one of six avatars from their rac