Responsive social support to disclosures of racial discrimination: Expectations and implications for well-being.

IF 2.9 2区 心理学 Q1 ETHNIC STUDIES
Erik S Caceros, Pamela Campos-Ordóñez, Ashling Ayekun, Mahsa Edalatkhah, Hilary B Bergsieker
{"title":"Responsive social support to disclosures of racial discrimination: Expectations and implications for well-being.","authors":"Erik S Caceros, Pamela Campos-Ordóñez, Ashling Ayekun, Mahsa Edalatkhah, Hilary B Bergsieker","doi":"10.1037/cdp0000762","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Social support helps people of color (POC) cope with stressors such as racial discrimination. Yet when POC disclose lived experiences of racism, confidants may fail to provide support that meets disclosers' emotional needs. Drawing on theories of shared reality and emotion reappraisal, we compare two emotion-focused social support approaches: validation (conveying that recipients' feelings or responses are appropriate) and reframing (seeking to reduce recipients' distress by offering a more positive perspective).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Two POC samples of Canadian young adults (35% South Asian, 32% East Asian, 9% Black, 8% Southeast Asian, 7% Middle Eastern, 2% Latino/a/e, 1% Indigenous, 6% other; 78% women, 19% men, 2% nonbinary; mean age = 19.9) recalled a lived experience of racism then were randomly assigned to imagine disclosing it to a White or same-race confidant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In Study 1 (N = 430), POC rated validation as more helpful than reframing and forecasted larger gaps between desired and expected support from White than same-race confidants. Study 2 (N = 651) found that (a) experiences of racism are disclosed to same-race and White confidants more often than other groups and (b) imagining a confidant's reframing (vs. validating) response led to worse overall affect, less perceived responsiveness, less racial shared reality, and more rumination. In both studies, the gap between validation and reframing on perceived support increased for experiences that participants more strongly attributed to race, especially when disclosed to White confidants.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Implications for providing responsive emotional support for lived experiences of racism are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48151,"journal":{"name":"Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000762","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHNIC STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Social support helps people of color (POC) cope with stressors such as racial discrimination. Yet when POC disclose lived experiences of racism, confidants may fail to provide support that meets disclosers' emotional needs. Drawing on theories of shared reality and emotion reappraisal, we compare two emotion-focused social support approaches: validation (conveying that recipients' feelings or responses are appropriate) and reframing (seeking to reduce recipients' distress by offering a more positive perspective).

Method: Two POC samples of Canadian young adults (35% South Asian, 32% East Asian, 9% Black, 8% Southeast Asian, 7% Middle Eastern, 2% Latino/a/e, 1% Indigenous, 6% other; 78% women, 19% men, 2% nonbinary; mean age = 19.9) recalled a lived experience of racism then were randomly assigned to imagine disclosing it to a White or same-race confidant.

Results: In Study 1 (N = 430), POC rated validation as more helpful than reframing and forecasted larger gaps between desired and expected support from White than same-race confidants. Study 2 (N = 651) found that (a) experiences of racism are disclosed to same-race and White confidants more often than other groups and (b) imagining a confidant's reframing (vs. validating) response led to worse overall affect, less perceived responsiveness, less racial shared reality, and more rumination. In both studies, the gap between validation and reframing on perceived support increased for experiences that participants more strongly attributed to race, especially when disclosed to White confidants.

Conclusions: Implications for providing responsive emotional support for lived experiences of racism are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

对种族歧视披露的响应性社会支持:对福祉的期望和影响。
目的:社会支持帮助有色人种(POC)应对种族歧视等压力源。然而,当POC披露种族主义的生活经历时,知己可能无法提供满足披露者情感需求的支持。借鉴共享现实和情感重新评估的理论,我们比较了两种以情感为中心的社会支持方法:验证(传达接受者的感受或反应是适当的)和重构(通过提供更积极的观点来寻求减少接受者的痛苦)。方法:两个加拿大年轻人POC样本(35%南亚人,32%东亚人,9%黑人,8%东南亚人,7%中东人,2%拉丁裔/黑人,1%土著,6%其他;78%女性,19%男性,2%非二元;平均年龄= 19.9)回忆起种族主义的生活经历,然后随机分配想象将其透露给白人或同种族知己。结果:在研究1 (N = 430)中,POC认为验证比重构更有帮助,并且预测白人期望和期望支持之间的差距比同种族知己更大。研究2 (N = 651)发现(a)与其他群体相比,种族主义经历更常被透露给同种族和白人知己;(b)想象知己的重构(与验证)反应导致整体影响更差,感知反应更少,种族共享现实更少,反思更多。在这两项研究中,当参与者更强烈地将其归因于种族时,尤其是在向白人密友透露时,对感知支持的验证和重构之间的差距会加大。结论:本文讨论了为种族主义生活经历提供反应性情感支持的意义。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
6.10%
发文量
101
期刊介绍: Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology seeks to publish theoretical, conceptual, research, and case study articles that promote the development of knowledge and understanding, application of psychological principles, and scholarly analysis of social–political forces affecting racial and ethnic minorities.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信