Cited by 168Racial and Ethnic Identity ResearchHealth disparities and outcomesGender, Health, and Social Inequality

Vigilance in the discrimination-stress model for Black Americans

Open access
Himmelstein, Mary S., Young, Danielle M., Sanchez, Diana T., Jackson, James S.·2015·Psychology & Health

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Daily events of discrimination are important factors in understanding health disparities. Vigilant coping, or protecting against anticipated discrimination by monitoring and modifying behaviour, is an understudied mechanism that may link discrimination and health outcomes. This study investigates how responding to everyday discrimination with anticipatory vigilance relates to the health of Black men and women. METHODS: Black adults (N = 221) from the Detroit area completed measures of discrimination, adverse life events, vigilance coping, stress, depressive symptoms and self-reported health. RESULTS: Vigilance coping strategies mediated the relationship between discrimination and stress. Multi-group path analysis revealed that stress in turn was associated with increased depression in men and women. Self-reported health consequences of stress differed between men and women. CONCLUSIONS: Vigilance coping mediates the link between discrimination and stress, and stress has consequences for health outcomes resulting from discrimination. More research is needed to understand other underlying contributors to discrimination, stress and poor health outcomes as well as to create potential interventions to ameliorate health outcomes in the face of discrimination-related stress.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/08870446.2014.966104

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Such neurobiological changes may be precursors to racism-related vigilance and rumination, which are emerging as health risk factors.

    “Such neurobiological changes may also be precursors to racism-related vigilance and rumination which are emerging as health risk factors in their own right [406–411].”

    From Racism as a Determinant of Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2015) · cites this paper as [411]

    The Conclusions passage (page not provided) describes racism-related vigilance as a potential health risk and links rumination to adverse health effects. The Results and Discussion model vigilance as a response to discrimination that may increase stress; they do not establish that neurobiological changes precede vigilance or rumination. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Vigilance, or monitoring and adjusting one's behaviour to protect oneself from discrimination, has mediated the link between discrimination and stress.

    “Vigilance, or monitoring and adjusting one's behaviour to protect oneself from discrimination has mediated the link between discrimination and stress (Himmelstein et al., 2015).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 48 · Cited by 168

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Kenny DA Kashy DA Cook WL 2006 Using structural equation modeling to study dyads Dyadic data analysis 100 118 New York, NY Guilford Press

Authors
Himmelstein, M. S., Young, D. M., Sanchez, D. T., & Jackson, J. S.
Affiliations
  • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Young, Danielle M.
Venue
Psychology & Health
Published
2014-10-09
Volume
30
Issue
3
Pages
253-267
ISSN
  • 0887-0446 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-8321
OpenAlex
W2029883390
Cited by
168
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 4
FWCI
17.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychology and Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Aging (P30AG015281)
  • National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (P60MD002249)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Racial and Ethnic Identity Research
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Gender, Health, and Social Inequality
Keywords
discrimination stress, everyday discrimination, health disparities, African Americans, depressive symptoms, stress, self-reported health, gender differences, mediation, life events
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Black or African American, Depression, Female, Humans, Life Change Events, Male, Michigan, Middle Aged, Models, Psychological, Prejudice, Socioeconomic Factors, Stress, Psychological, Health Status Disparities, Self Report

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review