Poverty and Health

Fuller‐Rowell, Thomas E.; Evans, Gary W.; Ong, Anthony D.

doi:10.1177/0956797612439720

Cited by 116 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They are consistent with the hypothesis that effects of neighbourhood poverty on obesity risk may extend beyond these behavioural influences. Several studies have suggested that neighbourhood poverty is associated with exposure to social and economic environments that are conducive to psychosocial stress (9, 55, 61). For example, living in a high poverty neighbourhood is associated with a range of negative factors, from pollution and environmental toxins to violence exposure and over policing (62).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neighbourhood Poverty, Perceived Discrimination and Central Adiposity in the Usa: Independent Associations in a Repeated Measures Analysis

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY This study examines the independent effects of neighbourhood context (i.e. neighbourhood poverty) and exposure to perceived discrimination in shaping risk of obesity over time. Weighted 3-level hierarchical linear regression models for a continuous outcome were used to assess independent effects of neighbourhood poverty and perceived discrimination on obesity over time in a sample of 157 Non-Hispanic Black, Non-Hispanic White, and Hispanic adults 2002/2003 and 2007/2008. Independent associations were found between neighbourhood poverty and perceived discrimination with central adiposity over time. Residents of neighbourhoods with high concentrations of poverty were more likely to show increases in central adiposity compared to those in neighbourhoods with lower concentrations of poverty. In models adjusted for BMI, neighbourhood poverty at baseline was associated with greater change in central adiposity among participants who lived in neighbourhoods in the second (B=3.79, P=0.025) and third (B=3.73, P=0.024) quartiles, compared with those in the lowest poverty neighbourhoods. Results from models that included both neighbourhood poverty and perceived discrimination showed that both neighbourhood poverty and discrimination were associated with increased risk of increased central adiposity over time. Residents of neighbourhoods in the second (B=9.58, P<0.001), third (B=8.25, P=0.004), and fourth (B=7.66, P=0.030) quartiles of poverty remained more likely to show greater increases in central adiposity over time, compared with those in the lowest poverty quartile, mean discrimination at baseline independently and positively associated with increases in central adiposity over time (B= 2.36, P=0.020). These results suggest that neighbourhood poverty and perceived discrimination are independently associated with heightened risk of increases in central adiposity over time. Efforts to address persistent disparities in the central adiposity in the USA should include strategies to reduce high concentrations of neighbourhood poverty as well as discrimination.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neighbourhood Poverty, Perceived Discrimination and Central Adiposity in the Usa: Independent Associations in a Repeated Measures Analysis

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The specific reasons for discrimination are often ambiguous – i.e., not made explicit by the perpetrator and not unequivocally known by the victim (Sue et al, 2007). One important approach to operationalizing social class-related unfair treatment has therefore been to assess perceptions of general unfair treatment and link these empirically to assessments of SED in regression models that adjust for other characteristics of the individual such as race, sex, age, and obesity (Fuller-Rowell, Evans, & Ong, 2012). This approach helps address methodological limitations associated with asking individuals to report discrimination specifically attributed to their socioeconomic position when the reasons for unfair treatment are frequently ambiguous.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Longitudinal health consequences of socioeconomic disadvantage: Examining perceived discrimination as a mediator.

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Foundational theoretical perspectives suggest that socioeconomic disadvantage (SED) increases an individual’s risk of being exposed to unfair treatment or discrimination. However, little empirical attention has been given to the role of perceived discrimination in the SED-health gradient. Addressing this knowledge gap, the current study examined the mediating role of discrimination in the longitudinal association between SED and self-rated health. Methods Participants in the Midlife in the United States (MIDUS) study were followed over three waves covering a 17–19 year period (N = 6286; 53% female; 91% White; Mean Age at baseline = 47 years, SD = 13). SED was assessed from education, occupational prestige, income, and assets; self-rated health was measured at baseline and follow-up assessments. Two measures of discrimination—perceived inequality in work and everyday discrimination—were considered as mediators. Results Both measures of discrimination emerged as important explanatory variables in the link between SED and health. SED at the baseline assessment was associated with changes in self-rated health over the 17–19 year period (B = −.15, p < .001). Measures of discrimination partially mediated this longitudinal association, explaining 22% of the total effect. Exposure to discrimination and its health consequences were also more pronounced at younger ages. Conclusion Additional research is needed to replicate the findings of this study using objective health measures and to examine possible interventions. Challenging the ideologies and practices that underlie social class-related discrimination, or mitigating its harmful consequences, will both be important approaches to consider.

show abstract

“…A comprehensive portrayal of well-being in individuals and communities requires objective and subjective appraisals. Focusing on the latter, at the expense of the former, has led psychologists like Seligman (2002) to erroneous conclusions, whereby he claimed that income and education do not matter for well-being, whereas there is ample evidence that people with both higher education and income experience fewer psychosocial problems and higher levels of self-esteem and self-efficacy (Donohoe, 2013;Freidl et al, 2007;Fuller-Rowell et al, 2012;Levy & Sidel, 2006;Pascoe & Smart Richman, 2009;Prilleltensky, 2012;Prilleltensky & Prilleltensky, 2006;Rath & Harter, 2010;Wilkinson & Pickett, 2009).…”

Section: What Is Wellness?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To be sure, there is scholarship exploring connections among constructs associated with fairness and wellness, such as Fiske's (2011) work on envy and scorn and their deleterious repercussions for the envious, the envied, the scornful, and the scorned; Miller's (2001) work on injustice and disrespect and their negative impact on self-image; research on microaggressions and their impact on mental health (Blume, Lovato, Thyken, & Denny, 2012;Torres, Driscoll, & Burrow, 2010); and effects of discrimination on stress (Fuller-Rowell, Evans, & Ong, 2012;Lee & Ahn, 2012;Pascoe & Smart Richman, 2009); or child abuse, an obvious form of injustice with multiple negative psychological outcomes (Prilleltensky, Nelson, & Peirson, 2001a); but in my view, we need to establish a more clear line of research and action dealing specifically with the complex relationship among various domains of wellness and diverse types of fairness. I want to make this case by defining wellness and its many facets, fairness, and its various types; by discussing the presumed connections among the two constructs; and by proposing next steps.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wellness without fairness: The missing link in psychology

Prilleltensky

2013

South African Journal of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To promote human welfare, psychologists must advance two important goals: wellness and fairness. Hitherto, research on wellness or well-being has discovered connections among overall satisfaction with life and important facets of life, such as relationships, income, and physical health, but the connections among various types of wellness and specific aspects of fairness remain obscure. Research on justice in psychology, in turn, has focused largely on the impact of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice on job performance and not so much on wellness outcomes. I argue that psychologists must explore in depth the association among various types of wellness, such as interpersonal, occupational, physical, and psychological, and diverse kinds of fairness, such as distributive, procedural, interpersonal, cultural, developmental, retributive, and intrapersonal. The pursuit of wellness without fairness will not yield the outcomes individuals and communities need. We must make more explicit the relationship between justice or injustice and flourishing in life.

show abstract

Poverty and Health

Cited by 116 publications

References 27 publications

Neighbourhood Poverty, Perceived Discrimination and Central Adiposity in the Usa: Independent Associations in a Repeated Measures Analysis

Neighbourhood Poverty, Perceived Discrimination and Central Adiposity in the Usa: Independent Associations in a Repeated Measures Analysis

Longitudinal health consequences of socioeconomic disadvantage: Examining perceived discrimination as a mediator.

Wellness without fairness: The missing link in psychology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About