EJIHPE | Free Full-Text | Psychological Distress and Behavioral Vigilance in Response to Minority Stress and Threat among Members of the Asian American and Pacific Islander Community during the COVID-19 Pandemic

By inergency On Feb 26, 2024

3.1. Correlation Analyses

Pearson’s zero-order correlation analyses were conducted between all of the focal variables: perceived stigmatization; realistic threat; symbolic threat; denial of racism; Asian American identification; psychological distress; and pandemic-related behavioral vigilance. Every variable was significantly correlated with every other variable (all ps < 0.001) with the exception of Asian American identification and psychological distress (p = 0.223). The smallest valid n for any bivariate analysis was 574, resulting in an observed power of 1 − β > 0.95 for such analyses detecting a small effect (r = 0.15) with a conventional Type I error tolerance (α = 0.05).

Consistent with Hypothesis 1, perceived stigmatization of the AAPI community was positively related to the proposed mediators of realistic threat (r = 0.522, 95% CI [0.460, 0.579]) and symbolic threat (r = 0.576, 95% CI [0.519, 0.628]) as well as to psychological distress (r = 0.135, 95% CI [0.054, 0.214]) and behavioral vigilance (r = 0.492, 95% CI [0.427, 0.552]). Participants who reported higher perceptions of AAPI stigmatization also tended to report perceiving more realistic and symbolic threats towards the AAPI community and more psychological distress symptoms and behavioral vigilance. In addition, perceived stigmatization was also correlated negatively with denial of racism (r = −0.579, 95% CI [−0.630, −0.522]) and positively with Asian American identification (r = 0.265, 95% CI [0.188, 0.339]). As participants reported higher perceptions of AAPI stigmatization, they were less likely to deny the existence of anti-AAPI racism—or, to put it more plainly, they were more likely to recognize that anti-AAPI racism exists—and identified more strongly with the AAPI community.

Further, both threat measures were positively related to psychological distress, as measured by the DASS (r_realistic = 0.333, 95% CI [0.259, 0.404]; r_symbolic = 0.247, 95% CI [0.169, 0.322]) and behavioral vigilance (r_realistic = 0.650, 95% CI [0.600, 0.695]; r_symbolic = 0.538, 95% CI [0.477, 0.593]), which was once again consistent with the hypotheses. Participants who perceived greater realistic and symbolic threat tended to report more psychological distress and behavioral vigilance. In addition, both types of threat were negatively correlated with denial of racism (r_realistic = −0.561, 95% CI [−0.615, −0.503]; r_symbolic = −0.609, 95% CI [−0.658, −0.555]) and positively correlated with Asian American identification (r_realistic = 0.309, 95% CI [0.234, 0.381]; r_symbolic = 0.363, 95% CI [0.290, 0.432]). As perceptions of realistic threat and symbolic threat increased, participants were less likely to deny the existence of anti-AAPI racism and identified more strongly with the AAPI community.

Finally, support was mixed for Hypothesis 2 regarding the relationships between the proposed moderators and outcomes. As hypothesized, denial of racism predicted lower psychological distress (r = −0.194, 95% CI [−0.271, −0.114]) and behavioral vigilance (r = −0.498, 95% CI [−0.557, −0.434]). However, the relationships between Asian American identification and the outcome variables were inconsistent with hypotheses: Asian American identification predicted increased behavioral vigilance (r = 0.260, 95% CI [0.182, 0.335]) but it was not significantly related to mental distress (r = −0.051, 95% CI [−0.132, 0.031]). Meanwhile, mental distress and behavioral vigilance were, as hypothesized, positively correlated (r = 0.257, 95% CI [0.179, 0.332]).

A summary of means, standard deviations, correlation coefficients, and significance values is presented in Table 1.

3.3. Moderation Analyses

In order to test the conceptual model proposed by Cheng and colleagues [6] in which the effects of negative experiences of racial stigmatization on psychological distress and behavioral vigilance are thought to be buffered by stronger in-group identity, we conducted a total of four PROCESS [74] Model 1 analyses testing the ability of denial of racism and Asian American identification to moderate the impact of perceived AAPI stigmatization on psychological distress and behavioral vigilance. All variables were centered. The observed power for detecting a very small effect (F² = 0.02) at a conventional standard of tolerance for Type I error (α = 0.05) in linear regression-type models with three predictors (x, w, and xw) and 576 and 574 valid participants, respectively, was 1 − β > 0.81. The conceptual models are illustrated in Figure 3. Since the unique effects of individual predictors within regression-type models are reported above, in the summary of models below, only the full model and interaction terms are reported as the interaction terms are what is relevant to Hypothesis 5.

3.3.1. Stigma (x), Denial of Racism (w), and Psychological Distress (y)

The combination of stigmatization, denial of racism, and their interaction predicted a significant 4% of the variance in psychological distress, F (3, 572) = 8.26, p < 0.001. The unique effect of the Stigma × Denial of Racism interaction was non-significant, b = −0.0177, 95% CI [−0.043, 0.008], p = 0.176.

3.3.2. Stigma (x), Asian American Identification (w), and Psychological Distress (y)

The combination of stigmatization, Asian American identification, and their interaction predicted a significant 3% of the variance in DASS (F (3, 572) = 5.18, p = 0.002). The unique effect of the stigma × intragroup identification interaction was non-significant (b = 0.0035, 95% CI [−0.031, 0.038], p = 0.841).

3.3.3. Stigma (x), Denial of Racism (w), and Behavioral Vigilance (y)

The combination of stigmatization, the denial of racism, and their interaction predicted a significant 31% of the variance in behavioral vigilance (F (3, 571) = 85.89, p < 0.001). The unique effect of the stigma × denial of racism interaction was non-significant (b = −0.0122, 95% CI [−0.063, 0.039], p = 0.638).

3.3.4. Stigma (x), Asian American Identification (w), and Behavioral Vigilance (y)

The combination of stigmatization, Asian American identification, and their interaction predicted a significant 26% of the variance in behavioral vigilance (F (3, 571) = 67.43, p < 0.001). The unique effect of the Stigma × Asian American identification interaction was non-significant (b = −0.0280, 95% CI [−0.098, 0.042], p = 0.433.