Poster 98 – Undergraduate Research Symposium Abstracts

Presenter(s): Leticia Hayes − Psychology

Faculty Mentor(s): Sarah Horn

Poster 98

Research Area: Social Science

Background: Race is increasingly recognized as a significant moderator in the relationship between inflammation and major depressive disorder (MDD). However, race is often unreported or treated as a nuisance variable. Methods: A systematic review was conducted to explore how race was treated in studies examining the inflammatory marker C-reactive protein (CRP) and MDD using key search terms (e.g., CRP, depression). A total of 192 articles were yielded through PubMed and Google Scholar. Studies were coded for several themes including effect size and race. A meta-analytic approach was also employed to explore the strength of and levels of heterogeneity in the association between CRP and MDD across major geographic areas (e.g., North America, Asia). Results: A total of 143 studies did not report the race and ethnicity break-down of their sample or only reported the country in which the study was conducted. Only 13.5% of studies explicitly controlled for race in their model and one study excluded African-American participants. Most studies were conducted in Western European countries (55%) with predominantly Caucasian populations or in the United States (US; 30%). Aggregated effect sizes were small (~r=.06), but comparable across geographic areas; however, heterogeneity varied widely. Conclusion: Race is often unreported in studies testing associations between CRP and MDD and only a small subset of studies statistically adjusted for race effects in the various models. Further, the majority of the studies were conducted in Western countries. It is imperative that future research collect, report, and consider race in models examining inflammation and MDD.

Presenter(s): Kate Haynes

Faculty Mentor(s): Sara Hodges & Kathryn Denning

Poster 98

Session: Social Sciences & Humanities

Perspective taking is often regarded as a tool to improve social relations, but it can sometimes “backfire,” leading to negative outcomes (e.g., increased stereotyping). Most past research has examined the effect of instructing people to perspective take (or not) on various outcomes, but not what people consider when taking another person’s perspective. To better understand what causes this “backfiring,” we asked participants to write about the typical day of an out-group target (i.e., someone who supported the opposing candidate in the 2016 US Presidential Election) and then answer questions about social outcomes in relation to the target (e.g., how much they liked the target, willingness to engage in conversation with the target, and validity of the target’s position). Participants’ narratives were coded for the point of view (PoV) they were written in (first-person vs. third-person), degree of stereotyping present in the narrative, and overall valence (positive to negative) of content. Separate multiple regressions will be conducted using point of view, stereotyping, and valence, as well as a three-way interaction between all three variables, to predict social relations outcomes (liking, willingness to engage, and positive validity). First-person PoV, less stereotyping, and more positive valence are hypothesized to predict more positive social outcomes. However, an interaction is predicted such that first- person PoV will be associated with more negative social outcomes when degree of stereotyping is greater. Understanding when perspective taking brings people closer together – and when it does not – may help bridge current divides between political parties and other contentious groups.

Sidebar