How do supportive family relationships contribute to stress regulation in response to racial/ethnic discrimination among Hispanics?

Decades of research have documented the psychological and physical toll associated with experiences of racial discrimination. These experiences include major life events (e.g., getting fired from a job or being detained or abused by the police), as well as relatively minor but often occurring experiences (e.g., receiving poorer service at restaurants, being stared at or harassed, or being called names or insulted). Meta-analyses have shown a positive relationship between discrimination and psychological distress among members of minority groups, as well as physical health outcomes, including cardiovascular disease and mortality rates. This relationship has been demonstrated for varied racial/ethnic minority groups in the US, including Latinx/Hispanic individuals specifically. This conceptualization of discrimination as a stressor is supported by experimental lab studies showing acute cardiovascular stress reactivity in response to experiencing, witnessing, or recalling discrimination. This includes increased blood pressure and heart rate, decreased parasympathetic nervous system (PNS) activity, increased sympathetic nervous system (SNS) activity, and increased cortisol production. In these experimental studies, experiencing, witnessing, or recalling discrimination acts as an acute stressor, to which the body activates the SNS and deactivates the PNS, resulting in a state of high energy expenditure. Once the stressor has passed, the body rapidly recovers and returns to a more energy-efficient resting state, although recovery has been shown to be slower following recollection of instances of discrimination relative to other angering experiences. Repeated exposure to discrimination and resulting stress responses are then thought to contribute to cumulative wear and tear on the body over time, contributing especially to racial disparities in physical health, including in cardiovascular, immune, and neuroendocrine functioning.

Dr Hannah Volpert-Esmond, Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychology at The University of Texas at El Paso used an MRI Grant to measure cardiovascular stress responses (e.g., heart rate, galvanic skin conductance) of 96 Latinx/Hispanic-identifying individuals while they described their experiences of discrimination either with a person that they brought with them to the lab (e.g., friend, significant other, family member), or a stranger (i.e., a member of the research team). Cardiovascular responses were measured during a baseline period prior to the conversation (5 minutes), during the conversation (10 minutes) and while the participant recovered after the conversation (5 minutes). Dr. Volpert-Esmond and her team then examined parasympathetic and sympathetic activation, including interbeat interval (IBI), heart rate variability (HRV), resting sinus arrhythmia (RSA), and cardiac sympathetic index (CSI).

Their general hypotheses were that 1) they would see evidence of cardiovascular stress (e.g. increases in SNS activity and decreases in PNS activity from the baseline period to the conversation period), which is consistent with previous research showing that discrimination acts as an acute stressor; and that 2) cardiovascular stress responses would be more muted when participants were talking with the supportive person they brought with them to the lab than a stranger (i.e., that social support from close others would act as a stress buffer). 

            When analyzing the data, results were surprising and unexpected. They found some evidence for their first hypothesis (for example, heart rate was higher during the conversation period than baseline, suggesting the conversation is stressful), but talking about discrimination did not have the effect on self-reported affect that would be expected if the conversation was negatively stressful. Generally, things like anxiety, depression, and negative affect are higher after acute stress events. In their data, however, they found decreases in anxiety, depression, and negative affect, suggesting that the conversations, while physiologically arousing, had a cathartic or positive effect rather than an acute stress effect. Additionally, regarding the second hypothesis, there was no moderating effect of the partner (i.e., who the participant had the conversation with), suggesting that talking about the experience did not buffer the stress.

            These unexpected results suggest that talking about experiences of discrimination with a conversation partner may not act as an acute stressor, similar to other stressors in the literature (e.g., in-the-moment experiencing of discrimination, or viewing discrimination). Instead, conversations about discrimination may be a form of processing, and that engaging in these conversations may have important implications for relationship closeness and disclosure. Future research will examine how these conversations unfold and what the long-term effects are for both the individual and the relationship.