Kendra L Schaa1, Debra L Roter1, Barbara B Biesecker2, Lisa A Cooper3, Lori H Erby1. 1. Department of Health, Behavior & Society, The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. 2. Social and Behavioral Research Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health. 3. Department of Medicine, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Implicit racial attitudes are thought to shape interpersonal interactions and may contribute to health-care disparities. This study explored the relationship between genetic counselors' implicit racial attitudes and their communication during simulated genetic counseling sessions. METHOD: A nationally representative sample of genetic counselors completed a web-based survey that included the Race Implicit Association Test (IAT; Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998; Cooper et al., 2012). A subset of these counselors (n = 67) had participated in an earlier study in which they were video recorded counseling Black, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic White SCs about their prenatal or cancer risks. The counselors' IAT scores were related to their session communications through robust regression modeling. RESULTS: Genetic counselors showed a moderate to strong pro-White bias on the Race IAT (M = 0.41, SD = 0.35). Counselors with stronger pro-White bias were rated as displaying lower levels of positive affect (p < .05) and tended to use less emotionally responsive communication (p < .10) when counseling minority SCs. When counseling White SCs, pro-White bias was associated with lower levels of verbal dominance during sessions (p < .10). Stronger pro-White bias was also associated with more positive ratings of counselors' nonverbal effectiveness by White SCs. CONCLUSION: Implicit racial bias is associated with negative markers of communication in minority client sessions and may contribute to racial disparities in processes of care related to genetic services.
OBJECTIVE: Implicit racial attitudes are thought to shape interpersonal interactions and may contribute to health-care disparities. This study explored the relationship between genetic counselors' implicit racial attitudes and their communication during simulated genetic counseling sessions. METHOD: A nationally representative sample of genetic counselors completed a web-based survey that included the Race Implicit Association Test (IAT; Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998; Cooper et al., 2012). A subset of these counselors (n = 67) had participated in an earlier study in which they were video recorded counseling Black, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic White SCs about their prenatal or cancer risks. The counselors' IAT scores were related to their session communications through robust regression modeling. RESULTS: Genetic counselors showed a moderate to strong pro-White bias on the Race IAT (M = 0.41, SD = 0.35). Counselors with stronger pro-White bias were rated as displaying lower levels of positive affect (p < .05) and tended to use less emotionally responsive communication (p < .10) when counseling minority SCs. When counseling White SCs, pro-White bias was associated with lower levels of verbal dominance during sessions (p < .10). Stronger pro-White bias was also associated with more positive ratings of counselors' nonverbal effectiveness by White SCs. CONCLUSION: Implicit racial bias is associated with negative markers of communication in minority client sessions and may contribute to racial disparities in processes of care related to genetic services.
Authors: Louis A Penner; John F Dovidio; Tessa V West; Samuel L Gaertner; Terrance L Albrecht; Rhonda K Dailey; Tsveti Markova Journal: J Exp Soc Psychol Date: 2010-03-01
Authors: Alexander R Green; Dana R Carney; Daniel J Pallin; Long H Ngo; Kristal L Raymond; Lisa I Iezzoni; Mahzarin R Banaji Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2007-06-27 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Louis A Penner; John F Dovidio; Richard Gonzalez; Terrance L Albrecht; Robert Chapman; Tanina Foster; Felicity W K Harper; Nao Hagiwara; Lauren M Hamel; Anthony F Shields; Shirish Gadgeel; Michael S Simon; Jennifer J Griggs; Susan Eggly Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-06-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Aryana S Jacobs; Marc D Schwartz; Heiddis Valdimarsdottir; Rachel H Nusbaum; Gillian W Hooker; Tiffani A DeMarco; Jessica E Heinzmann; Wendy McKinnon; Shelley R McCormick; Claire Davis; Andrea D Forman; Alexandra Perez Lebensohn; Emily Dalton; Diana Moglia Tully; Kristi D Graves; Morgan Similuk; Scott Kelly; Beth N Peshkin Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Beth N Peshkin; Scott Kelly; Rachel H Nusbaum; Morgan Similuk; Tiffani A DeMarco; Gillian W Hooker; Heiddis B Valdimarsdottir; Andrea D Forman; Jessica Rispoli Joines; Claire Davis; Shelley R McCormick; Wendy McKinnon; Kristi D Graves; Claudine Isaacs; Judy Garber; Marie Wood; Lina Jandorf; Marc D Schwartz Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2015-10-12 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Katie L Lewis; Alexis R Heidlebaugh; Sandra Epps; Paul K J Han; Kristen P Fishler; William M P Klein; Ilana M Miller; David Ng; Charlotte Hepler; Barbara B Biesecker; Leslie G Biesecker Journal: Genet Med Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 8.822