Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health.
Soc Sci Med. 2010 Apr;70(8):1111-8. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.11.032. Epub 2010 Jan 25.
Social stress models are the predominant theoretical frame for studies of the relationship between social statuses and mental health (Dressler, Oths, & Gravlee, 2005; Horwitz, 1999). These models propose that prejudice, discrimination and related social ills exert an added burden on socially disadvantaged populations (populations subjected to stigma, prejudice and discrimination) that can generate mental health problems. Researchers have used a variety of methodological approaches to study this hypothesis. In this paper we argue that researchers have not paid sufficient attention to the implications of this methodological variability, particularly the distinction between studies of within-group and studies of between-groups variation, in interpreting empirical tests of social stress theory. To fully evaluate the evidence, we need to carefully consider the convergence and divergence of results across diverse methodologies.
社会压力模型是研究社会地位与心理健康之间关系的主要理论框架（Dressler、Oths 和 Gravlee，2005；Horwitz，1999）。这些模型提出，偏见、歧视和相关的社会弊病给社会弱势群体（遭受污名、偏见和歧视的群体）带来了额外的负担，从而可能导致心理健康问题。研究人员已经使用了各种方法学方法来研究这一假设。在本文中，我们认为研究人员没有充分关注这种方法学变异性的影响，特别是在解释社会压力理论的实证检验时，没有充分关注组内研究和组间变异研究之间的区别。为了充分评估证据，我们需要仔细考虑不同方法学的结果的趋同和分歧。
