Indiana University, Deparment of Sociology, Bloomington, 47405-7103, USA.
J Health Soc Behav. 2010 Dec;51(4):458-77. doi: 10.1177/0022146510386795.
We analyze data from the South African Stress and Health Study, a nationally representative in-person psychiatric epidemiologic survey of 4,351 adults conducted as part of the World Mental Health Survey Initiative between January 2002 and June 2004. All blacks (Africans, Coloreds, and Indians) initially report higher levels of non-specific distress and anger/hostility than whites. Access to socioeconomic resources helps explain differences in non-specific distress between Coloreds and whites and Indians and whites. However, only when social stressors are considered do we find few differences in psychological distress (i.e., non-specific distress and anger/hostility) between Africans and whites. In addition, self-esteem and mastery have independent effects on non-specific distress and anger/hostility, but differences between Coloreds and whites in feelings of anger/hostility are not completely explained by self-esteem and mastery. The findings contribute to the international body of work on social stress theory, challenge underlying assumptions of the minority status perspective, and raise a series of questions regarding mental health disparities among South Africans.
我们分析了南非压力与健康研究的数据,该研究是世界心理健康调查倡议的一部分,是 2002 年 1 月至 2004 年 6 月期间针对 4351 名成年人进行的一项具有全国代表性的现场精神病流行病学调查。所有黑人(非洲人、有色人种和印度人)最初报告的非特异性痛苦和愤怒/敌意水平高于白人。获得社会经济资源有助于解释有色人种和白人以及印度人与白人之间非特异性痛苦的差异。然而,只有在考虑到社会压力源时,我们才发现非洲人与白人间的心理痛苦(即非特异性痛苦和愤怒/敌意)差异很小。此外,自尊和掌控感对非特异性痛苦和愤怒/敌意有独立的影响,但自尊和掌控感并不能完全解释有色人种与白人间愤怒/敌意的差异。这些发现为国际社会压力理论研究提供了依据,挑战了少数群体地位观点的基本假设,并提出了一系列关于南非心理健康差异的问题。