These results confirm that group position theory a

These results confirm that group position theory, a sociological social psychological theory that explains negative emotions arising from intergroup relations, can be applied to the study of affect-related health behaviors and outcomes. In his original articulation of group position theory, Blumer argued that racial group positioning is a “historical product,” as groups are positioned in society as dominant or subordinate by various individuals, including leaders, officials, and everyday people, through talk, anecdotes, gossip, news, speeches, etc. (Blumer, 1958). The abstract conception of racial groups is further constructed by institutions operating in the “public arena,” including “legislative assemblies, public meetings, conventions, the press, and the printed word,” as well as “[i]ntellectual and social elites, public figures of prominence, … leaders of powerful organizations … and strong interest groups.” This socio-historical defining of whites vis-à-vis non-whites in regards to immigration and citizenship would be a group position theoretical account for why immigration concern is greater for the former compared to the latter. It would also explain why whites concerned about immigration may feel a negative emotion that places them at higher risk of cigarette smoking, as they perceive U.S. immigration may threaten the access to scarce resources and opportunities to which they had been historically entitled. This argument aligns with previous research on the immigration attitudes of whites compared to blacks, in which perceived group GSK126 cost with Hispanics is an underlying factor associated with five out of six immigration attitudes among whites, but only two among blacks (Hutchings & Wong, 2014). Moreover, the perceived Hispanic competition effects when present for both groups were about twice as strong among whites than blacks. Opposition to interracial marriage was another underlying factor that differentiated whites versus blacks on the two immigration concern attitudes used in the present study: immigration level preferences and perceived job competition. That opposition to interracial marriage was significantly related to these immigration attitudes for whites, but not for blacks is consistent with group position theory\'s proposition about the dominant group\'s desire to maintain the integrity of its group boundary against incursions from other groups, and not only in the domain of economic relations (Blumer, 1958; Bobo, 1999). These differences in the factors underlying immigration concern between whites and blacks, theoretically derived and empirically confirmed in prior attitudinal research, may partially explain why immigration concern is higher on average among whites than non-whites and why some whites may be at higher risk of smoking due to the emotionally-laden potential breach of these historically-constructed group boundaries reflected in their concerns about immigration.
Conclusion This study builds on research examining associations between group-based attitudes and various health outcomes to propose that immigration concerns may partially account for the white/non-white smoking difference, the healthy immigrant effect, and the Hispanic paradox (Hatzenbuehler et al., 2013; Lee et al., 2015; Samson, 2015b; Leitner al., 2016). As such, it suggests an alternative social psychological approach to studying substance use than that employed by either perceived discrimination as a social stressor or ethnic identification as a protective factor (Chae, Takeuchi, Barbeau, Bennett, Lindsey & Stoddard, 2008). It may be possible that the immigrant health advantage and the Hispanic paradox have largely remained unsolved puzzles in part because they involve contentious attitudes as illness risk factors, attitudes that are not currently collected or studied on most health surveys. The findings suggest a number of important implications to consider. First, as other researchers have already argued (Apfelbaum, Phillips, & Richeson, 2014), there is much to be gained by “reconsidering the baseline” in research involving multiple racial groups. The present study examines non-white minority groups as the healthier reference baseline, accounting for the higher incidence of a deleterious health behavior (smoking) found among U.S. whites. The present study thus flips the immigrant health advantage and Hispanic paradox puzzles on their heads, proposing a native-born health disadvantage and a non-Hispanic white health disadvantage tied to an attitudinal, health risk factor: immigration concern. Other multiracial samples in which non-white minority groups present healthier outcomes and behaviors might also benefit from analytically establishing a non-white (or immigrant) group as the reference category. Such studies might better identify whether what would appear to be normative attitudes and behaviors among a majority group might actually be associated with poorer health outcomes if adopted or expressed by a healthier minority group. Second, by building upon an emerging set of population health studies that illuminate a connection between intergroup attitudes and health outcomes (Hatzenbuehler et al., 2013; Lee et al., 2015; Samson, 2015b; Leitner al., 2016), the present study invites future research drawing on mechanistic, basic science to determine whether actual biological mechanisms can be found linking the cognitive activity triggered by intergroup attitudes to the emotion and stress-related biological processes (e.g. hormones, biomarkers, etc.) that increase the risk of cardiovascular mortality and circulatory diseases. Building on the present study as an example, future research might contribute to breaking down silos between neuroscience, psychiatry, endocrinology, cardiology, and the social sciences (e.g. sociology and psychology). Future studies should re-examine these preliminary findings with a broader range of measures and methods.