Social Cognition and the Impact of Race/Ethnicity on Clinical Decision Making Author: Deborah Washington Persistent link: http://hdl.handle.net/2345/3149 This work is posted on eScholarship@BC, Boston College University Libraries. Boston College Electronic Thesis or Dissertation, 2012 Copyright is held by the author, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise noted. SOCIAL COGNITION AND 1 Running head: SOCIAL COGNITION AND THE IMPACT OF RACE AND SOCIAL COGNITION AND THE IMPACT OF RACE AND ETHNICITY ON CLINICAL DECISION MAKING Deborah Washington, PhD, RN Boston College © copyright by DEBORAH WASHINGTON 2012 SOCIAL COGNITION AND 2 Abstract Social Cognition and the Impact of Race and Ethnicity on Clinical Decision Making Most literature reflects the persistent existence of unequal treatment in the care provided to ethnic and racial minorities. Comparatively little about ethnic bias in the literature goes beyond the retrospective study as the most frequently encountered method of inquiry. Access to providers and the ability to pay only provide partial explanation in the known data. A more controversial hypothesis is the one offered in this dissertation. This qualitative research explored the cognitive processes of ethnic bias as a phenomenon in clinical decision making. The method was a simulation that captured events as they occurred with a sample of nurse participants. The racial and ethnically related cognitive content of participants was evoked through the interactive process of playing a board game. Immediately following that activity, a video vignette of an ambiguous pain management situation involving an African American male was viewed by each nurse who was then asked to make a “treat” or “not treat” clinical decision. The dialogues during playing of the board game in addition to the rationale for the treatment decision provided data for analysis. Content analysis is the primary approach for using the data to answer the research question. Themes of latent and manifest content were described for those who made the decision to treat and those who decided not to treat. SOCIAL COGNITION AND 3 Acknowledgments I would like to thank the members of my dissertation committee for their dedication to my success. First, my wonderful dissertation advisor and Chair for constant support and understanding, Sr. Callista Roy, PhD, RN, FAAN. Faithfulness is an understatement. To the three wholly committed readers of this effort, my deep appreciation for your responsiveness and your expertise, Dr. Laurel Eisenhauer, PhD, RN, FAAN, Dr. Eve Spangler, PhD and Dr. Haeok Lee, DNSc, RN. I will never forget the quality and resources you brought to this journey. I am also grateful to my generous friends who gave their time and talents to serve as focus group facilitators, Dr. Kathy Ahearn-Gould, PhD, RN and Lisa Susser. And, of course, thanks to all the study participants for their time and willingness to share their thoughts. SOCIAL COGNITION AND 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract 2 Acknowledgments 3 Tables and Figures 7 Chapter 1: Introduction 8 Statement of the Problem 8 Significance of the Problem 10 Purpose of the Study 13 Operational Definitions 16 Assumptions Based on Existing Knowledge 18 Research Question 21 Summary 23 Chapter 2: Review of Literature 25 Health Disparities 25 Sources of Health Disparities for Ethnic Minorities 26 Issues for Debate 28 Patient-Provider Interaction 30 Mental Schema 36 Social Cognition 37 Social Mechanisms 37 Social Constructionism as a link 38 Socially constructed definitions 40 Automatic and Controlled Processes 45 Identity Theory 46 Ethnic Identity 50 Ethnocentrism 52 Factors that influence flexibility of Schema 55 Affect 55 Stereotypes 57 Clinical Decision Making 65 Clinical Decision Making and Cultural Competence 66 Definitions and Frameworks 69 Types of Decision Models 71 Sources of Bias 74 Coded Language 77 How Disparities and Schema Relate 84 Frames for the Discourse on Race-Ethnicity 87 SOCIAL COGNITION AND 5 Heuristics 88 Prejudice as Intolerance 88 Institutional Racism 90 Aversive Racism 91 Conceptual Model for Provider Cognitive Schema 92 Summary 92 Chapter 3: Methods 95 Research Question 95 Purpose 95 Institutional Review Board 96 Research Design 96 Instruments 97 Sampling 99 Inclusion Factors 99 Exclusion Factors 99 Game Process 101 The Video 103 Research Procedures 103 Setting 104 Data Collection 104 Structured Interview Questions 106 Data Analysis 107 Rigor and Validity 107 Context for Analysis 108 Analytic Approach 109 Chapter 4: Findings 111 Sample Demographics 112 Data Collection Phases 113 Priming Cognitive Schema 115 Participant Dialogue Results 117 Interview Question 1 and Findings 118 Interview Question 2 and Findings 121 Interview Question 3 and Findings 122 The Board Game as influential Prime 123 Video as Priming Element for Clinical Decision Making 123 Treatment Decision 127 Manifest and Latent Content 128 Decision Dilemma for Respondents 129 Themes Relating to Clinical Decision Making 131 SOCIAL COGNITION AND 6 Invalidation and Theme Attributes 131 Uncertainty/Ambiguity and Theme Attributes 135 Affect and Theme Attributes 137 Lack of Affinity and Theme Attributes 139 Chapter 5: Discussion 142 Main Findings 142 Consilience of Interdisciplinary Epistemology 143 Propositional statement related to study codes 146 Conceptual Model 146 Identification of Primes 149 Effectiveness of Board Game as Priming Mechanism 149 Evidence of Primes in Cognitive Processing 150 Patterns and Relationships Among the data related to race 153 Findings and Previous Research 154 Findings and Significance to Nursing Practice 156 Suggestions for Future Research 157 Limitations 158 Implications for Policy 159 Implications for Education 160 Summary 160 References 161 Appendix A Game Profile Sheet 179 Appendix B Video Script 180 Appendix C Study Website Demographic Sheet 184 Appendix D Interview Questions 185 SOCIAL COGNITION AND 7 TABLES Table 3.0 Study design Outline 98 Table 3.1 Marsh Components for Simulations 101 Table 3.2 Definitions for Study Constructs 109 Table 4.0 Participants Demographics 115 Table 4.1 Ranking of Socioeconomic Status Pre and Post Primes 114 Table 4.2 Participants by Identification Number and Pseudonym 116 Table 4.3 Explicit Stereotype Primes From the Video Vignette 125 Table 4.4 Justifications for Decision Standpoint 125 Table 4.5 Verbal and Behavioral Expressions of Emotions 126 Table 4.6 Nurse Participant Demographics and Decision to Treat 128 Table 4.7 Latent and Manifest Content for Video 129 Table 4.8 What Creates Confrontational Affect 140 Table 5.0 Respondent Quotes for Black Stereotypes 153 FIGURES FIGURE 1.0 Treatment Dichotomy 23 FIGURE 2.0 Conceptual Model for Provider Cognition 92 FIGURE 5.1 Conceptual Model of Bias in Clinical Decision Making 155 SOCIAL COGNITION AND 8 Chapter 1: Introduction Statement of the Problem The Institute of Medicine (2003, IOM) report entitled Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care (Smedley, Stith, & Nelson, 2003) repudiated the assumption that the American health delivery system was fair and equitable. A revolution in questions related to quality of care and access to care for groups on the social margins followed the groundbreaking study in quick succession. The synthesis of research exemplified by the report moved race and ethnicity into the forefront as important variables in the discourse on health outcomes for Americans. These variables symbolized conspicuous inconsistencies in the length and quality of life that differs by ethnic group for people living in the United States. The channels of service to persons on the edges of society, compared to those available to the dominant social group, did not reflect parity. The healthcare system, unaccustomed to suggestions of ethnic bias and prejudice, responded by opening itself to a potentially onerous field of inquiry in a demonstration of transparency. The usual associations of race and ethnicity are primarily sociological. In day-to-day communication, for example, race continues as a sociolinguistic device that groups persons who look the same or share a common origin, although these perceptions are unfounded as scientific concepts. In this manner, race is a sociolinguistic tool that maintains socially constructed differences used to convey the idea of a group. That is to say, race has no definitive measure as a biological principle, nor is it associated with an undisputed definition (Fine, Said, & Stephen, 2005). Unlike race, ethnicity links shared norms such as customs, beliefs, and values (Nagel, SOCIAL COGNITION AND 9 1994; Phinney, 1996). With this in mind, questions related to the use of race in lieu of ethnicity as a research parameter argues a problem. However, with the 2003 IOM report, by convention both concepts emerge semantically significant to the domains of health, health services and health professions. These words and their frequently associated phenomena of bigotry and intolerance--- while well studied in the social sciences--- do not have a prodigious empirical history in health care. With the notable exception of the Tuskegee experiments, comparatively little about blatant and aversive racism is a focus of disquiet in medicine. By long standing custom, providers self-monitored their lived experience with these concerns and the issue remained dormant in medical discourse. Consequently, egalitarianism and scientific objectivity were assumptions thought to characterize the healthcare system. This service to the public was venerated and unaccustomed