BACKGROUND: People living with obesity receive treatment services from health professionals for their weight or other health needs. In order for the students of the Faculty of Health Sciences, who will be a member of the health team in the future, to raise awareness of the society, it is necessary to first determine their obesity prejudices and eating habits.
METHODS: The study is a cross-sectional and descriptive research. The study data were collected from 406 students studying at the Faculty of Health Sciences by online questionnaire method using a personal characteristics identification form, GAMS 27-Obesity Bias Scale and University Students Eating Behavior Scale (USEBS). The data were analyzed with SPSS 26 statistical software.
RESULTS: In this study, all students were found to be prone to prejudice according to the mean total score of the Obesity Bias Scale and Obesity Bias Scale was higher in female students studying in perfusion department. In the sub-dimensions of the University Students Eating Behavior Scale, the enjoyment of food score was found to have the highest mean score.
CONCLUSIONS: According to the results of the study, there is a need to develop educational planning that will both increase the awareness of university students about the relationship between eating behaviors and obesity and eliminate obesity prejudice tendencies due to the fact that they are educated to provide services in the field of health.

In this registered report, we propose to stress-test existing models for predicting the ideology-prejudice association, which varies in size and direction across target groups. Previous models of this relationship use the perceived ideology, status, and choice in group membership of target groups to predict the ideology-prejudice association across target groups. These analyses show that models using only the perceived ideology of the target group are more accurate and parsimonious in predicting the ideology-prejudice association than models using perceived status, choice, and all of the characteristics in a single model. Here, we stress-test the original models by testing the models\' predictive utility with new measures of explicit prejudice, a comparative operationalization of prejudice, the Implicit Association Test, and additional target groups. In Study 1, we propose to directly test the previous models using an absolute measure of prejudice that closely resembles the measure used in the original study. This will tell us if the models replicate with distinct, yet conceptually similar measures of prejudice. In Study 2, we propose to develop new ideology-prejudice models for a comparative operationalization of prejudice using both explicit measures and the Implicit Association Test. We will then test these new models using data from the Ideology 2.0 project collected by Project Implicit. We do not have full access to this data yet, but upon acceptance of our Stage 1 registered report, we will gain access to the complete dataset. Currently, we have access to an exploratory subset of the data that we use to demonstrate the feasibility of the study, but its limited number of target groups prevents conclusions from being made.

The number of health care educational institutions/organizations adopting implicit bias training is growing. Our systematic review of 77 studies (published 1 January 2003 through 21 September 2022) investigated how implicit bias training in health care is designed/delivered and whether gaps in knowledge translation compromised the reliability and validity of the training. The primary training target was race/ethnicity (49.3%); trainings commonly lack specificity on addressing implicit prejudice or stereotyping (67.5%). They involved a combination of hands-on and didactic approaches, lasting an average of 343.15 min, often delivered in a single day (53.2%). Trainings also exhibit translational gaps, diverging from current literature (10 to 67.5%), and lack internal (99.9%), face (93.5%), and external (100%) validity. Implicit bias trainings in health care are characterized by bias in methodological quality and translational gaps, potentially compromising their impacts.

Hate crime is increasingly a familiar term within the domains of scholarship, policy, and activism as the harms associated with acts of targeted hostility continue to pose complex, global challenges. However, an exclusively Western-centric focus has done little to foster transnational conversations or to shape conceptual or legal frameworks in parts of the world where the challenges posed by hate and prejudice remain underexplored despite their devastating consequences. This article considers how the complexities and specificities of the Indian context disrupt the dominant assumptions of conventional hate crime frameworks. In doing so, it highlights the value of extending conventional Westernized models of thinking to different environments with different sets of challenges. Through its analysis of caste crimes and the factors that reinforce a prevailing institutional and cultural backdrop of political indifference, bureaucratic resistance, and public skepticism, the article illustrates why and how key elements of the Western framework remain ill-suited to the Indian context. The authors call instead for a creative translation of the hate crime concept, which accommodates the nature of violence within specific social contexts, and which emphasizes the institutional features that can mitigate the limitations of state capacity and intent. The process of translation has value in harnessing the benefits of the hate crime concept within countries, which lack a common framework to foster shared understanding and prioritization in relation to tackling contemporary expressions of hate. At the same time, this process enriches prevailing thinking, dismantles stereotypes, and challenges scholars of targeted violence to familiarize themselves with the unfamiliar.

A significant proportion of individuals with psychiatric disorders face dual challenges such as managing the symptoms and disabilities of their conditions and enduring stigma arising from misconceptions about mental illness. This stigma denies them quality-of-life opportunities, such as access to satisfactory healthcare services, better employment, safer housing, and social affiliations. This systematic review aims to evaluate the effect of stigmatization on psychiatric illness outcomes, particularly its influence on treatment adherence, treatment-seeking behavior, and care outcomes. We conducted a systematic review of 39 studies published between 2010 and 2024, focusing on the effects of stigmatization on psychiatric illness outcomes. The review utilized robust methodology following Cochrane guidance and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, including studies from 2010 to 2024 obtained from databases such as PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and SCOPUS. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Appraisal Tool for Cross-Sectional Studies, with most studies rated as moderate to high quality. The findings indicate that stigma in psychiatric illness is closely associated with several factors, including illness duration (mean effect size = 0.42, p < 0.05), frequency of clinic visits (mean reduction = 2.3 visits/year), and diagnosis of psychotic disorders (OR = 1.78, 95% CI: 1.20-2.65). Stigma manifests through misinformation, prejudice, and discrimination, leading to significant barriers to accessing and adhering to psychiatric treatment, thereby worsening health outcomes. It leads to delays in accessing healthcare, poor adherence to medication and follow-up, and negative psychiatric health outcomes, including disempowerment, reduced self-efficacy, increased psychiatric symptoms, and decreased quality of life. Also, stigma extends to caregivers and healthcare professionals, complicating care delivery. This review highlights the need for effective interventions and strategies to address stigma, emphasizing the importance of educational interventions to mitigate the adverse effects of public stigma. Understanding the multifaceted nature of stigma is crucial for developing targeted approaches to improve psychiatric care outcomes and ensure better mental health services for individuals with mental illnesses.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether fear and prejudice in relation to organ donation and the transplantation of organs may influence the decision to become an organ donor.
METHODS: Data were collected through four group interviews using open-ended questions and qualitative content analysis. Forty participants, 16 males and 24 females from seven countries, participated in the focus group interviews.
RESULTS: The analysis resulted in three main categories, and nine subcategories. Fears and prejudice caused by tradition and customs, approval of organ donation by family members, perception of the body as a gift from parents, the influence of religious leaders, knowledge about the religious understanding of organ donation, influence of social ambience on respondents, knowledge of the donation process in the healthcare system, including knowing about life after eventual organ donation, were some of predictors in the decision to agree to organ donation.
CONCLUSIONS: More education on the factors that influence organ donation, more information in schools, health institutions and through the media, as well as more research with the aim of \"dispelling\" fears and prejudice about organ donation would significantly improve the current situation and result in a larger number of potential organ donors.

OBJECTIVE: Providing personal demographic information is routine practice in the United States, and yet, little is known about the impacts of this process. This study aims to examine the experiences and perspectives of Multiracial/ethnic adults in the United States when disclosing racial/ethnic identity.
METHODS: Seventeen semistructured interviews were conducted with adults identifying as Multiracial/ethnic. The Multiracial/ethnic identities of participants included Black or African American and White; Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native (AI/AN) and Hispanic or Latino; Black or African American and Hispanic or Latino; Black or African American and AI/AN; AI/AN and White and Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander and White. Multiple participants reported identifying with multiple ethnic groups for any single broad category. Three identified as sexual minorities. Nine were Millennials; six were Gen X; one was Gen Z; one was Baby Boomer. Qualitative data were analyzed using staged hybrid inductive-deductive thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Disclosure of racial and ethnic identities presents a unique stressor for Multiracial/ethnic populations due to methods used to obtain data, perceived mismatch of identity and phenotype and exposure to prejudice. Social norms, constructs and movements impact the categories that a Multiracial/ethnic person indicates to external parties.
CONCLUSIONS: The stress and negative feelings that Multiracial/ethnic adults face when identifying their race/ethnicity underscore the broader implications of standard demographic questions on feelings of inclusivity and visibility within a population.
UNASSIGNED: Gathering data on individuals\' racial and ethnic backgrounds is a standard practice, and yet, it can pose challenges for those who identify with multiple groups or do not see their identities reflected in the options provided. Such individuals may feel excluded or experience unfair treatment when disclosing their identity, leading to significant stress. As the frequency of this data collection increases, it is essential that the questions are posed empathetically and equitably, with a strong commitment to enhancing inclusivity throughout the process.

People often rely on social learning-learning by observing others\' actions and outcomes-to form preferences in advance of their own direct experiences. Although typically adaptive, we investigated whether social learning may also contribute to the formation and spread of prejudice. In six experiments (n = 1550), we demonstrate that by merely observing interactions between a prejudiced actor and social group members, observers acquired the prejudices of the actor. Moreover, observers were unaware of the actors\' bias, misattributing their acquired group preferences to the behavior of group members, despite identical behavior between groups. Computational modeling revealed that this effect was due to value shaping, whereby one\'s preferences are shaped by another\'s actions toward a target, in addition to the target\'s reward feedback. These findings identify social learning as a potent mechanism of prejudice formation that operates implicitly and supports the transmission of intergroup bias.

Hierarchical predictive processing provides a framework outlining how prior expectations shape perception and cognition. Here, we highlight hierarchical predictive processing as a framework for explaining how social context and group-based social knowledge can directly shape intergroup perception. More specifically, we argue that hierarchical predictive processing confers a uniquely valuable toolset to explain extant findings and generate novel hypotheses for intergroup perception. We first provide an overview of hierarchical predictive processing, specifying its primary theoretical assumptions. We then review evidence showing how prior knowledge influences intergroup perception. Next, we outline how hierarchical predictive processing can account well for findings in the intergroup perception literature. We then underscore the theoretical strengths of hierarchical predictive processing compared to other frameworks in this space. We finish by outlining future directions and laying out hypotheses that test the implications of hierarchical predictive processing for intergroup perception and intergroup cognition more broadly. Taken together, hierarchical predictive processing provides explanatory value and capacity for novel hypothesis generation for intergroup perception.

暂无摘要。