Mental Health of Children with HIV

Mental Health of Children with HIV Chapter 1 Introduction Women are more at risk of acquiring HIV infection than men in sub-Saharan Africa mainly due to Gender inequality, this relatively increases the risk of children acquiring HIV through mother-to-child-transmission [1]. According to available statistics about 30% of babies born in sub-Saharan Africa to HIV positive mothers will themselves be infected with the virus either through childbirth or through breast-feeding [2]. From recent data there are about 3.2 million children living with HIV, 91% of these children living with HIV are found in sub-Saharan Africa [2]. The WHO recommendations stipulates that children below the age of 5 diagnosed with HIV should be placed on ART regardless of what their CD4 count is, 28% of these children living with HIV worldwide, requiring antiretroviral treatment (ART) currently have access to these drugs [2]. Since the onset of the epidemic, most of the children with perinatally acquired HIV in low and middle income countries do not live past infancy [3, 4]. However, results from recent research shows that life expectancy has improved and 36% of these infants live up to 16 years of age [5]. Likewise, strategies employed to screen pregnant mothers and test infants and children at risk for HIV infection, as well as the advances in ART, has improved the quality of life and ensure HIV positive children live longer [6, 7]. However, these children will have to face the challenges of living with a chronic illness, requiring tremendous social support for long, to enable proper development both mentally and physically. For example, recent studies indicate that living with a life-threatening and stigmatizing illness is also difficult and creates great psychological distress for children with HIV [8]. Children living with HIV are often confronted with fears/thoughts about their own death, most of them are stigmatized and discriminated against [8]. Consistent evidence also shows cognitive difficulties for HIV positive children [9]. 1.2. Background and Context Mental disorder is progressively becoming an important global health concern and the leading cause of disability globally. Depression an ordinary mental disorder, currently afflicts about 350 million people, both adults and children worldwide [10]. An increasing number of mental disorders are ranked among the leading causes of disability in the World Health Organization (WHO) Global Burden of Disease 2004 [11]. War, poverty, deprivation, marginalization and deracination are among the key social determinants of mental health identified as prevalent in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) [12-15]. This in turn increases the prevalence of depression in this region, though the number are under-reported. Despite the clear indication that mental health is a huge public health concern in SSA, it has consistently been neglected, due to the preponderance of communicable diseases, malnutrition and other perinatal disorders. Adults living with a chronic illness like HIV, are prone to psychosocial and psychological stressors so are children living with HIV. They are faced with anxiety associated with living with a chronic illness and the possibilities of death from the infection. High on the list for psychosocial stressor, is the issue of discrimination and stigmatization, as well as struggles with other challenges like malnutrition, poverty and diminished social support [15]. Evidence from studies have shown that children suffering from chronic diseases are more prone to developing mental disorders than their peers that are healthy. In one study [16] involving children with epilepsy, it was suggested that healthy children were less likely to suffer from mental disorder than those with epileptic conditions that had increased risks. Another study [17] showed minders of children with sickle cell disease reported more emotional and behavioural abnormalities among these set of children. Studies from other region of the world have shown that there is a relationship between HIV and mental illness. It has been shown [18] that early abnormalities in children’s neurological development is attributable to HIV infection and no other factors like environmental and biological risks. The association between HIV and neurological impairment is well researched in children. Learning difficulties, attention deficit disorder [19, 20], behavioural abnormalities [21-23] and cognitive discrepancies [24, 25] are all associated with HIV infection in children. The Pediatric Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome Clinical Trials Group (PACTG) in their study reported increased risks for psychiatric hospitalization for children living with HIV compared to other children without the infection [26]. It was also suggested that children with perinatally acquired HIV infection may be susceptible to certain mental disorder due to the effects of HIV infection on neurological development. They a lso stated that there is a likelihood of increased mental illness among these children as they progress in life. Result from a study conducted by Mellins et al.[27] that examined psychiatric indicators in children between the ages of 9-16 years with perinatal HIV infection, showed that 11% of the children had oppositional defiant disorder and 13% diagnosed with conduct disorder. Moreover, other studies have shown that perinatal HIV infected children are at greater risk of experiencing abnormalities in brain development [28], these abnormalities include delayed motor and cognitive development [29] and in some cases short-term amnesia and mental retardation as a result of the infection [30, 31]. A study [32] of Ugandan HIV positive babies followed over a period of one year, showed that 30% of the babies on ART exhibited impaired motor functions while about 26% of the babies displayed impaired cognitive functions, this is in contrast with 5-6% of HIV negative babies that exhibited the same conditions. Papola et al. [33] in their study, collected retrospective data on 90 school children living with HIV, in order to examine their developmental and needs. From their findings 44% of the children’s range of intelligence were below average or average, while 56% had language impairment. A similar finding were replicated by Bachanas et al. [32], result from the study showed that HIV-infected children had lower WISC-III scores and abysmal academic performance. They also exhibited significant psychological functioning deficiency. 1.3. Research Project and significance With increasing access to ART, the number of children born with perinatal HIV infection getting to adolescence and adulthood has increased tremendously. These children in most cases share stressors experienced by other children living with other chronic illness, like long term medical hospitalization and treatment, and agonizing life experiences. Notwithstanding the burgeoning evidence and psychosocial consequences of living with a chronic disease, there are still dearth of studies that have investigated the mental health concerns of children living with HIV in SSA. Most research elsewhere focuses on the effect of ART treatment and prevention of HIV. Though, there is an increasing cognizance of the likelihood of increased risk of mental health disorders for people living with HIV in the long run, owing to biomedical changes occasioned by ART and environmental risks. Based on the glowing evidence from research on correlation between substance abuse, risky sexual behaviours and mental health disorders, it is then pertinent to understand the association between mental health and children living with prenatally acquired HIV infection in sub-Saharan Africa, especially because of its unique environment and the high prevalence of the social determinants of mental illness in the region. This is necessary to inform mental health treatment and prevention programmes. 1.4. Study aim To review and provide a synthesis of research on the mental health and psychological functioning/outcomes of children who are perinatally-infected with HIV, corresponding risk and protective elements, treatment modes and areas of vital need for future research and interventions. 1.5. Organization of the Thesis This thesis is organized as follows. Chapter 1 deals with the scope and objectives of the thesis, it gives a brief background of children living with perinatal HIV infection and the current trend, the mental health issues associated with living with HIV/AIDS. Chapter 2 deals with the methodology, the literature search and identification of studies, inclusion and exclusion criteria, data extraction, quality assessment and procedures used in the analysis. Chapter 3 presents the study findings. Chapter 4 presents the general discussions of the study findings, including limitations of studies included. And also the limitations of a systematic review study, strength and weakness. Chapter 5 gives the concludes and summarizes the study, giving possible intervention to address the emerging mental health concerns for children living with HIV/AIDS, as well as recommendations and identified areas of future research. Chapter 2 Literature search A systematic literature review was conducted using the theme â€Å"children living with HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa and mental health†. The study included studies up until July 2014. The research focuses on papers dealing with children living with HIV/AIDS and the effects on their mental health. The aim is to harness these research papers on the above-mentioned theme, and discuss the subject, present a summary, and highlight areas of future research needs. This informed by the body of evidence suggesting that in the long run, perinatal infected HIV children are liable to mental health issues, arising from factors such as environment, genetics, biomedical and familial [30-33]. Nonetheless, in the course of these research there are dearth of studies using the mental health as outcome and perinatal HIV infection as exposure in SSA. Hence, terms relevant to the review theme were discovered and used in finding the required papers. Studies on children living with HIV and mental health outside sub-Saharan Africa were not included in this review. It is not clear as explained in some studies, whether the mental health condition experienced by HIV positive children is neurologically or psychological. This might be a limitation of this review. A comprehensive search of online database for published articles on mental health and psychological functioning of children who are perinatally-infected with HIV was conducted. The electronic databases includes: PubMed, EBSCOhost and Science Direct, MEDLINE, Psychinfo, PubMed, JSTOR and Google Scholar. In addition to the online databases, unpublished articles, theses and internal reports will also identified by citation snowballing from the initial journal articles. Data was collected between January 2014 and July 2014 from the databases. The search terms used, identified through MeSH include: mental health, psychiatric/psychological, emotional and behavioural problems, perinatal HIV infection, paediatric HIV and adolescence. Inclusion and Exclusion criteria The initial search returned one hundred and eleven studies relevant to children in sub-Saharan African living with HIV and mental health concerns, restrictions were applied in terms of age, geography and study methodology. Only studies that included children between the ages of 1- 15 years were included. Studies conducted outside sub-Saharan African countries were not included. Both quantitative and qualitative studies were included if the primary research was on HIV infection as exposure studied, the researchers had a control group or standardized psychological instrument, mental health disorder/symptoms was the key outcome studied. Only English language articles were included. Out of the 111 studies selected only 10 that were relevant to the review was selected. As the main aim of this review was to focus on well-grounded findings the mental health and psychological functioning/outcomes of children who are perinatally-infected with HIV, only papers that included both subject were selected. Exclusion of studies outside the geographical area of interest were only performed at a later stage, to ensure that relevant studies that did not stipulate their geographical emphasis in their keywords were not excluded. Figure 1. Inclusion and exclusion used in systematic review. Data Extraction Children were classified as infected or uninfected based on their seropositive or negative status. The final synthesized materials were evaluated based on the research methodology employed, age range, and the outcomes from the study. To assist in the analysis Microsoft Excel was used. A content analysis was performed. As the studies used in the systematic review is small, a meta-analysis could not performed.

Theories of Ethnocentrism: Social Dominance Theory and Social Identity Perspective

Theories of Ethnocentrism: Social Dominance Theory and Social Identity Perspective Compare and Contrast critically evaluate in light of relevant research and theoretical reasoning A major focus of psychology is in understanding why group conflict, inequality and ethnocentrism occur. Many researchers have developed theories and presented evidence to try and explain these issues and two predominant approaches have emerged. The first approach focuses on the relatively stable personality differences that people show in their general orientation towards ethnocentrism and inequality (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Social Dominance Theory (SDT) proposes that people exhibit different levels of social dominance orientation, a desire to dominate members of other groups and a desire for continued hierarchical relations between groups (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). The alternative approach focuses on social and situational factors as causes of ethnocentrism. The dominant theory here is Social Identity Perspective (SIP), which is comprised of Social Identity Theory (SIT) (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) and Self-Categorization Theory (SCT) (Oakes, Haslam & Turner, 1994). Social Identity Perspective proposes that ethnocentrism occurs when people are depersonalized: they see themselves as members of a salient group rather than unique individuals. This process leads them to adopt a social identity where their ideas, attitudes, values and behaviours tend to reflect norms of their group and their main goal is to see their group as positive and distinct (Turner, 1987). This essay will consider how these approaches define ethnocentrism and will provide an outline of how they explain ethnocentrism. It will then compare and contrast the theories, and consider the strengths and limitations of each with reference to the large body of research in this field. In light of the limitations of viewing ethnocentrism as due to a relatively stable, individual disposition to inequality, the essay concludes that SIP provides a more complete explanation. However, researchers need to consider whether ethnocentrism is due to an interaction of situationally dependent personality factors and social identity factors for a more comprehensive explanation of ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism Sumner (1911) originally defined ethnocentrism as â€Å"†¦the sediment of cohesion, internal comradeship and devotion to the in-group, which carries with it a sense of superiority to any out-group and readiness to defend the interests of the in-group against the out-group† (p. 11). Recent research has defined ethnocentrism as ethnic group self-centeredness and identified six specific aspects that are divided between inter and intragroup expressions (Bizumic, Duckitt, Popadic, Dru & Krauss, 2008). Intergroup expressions of ethnocentrism include a preference for and favoritism given to the ingroup, a tendency to see the ingroup as superior and to only associate with the ingroup (purity) and the belief that exploitation of outgroups is acceptable to promote ingroup interests (Bizumic et al, 2008). Intragroup aspects include that ingroups are cohesive: integrated and cooperative, and that there is strong devotion and commitment to the ingroup (Bizumic et al, 2008). The two theories define and measure ethnocentrism in different ways. SDT emphasizes ingroup favoritism and bias in high status groups, and the allocation of negative social value to outgroups (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Ethnocentrism is measured through levels of prejudice, racism, conservatism and other associated concepts, which, although distinct from ethnocentrism, are closely correlated (Bizumic et al, 2008). SIP measures ethnocentrism primarily through ingroup favoritism: the tendency to favor the ingroup in evaluations and allocation of resources (Oaks et al, 1994). Social Dominance Theory SDT was developed by Sidanius and Pratto (1999) and focuses on personality and structural factors as causes of ethnocentrism. The theory argues that individuals differ in their level of social dominance orientation (SDO), which is the desire to oppress outgroups, have the ingroup be seen as superior and dominant, or the extent that an individual endorses group inequalities (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Specifically, SDO is â€Å"a desire for and value given to ingroup dominance over outgroups and the desire for non-egalitarian, hierarchical relationships between groups within the social system† (Sidanius & Pratto, 1994 p. 9). Differences in SDO are argued to make some people more likely to show ethnocentrism and prejudice, and people who have SDO show more negative behaviours towards the outgroup. This is known as differential ingroup social allocations. Illustrating this point, Sidanius (1994) states that people’s ethnocentric orientations and attitudes are due to persona lity and consistent behavioral predispositions (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). SDT also proposes that legitimizing myths maintain ethnocentrism and inequality. These are beliefs, attitudes, values or ideologies that are circulated and justify inequality, as well as continuing the dominance of some groups over others (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). For example, the myth that men have better jobs and higher incomes because they are more assertive and have better leadership skills than women. The second part of SDT is based on the assumption that intergroup conflict and ethnocentrism is due to the way society is made up of group-based hierarchies, which have a hegemonic group at the top which controls money, resources and power, and a negative reference group at the bottom (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). These hierarchies are based on three stratification systems: an age system, gender system, and an arbitrary-set system, where people from high status groups have more power than people in lower status groups. Hierarchies are formed and maintained by institutional discrimination, individual discrimination and behavioural asymmetry (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Institutional discrimination is the rules and regulations of social institutions, such as schools, religions, corporations, businesses or governments, which result in lower status groups having less power, money or other resources. Institutions maintain unequal hierarchies through the use of systematic terror, which is threat or violence directed towards low status groups (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Individual discrimination is the small, daily discriminations which occur in every setting, and the way desired goods, such as health care, money or power, are allocated to members of dominant groups. These small acts add up and lead to the continued dominance of one group over another (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Behavioural asymmetry is the way people in low status groups behave differently compared to those in high status groups. Examples of this include that ethnocentrism is higher in high status groups compared to low status groups, and there is more ingroup favoritism in high status groups – what SDT calls the asymmetrical ingroup bias. Also, low status groups can show self-handicapping, which is where they perform below their abilities due to self-fulfilling stereotypes or expectations (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Social Identity Perspective SIP is a broad theory of ethnocentrism which includes social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979) and self-categorization theory (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher and Wetherell, 1987). Social Identity Theory SIT proposes that in different situations, people either define themselves as individuals, or as group members: they move along the interpersonal – intergroup continuum (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). SIT argues that people have a collection of category memberships and each membership is represented in the persons mind as a social identity that describes how the person should think, feel and act as a member of that group (Turner, 1987). If a group is important people will internalize the group membership so that it becomes an important part of their self-concept, and they are then driven to achieve positive self-esteem and establish a social identity (they are motivated to establish positive distinctiveness) (Turner, 1987). This self-enhancement is achieved by comparing their group with salient outgroups along dimensions which lead to the most positive representation of their group. SIT proposes that a cognitive processing bias occurs during this process, which results in people minimizing the differences within their group, and exaggerating the differences between their group and a salient outgroup (Turner, 1987). This produces intragroup homogeneity, where behaviour becomes more group focused, attitudes in the group are consensual and people define themselves and outgroup members as â€Å"undifferentiated† members of their social category (Turner and Reynolds, 2001). SIT explains these cognitive processes of categorization and self-enhancement as due to subjective belief structures, which are people’s beliefs about the nature of relations between groups (Turner, 1987). These include the stability and legitimacy of group relations, and the possibility of social mobility psychologically passing from one group to another, or social change, changing how they feel about their group membership (Turner, 1987). Self-Categorization Theory SCT follows on from and elaborates on SIT. SCT focuses on the shift from personal to social identity which occurs when people change from defining themselves as individuals compared to other individuals (when their personal identity is salient), and start to see themselves as group members who are different from members of other groups (when their social identity is salient) (Turner et al, 1987). This social identity is thought to emerge when group categorizations are made prominent. The emergence of this social identity leads to a process called depersonalization, which is where people see increased similarity between themselves and ingroup members and differences from outgroup members, interchangeability with other ingroup members, and see themselves as representative of the group (Turner et al, 1987). The theory argues that whether depersonalization occurs depends on the accessibility and fit of social categories. Accessibility is how accessible the category is, in terms of past experiences, expectations, goals, motives and if the categorization is important for a person’s self-concept (Turner et al, 1987). Fit refers to the way people activate a category which best explains or fits the individual information and stored category information (Turner et al, 1987). Fit is determined based on whether the information fits in a normal or stereotypical direction (normative fit), and whether there is a high meta-contrast ratio: which is when the differences within a group are less than the differences between that group and others (comparative fit) (Turner et al, 1987). Overall, all group processes, including ethnocentrism, are argued to be the outcome of psychological group formation and depersonalization of self. Similarities between Social Identity Perspective and Social Dominance Theory Both theories agree that that group identification is needed for ethnocentrism and influences levels of ethnocentrism (Sidanius, Pratto, van Larr & Levin, 2004). SDT argues that although people with particular personalities are more likely to engage in ethnocentrism, social identification is also needed (Sidanius et al, 1994). The theories also agree that ingroup bias and favouritism can be modified under specific conditions (Sidanius, Pratto, Mitchell, 1994). Similarly, both theories recognize the importance of the salience of ingroups and outgroups (Sidanius et al, 2004). Significantly, minimal group experiments show that if intergroup distinctions are made salient, peoples SDO levels are more likely to influence whether they discriminate against outgroups, and many SIP experiments have show the importance of salience in changing group relations Sidanius et al, 2004). Both theories emphasize the â€Å"dynamic† ways people construct their social identities (Sidanius et al, 2004), based on a salient ingroup, or group distinctions based on race, nationality, class, ethnicity, or arbitrarily-set categories. Sidanius et al. , (2000) also argue that SIP finding of ingroup favoritism in minimal groups is similar to SDT assertion that people have a predisposition to form ingroup – outgroup distinct ions and to discriminate against outgroups based on these categorizations. Also, although the theories differ on the importance assigned to social and contextual factors, both agree that they can influence ethnocentrism. SIP clearly emphasizes social factors such as self-categorizations and contextual factors including the salience of groups, and the stability and legitimizing of group relations (Turner, 1987). SDT also considers social identification, contextual factors such as status differences, connections with social institutions and social roles, cultural factors and structural relations (Sidanius, 2000). Although SDT argues that SDO is a relatively stale personality variable, they do agree that levels of SDO can correspond with shifts in the intergroup context (Sidanius et al, 2004). SIP also argues that ethnocentrism can vary based on the context and structural position of groups (Turner et al, 1994). Levin (1996) found that when differences between groups of Jewish Israelis were made salient, high-status Jewish Israelis were more positively orientated toward inequality than lower status Jewish Israelis. However, when thinking about Israeli-Palestine relations, the groups did not differ in attitudes towards inequality. Further, Schmitt, Branscomb and Kappen (2003, study 3) found that the participants who believed inequality favored their university (ingroup) were much more positive towards the inequality than the other participants, showing that the social-structural position of groups influences attitudes. Differences between Social Identity Perspective and Social Dominance Theory Although there are some general similarities between these theories, they contrast on many specific points. Focus on Personality or Social Factors as Causing Ethnocentrism The major difference between these two theories is their focus on either personality or social factors as causing ethnocentrism. SDT argues that the personality variable SDO is the main factor predicting ethnocentric behaviour (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). In contrast, SIP argues that identification with the ingroup and self-categorization as a group member through a process of depersonalization leads to ethnocentrism (Reynolds, Turner, Haslam, and Ryan, 2001). There is evidence for each argument. Evidence that ethnocentrism is caused by levels of SDO. There is evidence that SDO scores are correlated with attitudes and beliefs related to ethnocentrism. SDO was positively correlated with racism, sexism, conservatism, ethnic prejudice, nationalism, patriotism and cultural elitism in a diverse sample of 19,000 participants from 13 samples (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, and Malle, 1994). People with higher levels of SDO also reported that they intended to work in more hierarchy-enhancing professions as opposed to hierarchy-attenuating professions (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). There is also evidence that support for discriminatory policies, strict laws, military programs, war; the death penalty and belief in legal retribution are positively correlated with SDO (Sidaius, Lui, Pratto and Shaw, 1994). High SDO scores and dominance-oriented prejudice have also been found to be related to personality characteristics such as being disagreeable, vindictive, hostile or seeing social inequality as â€Å"they way it should be† (Lippa & Arad, 1999). However, there is no evidence that SDO causes ethnocentrism, only that some aspects of ethnocentrism are closely related to a dominance orientated personality measure. There is also evidence that SDO predicts outgroup discrimination and negativity in minimal group studies. Sidanius and Pratto (2004) found that people who scored higher on SDO had a greater desire for social distance from the outgroup, were less willing to cooperate, showed a tendency to accept group boundaries and a desire to dominate other groups. They concluded that although ingroup favoritism is important, SDO is needed to fully explain ethnocentrism. Evidence against the assertion that SDO causes ethnocentrism. Recent evidence suggests a different explanation for these results. Schmitt et al (2003) argue that the results of experiments showing SDO is related to ethnocentrism are actually due to the way specific forms of inequality are salient for participants as they fill in SDO measures. Schmitt et al (2003) tested this in study 1, and found that SDO was only correlated with racism if race was a salient social categorization at the time. Study 2 provided further support, showing that sexism scores only predicted SDO when gender was salient, and racism scores only predicted SDO when race was salient. Therefore, when people are completing a measure of SDO, they are actually expressing their attitudes towards inequality specific to salient social groups rather than pre-existing, stable individual dispositions towards inequality (Schmitt et al, 2003). Evidence that ethnocentrism is caused by self-categorization. Tajfe, Billing, Bundy and Flament (1971) conducted the first minimal group studies which led to SIP. In these experiments participants were divided into one of two groups of the basis of some meaningless dimension, and then allocated resources to members of the two groups. Despite the minimal conditions, participants still acted in an ethnocentric way, showing ingroup favouritism. Additionally, when given the choice of maximising joint benefits (for the ingroup and outgroup) or maximising comparative benefits, participants tended to chose the option that gave the ingroup comparatively more than the outgroup. This discrimination in minimal groups has been found over a range of cultures and dimensions, and shows that categorization of people into groups can produce discrimination (Turner, 1986). General evidence for SIP over personality theories of ethnocentrism comes from Haslam and Wilson (2000), who found that personal beliefs were more predictive of prejudice when they reflected stereotypic beliefs shared within an in-group. Perreault and Bourhis (1999) found that ingroup identification was the only factor which predicted discrimination in minimal groups, and that a range of personality variables had no impact Role of SDO. Another key difference between the theories is that while SDT describes SDO as a relatively stable personality variable, SIP argues that it varies in different situations, in different groups, and based on identification. Reynolds, Turner, Ryan, Mavor and McKone (2006) looked at the degree that personality variables (SDO and authoritarianism) can be modified using identification with either a pro or anti-feminist source. They found significant changes in levels of feminism and SDO in the different conditions, which shows that SDO can be influenced. SDO scores of individuals did not correlate well between the two phases of the experiment if participants had seen the pro-feminist message, and measures also showed that implicit prejudice and stereotyping varied in the same way as SDO. SIP provides a clear explanation for these and other results which find SDO to be stable, by arguing that attitudes can be stable in contexts where similar self-categorizations are made salient, but can change when shifts in categorization occur (Reynolds et al, 2006). Verkuyten and Hagendoorn (1998) made either a personal or national identity salient and looked at ingroup stereotypes of the Dutch’s treatment of minorities. They found that personality variables were correlated with prejudice in the personal identity condition, and ingroup stereotypes were correlated in the national identity condition. Also, when ingroup norms were of tolerance and equality, participants showed far lower levels of prejudice. This supports the SIP discontinuity hypothesis, showing that people’s attitudes change depending on what identity is salient, and ethnocentrism is determined by people’s salient self-categorizations. Reynolds, Turner, Haslam and Ryan (2001) conducted similar studies, testing prejudice when participants personal, gender, age, or national identity was salient. They found correlations between personality and prejudice in the age and gender conditions, but not in the personal or national conditions. They also found that the relationship was strongest when the gender identity was salient and weakest when a national identity was salient. So, the power of personality to predict ethnocentrism changed in the different conditions. Reynolds et al (2001) argue that SDO cannot be the psychological mechanism underlying ethnocentrism and inequality if it varies with group identity. In contrast to these results, Sidanius et al (1994) measured ethnocentrism with indexes of differential ingroup social allocation (DISA) in minimal groups, and found a direct relationship between SDO and three of the DISA indexes. Even after the effects of gender, self-esteem and ingroup identification were controlled for, subjects with higher levels of SDO displayed a greater desire for social distance from, and were less willing to cooperate with the outgroup. This demonstrates that, independent of the effects of group identification, people who have higher levels of SDO are more likely to show ethnocentric behaviour and attitudes. Explanations for varying levels of SDO across situations and in groups. A related difference between the two theories is their different explanations for the variability found in SDO scores. SDT has suggested that changes in SDO may be due to the fact that people with high SDO are more likely to identify with their group and be affected by group factors (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). In contrast, SIP has argued that SDO is a group attitude which varies in different situations (Reynolds & Turner, 2006). SIP argues that personality differences may be correlated with ethnocentrism when personal identity is salient, but group attitudes and beliefs will predict ethnocentrism when a social identity becomes salient (Reynolds and Turner, 2006). A number of studies have tested whether shifts in self categorization from personal to social identities affect the relationship between ethnocentrism and personality variables, and a few key experiments are outlined below. Sidanius, Pratto and Mitchell (1994) looked at minimal group members who evaluated each other on positive and negative domains and found that, in line with both theories, ingroup identification significantly predicted discrimination. However, people who identified highly with their group and had high levels of SDO showed more ingroup favouritism, suggesting that SDO is a key predictor of ethnocentrism. Buzimic et al (2007) tested whether personality factors affect discrimination directly or indirectly through influencing people who have higher levels of these personality variables to identify more strongly with their ingroup. They found that ingroup identification was a significant predictor of discrimination, and that it got stronger when the ingroup-outgroup categorization was more salient. Individual differences in levels of SDO did not predict discriminatory behaviour, and there was little evidence that some people have a preference for hierarchal relations between groups. In one condition, where discrimination would lead to an unequal hierarchy, participants actually showed fairness and cooperation. Although people with high SDO did not move as far towards equality as the other participants here, if there was a basic drive for inequality and dominance participants should have discriminated strongly in that condition. This study provides clear evidence that SDO does not influence ethnocentric behaviours. Explanations for gender differences in ethnocentrism Another important difference between SIP and SDT is their explanations for the gender differences in ethnocentrism. SDT takes an evolutionary stance, arguing that these differences are due to biological differences in the reproductive strategies of men and women (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). That is, men need to have lots of economic resources to attract young, attractive women, while women are focused on attracting men with resources to support their offspring (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). SDT sees this difference as stable, and not affected by structural or contextual factors, and predicts that men will almost always be more favorable towards inequality. A limitation of this explanation is that it does not explain the major changes in women’s roles that have occurred in developed countries over time (Reynolds et al, 2000). SIP argues that the lower levels of ethnocentrism in women are not due to gender differences in SDO, they are due to the same processes which result in all lower-status groups having lower levels of SDO – the different implications that the inequality has for each group (Schmitt et al, 2003). That is, women have lower levels of ethnocentrism because gender inequality results in disadvantage for them, and men have higher levels because this inequality is beneficial for them (Schmitt et al, 2003). As such, these differences should vary depending on the specific inequality which exists between the groups. Schmitt et al (2003) investigated these competing explanations. They found that men and women did not differ in levels of SDO after they considered gender inequality in both directions, and did not differ in their overall comfort with specific forms of inequality – which contradicts SDT. Gender differences in SDO were mediated by sexism, suggesting that the difference is due to women and men’s different positions in the social structure. They also found that men felt more positively about inequality that favored men, while women felt more positively about inequality which favored women. There was no correlation between gender and other types of inequality, showing that gender differences are specific to the inequality that exists between the men and women. Causes of high SDO and ethnocentrism. In contrast to SIP, SDT argues that SDO and ethnocentrism develop from three major influences: socialization factors, situational contingencies and temperament (Sidanius & Pratto, 1994). The main socialization factor is group status. SDT argues that because group superiority seems compatible with hierarchy-legitimizing myths, it seems appropriate for people in high-status groups (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). There is substantial evidence that group status is related to SDO. Pratto and Choudhury (Pratto, 1999) found that people in higher status groups had higher levels of SDO, whether group status was based on gender, ethnicity or sexual orientation. SDO has also been found to increase with the status of the major racial groups in America (Sidanius et al, 1999). Other factors which lead to SDO and ethnocentrism include gender, and temperament or personality factors. Evidence for this shows SDO declines with empathy and increases with aggression. Education is also thought to be involved, with higher levels of education correlating with lower SDO and prejudice generally. However, this seems to contradict other SDT predictions, as you would expect that people with higher levels of education would be in higher status groups. Finally, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, religiosity and employment status are also thought to be involved. Sidanius and Pratto (1994) found that these demographic variables accounted for 21% of the variance in SDO scores. However, across samples and nations, only gender and group status were reliably related to SDO. Explanations for differences in ethnocentrism in different status groups Although both SDT and SIP agree that group status effects ethnocentrism, they differ in their explanations of why this is so. SDT argues that group status directly effects people’s SDO, and group differences in acceptance of legitimizing myths account for group differences in SDO (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). In contrast, SIP argues that SDO scores reflect attitudes towards the specific types of inequality that are salient (Schmitt et al, 2003). Schmitt et al (2003, study 4) investigated these competing explanations. They found that men and Whites were more pro-inequality than women and ethnic minorities. However, they found that gender differences in SDO were totally mediated by sexism, but not by racism, and racial differences in SDO were mediated by racism, but not by sexism. So, group differences in SDO are not indicative of group differences in a general orientation towards inequality, but are reflective of group differences in attitudes relevant to the specific inequality existing between groups. Explanations for outgroup favoritism Another important difference between the two theories is their explanations for outgroup favoritism, and their predictions of when outgroup favoritism will occur. Many studies illustrate that low-status group’s show outgroup favoritism (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). SDT developed the asymmetrical ingroup bias hypothesis, which states that high-status groups will show more ingroup favoritism because it is easier and more valuable for them, and that low-status groups should show outgroup favoritism to support the social hierarchy (especially people with high SDO) (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). In contrast, SIP argues that the legitimacy and stability of intergroup relations determines when people will show outgroup favoritism (Tajfel and Turner, 1979). If group boundaries are permeable and inequalities secure (stable or legitimate), people will identify with, favor and seek to move into the high status group (Turner, 1986). If group boundaries are impermeable and secure, low status group members will accept their status and try to seek positive distinctiveness along other dimensions (Turner, 1986). If group boundaries are impermeable and insecure (that is, unstable or illegitimate), the low status group will seek to change the inequality and will show ingroup bias (Turner, 1986). There is a lot of evidence supporting these three predictions, including a meta-analysis of ingroup bias conducted by Mullen, Brown and Smith (1992) which found that while high status groups evaluated their group on dimensions relevant to the inequality, low-status groups tended to show greater ingroup favoritism on less relevant attitudes – finding alternative means of achieving positive distinctiveness. Sidanius and Pratto (1999) tested group asymmetry in ingroup favoritism and found that Blacks had higher levels of ingroup bias than Whites, consistent with SIP. Also, the SDT prediction that low-status group members will act against their own interests and show outgroup favoritism to support the unequal social system has been disconfirmed by much SIP research which shows that low-status groups will only favor high-status groups if they either identify with the group or see the inequality as stable and legitimate (Oakes, Haslam & Turner, 1994). Finally, the SDT prediction that all high-status group members will show ethnocentrism and support for inequality is problematic: ethnocentrism has been found in many different groups, of both high and low status (Reynolds & Turner, 2000). Comfort with inequality in the direction it exists in society. SDT argues that people are more comfortable with inequality as it exists in society than in the opposite direction because it is justified by hierarchy-enhancing legitimizing myths; and that people high in SDO are even more likely to accept inequality it its general direction (Sidanius and Pratto, 1994). In contrast, SIP argues that people’s social identities affect comfort with inequality – people are more likely to be comfortable with inequality which favors their ingroup rather than the outgroup (Schmitt, Branscomb & Kappen, 2003). Schmitt et al (2003, study 3) tested these contrasting predictions by asking participants to report on how comfortable they would be with four different types of inequality in both possible directions. They found that SDO did not influence participants comfort with inequality, and could not account for comfort with inequality as it exists compared to the opposite direction. These findings support SIP, showing that attitudes toward inequality depend on the type and direction of inequality being considered. The importance of ingroup favoritism or outgroup degradation in ethnocentrism. The theories also differ in the importance they assign to different aspects of ethnocentrism; SIP focuses on ingroup favoritism in producing cohesion, devotion and discrimination (Turner, 1986). In contrast, SDT focuses on personality variables which lead to outgroup negativity (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). SDT argues that SIP is limited in the scope of behaviours it can explain: ingroup favoritism and a desire for positive distinctiveness cannot explain the way some people or groups strive to dominate and oppress outgroups, and cannot explain the occurrence of oppression, ethnic wars, slavery and other such events (Sidanius, Pratto & Mitchell, 1994). A number of studies support SDT in their criticism of SIP. Brewer (1979) found that most intergroup discrimination in minimal groups was bias in favor of the ingroup rather than denigration of the outgroup. Hewstone, Fincham and Jaspars (1981) investigated when people will take money away from ingroup and outgroup members in minimal groups, and found less ingroup favoritism and that the predominant strategy used was fairness. Mummendey et al (1992) investigated allocation of negative outcomes to the ingroup and outgroup and did not find any evidence of ingroup favoritism and that fairness was the main strategy used. However, when group size and status were manipulated in this experiment more negative allocations were made to the outgroup when the ingroup was a minority or of low status, and ingroup favoritism was the most used strategy in low status groups (Mummendey et al, 1992). These results support SIP, showing that ingroup favoritism occurs in negative domains when the ingroup is particularly motivated to achieve a positive social identity. Reynolds, Turner and Haslam (2000) also found that ingroup favoritism is not restricted to the positive domain; that participants allocated negative resources to outgroups when traits fit the ingroup-outgroup categorizations. Conclusion After considering similarities and differences in two major theories of ethnocentrism, and highlighting strengths and weakness of each, a clear conclusion emerges. SDT proposes an explanation of ethnocentrism at the individual, group and societal level, and is very good at highlighting individual differences in the desire to dominance others (Huddy, 2004). Sidanius and Pratto (1999) also provide clear evidence for how minority members are discriminated against and the way individual, institutional and other structural factors maintain inequality in numerous studies. Although it cannot explain ethnocentrism, SDT predicts and demonstrates that people high in SDO show more prejudice and endorse measures which maintain inequality. In contrast, SIP argues that ethnocentrism emerges from social attitudes which are group specific, as shifts in self-categorization from an individual to a group member which produce shifts in attitudes and behaviour (Reynolds & Turner). In light of the limitations of viewing ethnocentrism as due to a relatively stable, individual disposition to inequality, SIP provides a more complete explanation. However, researchers do need to consider the value of a situationally dependent personality factor as well as social identity processes as producing ethnocentrism. References Reynolds, K. , Turner, J. , Haslam, R. , Bizumic, B. , and Subasic, E. (2007). Does personality explain ingroup identification and discrimination? Evidence from the minimal group paradigm. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 517-539 Perreault, S and Bourhis, R. Y. (1998). Social identification, interdependence and discrimination. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 1,49-66 Sidanius, J. , Pratto, F. , van Larr, C. , and Levin, S. (2004). Social dominance theory: its agenda and method. Political Psychology, 25, 6 Sidanius, J. , Pratto, F. , and Mitchell, M. (1994). In-group identification, social dominance orientation, and differential intergroup social allocation. The Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 2, 151-162 Wilson Haslam and Wilson (2000). In what sense are prejudiced beliefs personal? The British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 1 Rubin, M. and Hewstone, M. (2004). Social identity, system justification, and social dominance: commentary on Reicher, Jost et al. , and Sidanius et al. Political Psychology, 25, 6, 823-844 Schmitt, M. T. , Branscomb, N. R. , and Kappen, D. M. (2003). Attitudes towards group based inequality: social dominance or social identity. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 161-186 Hogg, M. A. , Terry , D. J. , and White, K. M. (1995). A tale of two theories: a critical comparison of identity theory with social identity theory. Psychology Quarterly, 58, 255-270 Negy, C. , Shreve, T. L. , Jensen, B. J. , and Uddin, N. Ethnic Identity, Self-Esteem, and Ethnocentrism: A Study of Social Identity Versus Multicultural Theory of Development. Reynolds, K. J. , Turner, J. C. , and Haslam, S. A. (2000) When are we better than them and they worse than us? A closer look at social discrimination in positive and negative domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 64-80. Pratto, J. , Sidanius, F. , Stallworth and Malle. (1994). Social dominance orientation: a personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. 67, 4 Lippa and Arad. (1999). Gender, personality and prejudice: the display of authoritarianism and social dominance in interviews with college men and women. Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 463-493 Turner, J. C. and Reynolds, K. J. (2003). Why social dominance theory has been falsified. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 199-206 Sidanius, J. , and Pratto, F. (1999). Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression. Cambridge University Press: New York Oaks, P. J. , Haslam, S. A. and Turner, J. C. (1994). Stereotyping and Social Reality: Blackwell Publishers: Oxford Huddy, L. (2004). Contrasting theoretical approaches to intergroup relations. Political Psychology, 25, 6, 947-967 Reynolds, K. J. , Turner, J. C. , Haslam, A. , and Ryan, M. K. (2001). The role of personality and group factors in explaining prejudice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 427-434 Pratto, F. , Sidanius, J. , Stallworth, L. M. , and Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: a personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. 67 4, 741-763 Bizumic, B. , Duckitt, J. , Popadic, D. , Dru, V. , and Drauss, S. (2008). A cross-cultural investigation into a reconceptualization of ethnocentrism. European Journal of Social Psychology Verkuyten, M. , and Hagendoorn, L. (1998). Prejudice and self-categorization: the variable role of authoritarianism and in-group stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 99-110 Bizumic, B. , Reynolds, K. J. , Turner, J. C. , Subasic, E. , and Johnson, S. C. How stable are prejudice and ideology? Evidence of variability as a function of motivational orientation. Presentation given Bizumic, B et al serials article. Mummendy, A. Simon, B. , Dietze, C. , Grunert, M. Haeger, G. , Kessler, S. , Lettgen, S. & Schaferhoff, S. (1992). Categorization is not enough: intergroup discrimination in negative outcome allocation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. Vol. 28 (2): 125-144 Pratto, F. (1999). The puzzle of continuing group inequality: piecing together psychological, social and cultural forces in social dominance theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed. ), Advances in experimental social psychology, 31, 191-263. NY: Academic Press When Are We Better Than Them and They Worse Than Us? A Closer Look at Social Discrimination in Positive and Negative Domains Katherine J. Reynolds, John C. Turner, and S. Alexander Haslam 2000, journal of personality and social psychology, 78, p. 64 Tajfel, H. , & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds. ), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall Tajfel, H. , Billing, M. , Bundy, R. , & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 5-43 Turner, J. C. (1987). Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory. Basil Blackwell: Oxford

African Slaves During The Middle Passage - 2224 Words

While many slaves succumbed to the violence and terror during the Middle Passage, not all individuals survived these conditions. Out of desperation, many Africans preferred to die, as they lost their will to live. Personal narratives after narrative fully describe the putrid holds and atrocious conditions below the ship. It is apparent the captain of the ship was wholly responsible for the transportation and profit of the â€Å"cargo.† The over-packing of African slaves increased, as the demand for labor in the Americas increased. The enslaved Africans were at the mercy of the ship’s captain and the crew. Unfortunately, those would seek immediate economic wealth are often shortsighted and do not consider the long-term effects. Driven by greed, European traders did not improve horrifying conditions, in which the African slaves endured. In addition, the physical structure of the ship played a fundamental role in the deterioration of the physical health of the African slav es. If European traders transported fewer slaves, maybe more slaves could have survived the long journey across the Atlantic Ocean. Thus, ensuring the sale and delivery of a healthy slave. Due to cramped living conditions, poor hygiene, and a shortage of food, sickness and disease circulated below the decks of the slave ships. One of the most significant physical health problems was malnutrition. The quantity and quality of food were both inadequate, as the ship crews did not want to squander the resources toShow MoreRelatedTriangular Trade Route And The Middle Passage Essay1042 Words   |  5 Pagesfor African slaves. The transfer of the slaves was referred to as the middle passage. The middle passage was a harsh and aggressive way of trading African slaves for economic use. The use of African slaves may have been a short term success for the American people however, the long term effect was horrific. Slave trade dates back to Ancient Europe, so the Middle passage shouldn’t be anything different from the norm. However, this was a harsh and gruesome way of trading slaves. Many Africans wereRead MoreThe Middle Passage1035 Words   |  5 Pagesgoods and services such as slaves, sugar, tobacco, cotton, textiles, and many other manufactured goods. One history changing route was the Middle Passage. The course of this route was used to transport kidnapped Africans so they could be enslaved in the Americas. Within a three hundred year period, it is approximated that over ten million African slaves were kidnapped and trafficked to the Americas through the Middle Passage. The plights of the slaves across the middle passage were increased by the physicalRead MoreThe Extreme Cruelty of the Middle Passage Essay1730 Words   |  7 Pageswhere innocent African Americans encountered such a brutal torment. This infamous ordeal is called the Middle Passage or the â€Å"middle leg† of the Triangular Trade, which was the forceful voyage of African Americans from Africa to the New World. The Africans were taken from their homeland, boarded onto the dreadful ships, and scattered into the New World as slaves. 10- 16 million Africans were shipped across the Atlantic during the 1500’s to the 1900’s and 10- 15 percent of them died during the voyageRead MoreEssay on Slave Ship1383 Words   |  6 PagesThe Slave Ship by Marcus Rediker is a great fiction novel that describes the horrifying experiences of Africans, seamen, and captains on their journey through the Middle Passage. The Middle Passage marked the water way in the Atlantic Ocean between Africa and the Americas. The use of slaves provided a great economy for the European countries due to the fact that these African slaves provided free labor while cultivating sugar cane in the Caribbean and America. Rediker describes the slave migrationRead MoreThe Transatlantic Slave Trade And The Middle Pas sage Analysis841 Words   |  4 Pagesof the Transatlantic Slave Trade was known as the ‘Outward Passage’. This is where ships carried goods from Europe to trade in Africa for captured slaves. The ‘Middle Passage’ was the second stage of the Transatlantic Slave Trade. The last stage of the Transatlantic Slave Trade was the Return Passage which is where ships returned back to Europe from the New World, usually carrying cargo that consisted of sugar and tobacco they got in exchange for the slaves. The ‘Middle Passage’ was infamously knownRead MoreThe Middle Passage And The Transatlantic Slave Trade1594 Words   |  7 PagesGray History 1301-155 June 22, 15 The Middle Passage During history there has been plenty of slave trade in different countries. They have traded different ethnicities, and each had a different means of use for these people. What is intriguing is how they commuted these people and how this process has impacted their descendants. A major use of trade in history was the middle passage that was part of the transatlantic slave route. â€Å"The transatlantic slave trade concerns history of three continentsRead MoreThe Difficult and Devastating Lives of African People725 Words   |  3 Pages Being an African back during the fifteenth through nineteenth century wasn’t exactly a walk in the park. Waking up every day, living in tribes, and doing daily duties were the most common day for Africans. Until, the middle passage emerged, also known as the Slave Trade. Africans were taken through a devastating ride through history in the making. Africans were kidnapped out of nowhere by the â€Å"white men†. The British, the Europeans, the Caucasian all took part of this â€Å"middle passage era†. Read MoreThe Slave Trade of Europe and The Americas That Lasted 350 Years1050 Words   |  4 PagesDuring the sixteenth century, European merchants began to realize trading Africans for plantation labor to the Americas was the most profitable measure. The Middle Passage is the journey in which slaves were transported to The Americas from West Africa, and sold for profit. The slaves were kidnapped or purchased from their motherland, forced to march to the coast to be sold. The captives were purchased by European merchants, branded and transported to the new world (The Americas). When they arrivedRead MoreHistory Of The United States Before The Civil War1600 Words   |  7 Pagesbuying and selling captured Africans, black slavery had become an institution in the Spanish and Portuguese colonies in South America and the Caribbean islands. The discovery of raw sugar and rum in the Caribbean created a lucrative opportunity for the Spanish and Portuguese, but they needed people to do the work. With such little population and difficulty enslaving the natives, the Portuguese found it easier and beneficial to enslave African slaves. The use of mass slave labor enabled Spain and PortugalRead MoreThe Beginning of the Slave Trade Essay example560 Words   |  3 Pagescircumstances did the slave trade begin? After the Bantu people migrated to numerous sections in Africa, this particular movement set the spread of agriculture in motion. From the 15th to the 19th century, the Europeans looked to Africa as a work force (slaves) to nurture their farms in the western hemisphere. As mentioned in our text, Traditions and encounters, â€Å"In exchange for slaves, African peoples received European manufactured products†¦.† (p. 424). Furthermore, the Africans had experience in

Should Electronic Cigarettes Be Regulated - 1090 Words

As stated by Eleanor Roosevelt, â€Å"One s philosophy is not best expressed in words; it is expressed in the choices one makes... and the choices we make are ultimately our responsibility.† Everybody has a myriad choices in life. Some choices are better than others, and some are the worst choices one could have possibly chosen. The choices of one may work in one’s favor, or one’s choices may work in contrariety of one’s goals altogether. Electronic cigarettes, also called e-cigarettes or e-cigs, are an alternative choice to smoking actual cigarettes. Whether e-cigarettes should be regulated is a controversial topic among the people of the world today. A few people withhold the beliefs that electronic cigarettes should not be regulated as regular cigarettes are. It is possible that they believe that the regulation will lead to the prohibition or cease of smoking wholly. However, speaking as a candor person, one may say that these people are blind to the po tential harms that the lack of regulation could create and that the lack of regulation may actually be causing electronic cigarettes to work in opposition of the purpose they are mostly used for. E-cigarettes are proven to not to have the same detrimental effects as regular cigarettes, however they are potently harmful, with different and serious consequences. The regulations would not be banning electronic cigarettes; the regulations are working to protect the health and well-being of everyone. Predominantly, regulations areShow MoreRelatedElectronic Cigarettes Should Be Regulated923 Words   |  4 Pagesfirst degree after the E-cig he was smoking blow up in his face (electronic cigarettes should be regulated, 2015). In 1963, Herbert A. Gilbert patented the first E-cig, whose produced Cigalike device to heat the nicotine resolution and create water vapor (electronic cigarettes should be regulated, 2015). But Hon Lik, a Chinese pharmacist, made the modern E-cig in 2003, to control the smoking desire (electronic cigarettes should be regulated, 2015). On other hand, there are many studies warn about theRead MoreElectronic Cigarettes Should Be Regulated924 Words   |  4 Pagesfirst degree after the E-cig he was smoking blow up in his face (electronic cigarettes should be regulated, 2015). In 1963, Herbert A. Gilbert patented the first E-cig, whose produced Cigalike device to heat the nicotine resolution and create water vapor (electronic cigarettes should be regulated, 2015) . But Hon Lik, a Chinese pharmacist, made the modern E-cig in 2003, to control the smoking desire (electronic cigarettes should be regulated, 2015). On other hand, there are many studies warn about theRead MoreThe Effects Of E Cigarettes On The Health Organization1503 Words   |  7 Pagesalternatives; the highest in demand being the electronic cigarette or e-cigarette. E-cigarettes are battery-powered devices that create a vapor mist from a heated liquid solution when the user inhales on a mouthpiece (Wagaman). As of their creation in 2006, a growing number of people are taking up â€Å"vaping† instead of smoking, resulting in an industry worth $2.7 billion worldwide (Senthilingam). Although the product is healthier than the traditional tobacco cigarette, there are many defects that keep it fromRead MoreShould Tobacco Cigarettes Be Harmful?1018 Words   |  5 Pagesis widely accepted that tobacco cigarettes are linked to cancer and lung disease, which is often a reason why people decide to quit. Due to the addictive nature of nicotine, a component of cigarettes, people have developed products in hopes of combatting this dangerous addiction. Nicotine replacement products come in different forms, such as gum, patches, and electronic cigarettes. While these creations are believed to aid in gaining back independence from cigarette addiction, there is some doubtRead MoreSmoke and Mirrors: Controversy over Electronic Cigarette Regulation1405 Words   |  6 Pagessmoking cigarettes, so he switched to a new alternative: an e-cigarette. Electronic cigarettes contain no tobacco, and vaporize a vegetable glycerol fluid that contains nicotine, mimicking the feeling of smoking a burn cigarette without the tar, dangerous gases, and unpleasant smell (Block). In most states, smokers can â€Å"vape† in public places with their e-cigarettes, receiving the nicotine of a burn cigarette without complaint from others. Heavy smokers find that they can use e-cig arettes to graduallyRead MoreElectronic Cigarettes: The Alternative Way to Smoke Essays1191 Words   |  5 PagesElectronic Cigarettes: The Alternative Way to Smoke Once again man is faced with the age old question to smoke or not to smoke. Today, I feel that isn’t the question that faces man. The question should be why smoke when one could vape? The use of battery-powered electronic cigarettes is growing across Europe and the United States because they allow users to inhale nicotine vapor without also ingesting tar and other cancer-causing substances present in traditional cigarettes (par. 2). Health expertsRead MoreUsing Vaporizing Pens Are Becoming A Very Popular Trend Essay1330 Words   |  6 PagesThough still awaiting FDA approval, the electronic cigarette, or e-cigarette, is growing popularity among those attempting to quit smoking. Young people are using vaporizing pens as a â€Å"safe alternative† to smoking. This issue needs to be addressed. Vaping is a lot more convenient than smoking traditional cigarettes. At a push of a button nicotine is being released. There also aren’t any laws or regulations on vapor pens like there are for traditional cigarettes. Vape pens also aren’t being used forRead MoreElectronic Cigarettes Should Be Legal1444 Words   |  6 PagesElectronic cigarettes are designed to replicate cigarettes without the smoke, tobacco, and tar. Although smokers enjoy the electronic version of a cigarette, many non-smokers are not too fond of being around one. These devices provide nicotine to the user by converting a liquid mixture to an aerosol, usually composed of propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, flavored chemicals, and a varying amount of nicotine (Grana). Electronic cigarettes have caused a major debate among doctors, smokers, andRead MoreThe Act Of Inhaling Vapor ( Or Vaping )993 Words   |  4 Pagesto increased knowledge of how it harms the body. Tobacco once ruled the world; now in the digital age a new way to inhale smoke has come into being. Electronic Cigarettes, or e-cigs as they are more commonly known, have become very popular in recent years. The ac t of inhaling vapor (or vaping) has become a social norm; much like smoking a cigarette was just a few years ago. But with an increase in public usage the FDA must make a decision. In an OP-ED written by Sally L. Satel, M.D for the NewRead MoreRegulating Electronic Cigarettes : Electronic Cigarette1328 Words   |  6 PagesAbourezk Mrs. Houseberg Sophomore english 5 February 2015 Regulating Electronic cigarettes Electronic cigarettes, also known as e-cigs or vape pens are so often negatively looked upon as sources of addiction, rather than the health cigarette substitute they really are. E-cigarettes allow the delivery of nicotine to the blood without the nasty side effects caused by tars and carcinogens in traditional cigarettes. The electronic cigarette was patented by Herbert A. Gilbert in 1963, who lived in a society