Can this be done by at 8 pm 4/22

The Myth of Meritocracy and African American Health
Recent theoretical and

empirical studies of the so-

cial determinants of health

inequities have shown that

economic deprivation, mul-

tiple levels of racism, and

neighborhood context limit

African American health

chances and that African

Americans’ poor health sta-

tus is predicated on unequal

opportunity to achieve the

American Dream.

President Obama’s elec-

tion has been touted as

a demonstration of Ameri-

can meritocracy—the belief

that all may obtain the Amer-

ican Dream—and has instilled

hope in African Americans.

However, we argue that

in the context of racism

and other barriers to suc-

cess, meritocratic ideology

may act as a negative health

determinant for African

Americans. (Am J Public

H e a l t h . 2 0 1 0 ; 1 0 0 : 1 8 3 1 –

1 8 3 4 . d o i : 1 0 . 2 1 0 5 / A J P H .

2009.18644 5)

Naa Oyo A. Kwate, PhD, and Ilan H. Meyer, PhD

ON JULY 16, 2009, PRESIDENT

Barack Obama spoke at the
NAACP at its centennial celebra-
tion, articulating a common goal
for the association and his admin-
istration: ‘‘We want everyone
to participate in the American
Dream.’’ He argued that although
poor and African American chil-
dren face social challenges, these
challenges need not stop their
success: ‘‘No one has written your
destiny for you. Your destiny is in
your hands. . . . That’s what we
have to teach all our children. No
excuses.’’1 This notion—that
through striving, anyone can
achieve and create his or her own
destiny—is central to American
ideology. This ideology asserts
that the United States is a meri-
tocracy and that its citizens—re-
gardless of the social stratum from
which they start—should aspire
to, and in fact can attain, the height
of social and economic success
described as the American Dream.
American meritocracy, the claim
goes, has liberated its citizens from
old-world confines of class and
heritage. President Obama per-
sonifies the promise of American
meritocracy—an African American
man in a country with a long
history of racism, rising from very
modest means. His presidency
seems to demonstrate that the
American Dream is indeed within
anyone’s reach.

But what if belief in the Amer-
ican Dream can lead to poor
health among African Americans?
Compared with Whites, African
Americans experience more mor-
bidity and mortality resulting from
economic and other inequalities.2

Moreover, upward socioeconomic
mobility does not always lead to

better health for African Ameri-
cans.3 We propose that in the
context of strong social barriers to
success, especially racism, belief
in meritocratic ideology may be
detrimental to African American
health.

We do not suggest that believ-
ing in the American Dream is
ineluctably detrimental to all Af-
rican Americans, nor do we sug-
gest that such beliefs should be
eradicated. Certainly, belief in
meritocracy and the possibility of
success through hard work and
effort undergirds American opti-
mism and attempts to achieve. In-
stead, we hope to problematize
how public health researchers and
policymakers understand meri-
tocracy by looking at some of the
less visible ways in which merito-
cratic ideology may jeopardize
health and well-being. We intro-
duce our ideas about the potential
pathogenic effect of meritocracy
and briefly discuss two mecha-
nisms: individual, through the im-
pact of stress and coping on health,
and structural, through the impact
of beliefs and values on policies.
Figure 1 depicts some mechanisms
through which meritocratic ideol-
ogy may lead to poor health.

THE NATURE OF
MERITOCRACY

Meritocracy has been described
as America’s dominant ideology.4

Indeed, it is so dominant as to be
hegemonic—to eschew it is un-
American.5 America’s history and
folklore are replete with ideas re-
lated to meritocracy, suggesting
that individual agency and resil-
ience will lead to economic success.
For example, novelist Horatio

Alger’s stories envisioned America
as a meritocratic republic where
all personal and societal rewards
were equitably bestowed. The
rags-to-riches life trajectories
enjoyed by his characters remain
a seductive and affirming narra-
tive in American culture. The
American Dream is salient in our
national consciousness,6 and for
many, it serves as a powerful
motivator to strive for success.
Moreover, for African Americans,
meritocratic ideology can lower
perceived vulnerability to preju-
dice,7 providing a sense of hope. It
is difficult to argue with the mes-
sage of hope inherent in merito-
cratic ideology that is reflected, for
example, in President Obama’s
message to African American
schoolchildren that they can cre-
ate their own destinies.

Still, as Merton8 noted, there
is often a disjuncture between
America’s meritocratic values that
promote aspiration for success
and the opportunity structure—the
social, economic, and political
structures that make success
possible. The problem is that op-
portunities are not equally dis-
tributed, and they are not allotted
solely by meritocratic criteria.
For example, racism serves as
a strong barrier to African Amer-
ican’s achievement. Even if unin-
tended, the promise of equality
inherent in meritocratic ideology
serves to elide racism. Indeed,
Geronimus and Thompson
viewed meritocracy as part of
a broader set of racialized ideolo-
gies that undergird health dispar-
ities. They argued that ideologies
that laud equality and personal
responsibility imagine a ‘‘commu-
nity of virtuous seekers of the

COMMENTARIES

October 2010, Vol 100, No. 10 | American Journal of Public Health Kwate and Meyer | Peer Reviewed | Commentaries | 1831

American Dream, people who
work hard, play by the rules, and
suffer the consequences if they
don’t.’’5(p252)

Within this context, African
Americans’ demands for economic
justice can be seen as unwar-
ranted5; their lower economic and
social standing is explained as in-
dividual failure rather than the
effects of long-standing racism.
These views are represented
among some civil rights theorists.
Traditionalists contend that post–
civil rights African American cap-
ital deficiencies reflect African
American cultural deficiencies,
such as the rejection of main-
stream culture, victimhood, and
other self-defeating behaviors.9

They therefore eschew govern-
mental remediation, essentially
calling on African American peo-
ple to ‘‘overpower strong envi-
ronmental headwinds by dint of
willpower.’’9(p34)

MERITOCRATIC IDEOLOGY
AND SOCIAL INEQUALITY

Meritocratic ideology imbri-
cates the moral economy—the
norms that govern economic ac-
tivity and society’s protections and
privileges.10 Americans are con-
flicted about the inequality in their
society and, hence, the need for
and urgency of political action to
promote equality.11 When in-
equalities can be rationalized as
inevitable outcomes of lack of
talent, skill, or work ethic, in-
equalities in wealth and health can
be justified as reflecting individual,
not societal, failings.10

System justification theory il-
luminates the relationship be-
tween meritocratic ideology and
political inaction, showing why
even the most disenfranchised
citizens view inequalities as nec-
essary and even fair.12 The the-
ory, and related research, shows

that although the system is char-
acterized by inequalities in ac-
cess to resources, life chances,
and life outcomes, believing that
this is a just arrangement can be
palliative. This reduces anxiety,
dissonance, and perceptions of
unfairness.12 Among the disad-
vantaged, who bear the brunt of
inequalities, system-justifying at-
titudes are often the strongest.13

Because meritocratic ideology
promises everyone the chance to
succeed, it diverts attention from
structures and conditions, such
as those related to racism, that
make it impossible for many to
succeed. This is not to say that
individuals believe everything is
fair; rather, they hold attitudes
that are more positive toward the
system than are warranted.14

Meritocratic ideology can obfus-
cate features of the opportunity
structure that erect barriers to
success.

A political climate guided by
meritocratic ideology is related to
general lack of support for social
programs that assist those most
in need. The American public’s
and policymakers’ belief in mer-
itocratic ideology catalyzes oppo-
sition to policies that contradict
the idea that individuals deserve
what they get and get what they
deserve. For example, research
shows that meritocratic ideolo-
gies influence opinions about
how much governmental assis-
tance should be provided to low-
income women.15 Ironically, it is
among the disadvantaged, who
bear the brunt of inequalities, that
system-justifying attitudes are
often the strongest.13 In some
studies, poor Southern African
Americans were more likely than
were their higher-income coun-
terparts to endorse meritocratic
notions that hard work leads to
success.13 ‘‘Individuals who do not
recognize that they are treated un-
justly will not protest,’’4(p342) mak-
ing agitation for equality less likely.

Thus, meritocratic ideology
leads to policies that advance
fewer allocations to help the
disadvantaged, such as health
care and welfare. Indeed, merit-
ocratic ideology is associated
with the endorsement of income
inequality,13 which in turn is not
only strongly associated with
health but also associated with
‘‘the heart of problems which
beset our societies and are con-
stantly in the news.’’16(p1976) Al-
though meritocratic ideology
may exert subtle and pervasive
influence on American politics,
support for social programs has
varied across US history, and this
variation is not necessarily coex-
tensive with the cultural strength
of meritocratic ideals. Strong social
programs may be implemented
even in a climate in which merit-
ocratic ideologies are salient.

FIGURE 1—Structural and individual pathways through which meritocratic ideology may harm African

American health.

COMMENTARIES

1832 | Commentaries | Peer Reviewed | Kwate and Meyer American Journal of Public Health | October 2010, Vol 100, No. 10

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/action/showImage?doi=10.2105/AJPH.2009.186445&iName=master.img-000.png&w=382&h=224

Often, however, in the context
of meritocratic ideology, social
programs reproduce extant in-
equalities. For example, Franklin
D. Roosevelt introduced the GI
Bill (i.e., the Servicemen’s Read-
justment Act of 1944) to provide
returning veterans unemployment
pay while they looked for work;
tuition allowances; and loans
for homes, farms, or to start
a business.17 Today, the program
is hailed as legislation that trans-
formed the United States by
dramatically expanding higher
education, housing and highway
construction, and small businesses
and, most important, by provid-
ing a gateway to the middle class
for thousands of Americans.18

Supposedly, the GI Bill made
good on core meritocratic
ideals:

All those promises that brought
people to our shores from the
very beginning, that in this
country there was opportunity to
extend yourself to the limits of
your ability. Education provided
that opportunity for millions of
people, made the promise of
America real.18

But for African American vet-
erans, the promise of the GI Bill
was largely foregone. African
American GIs were dispropor-
tionately and unfairly given dis-
honorable discharges, making
them ineligible for GI Bill benefits.
Those who were eligible were
unable to translate their benefits
into education or housing oppor-
tunities because the program
operated through federal (e.g.,
Federal Housing Administration,
Veteran’s Administration) and
private institutions (e.g., colleges,
banks) that actively discriminated
against them.17 Resultant inequal-
ities in African American wealth
and education levels are in turn
used as evidence that African
Americans are unable to compete
in a meritocratic system.

Public discourse on home own-
ership and neighborhood quality
has been punctuated by assertions
that African American residents
lack appropriate values, reflecting
and reinforcing meritocratic
ideology. Although some Whites
agree that some individual dis-
crimination exists, many remain
skeptical that macrolevel policies
and choices are discriminatory or
that they harm African Americans.
Contrary to evidence,19 they be-
lieve that the passage of civil rights
laws has eradicated institutional
level and systemic bias in the
housing market.20 Thus, Whites
argue that negative features, such
as crime, in predominantly African
American neighborhoods reflect
character deficits. As one White
respondent said,

I think the majority aren’t en-
thused, not motivated, and don’t
care. . . . The opportunity is there
if they want to take advantage. I
don’t think most Blacks want to
work for anything.21

Described as the cornerstone
upon which African American–
White health disparities are
founded,22 racial residential seg-
regation is a critical structural
pathway through which merito-
cratic ideology harms health. Pre–
civil rights bias continues to
undergird stark differences in Af-
rican American–White wealth,23

but the US polity has been reluc-
tant to recognize or remediate
segregation and housing discrimi-
nation. The US Supreme Court
ruled in 1992 to end a court-
ordered integration program,
holding that if resegregation was
the result of private individual
choices and not state action, there
were no constitutional implica-
tions.21 Thus, meritocratic ideolo-
gies legitimize existing status
differences and policies that
harm health by locating the

responsibility for social status
within individual characteristics.

MERITOCRATIC IDEOLOGY
AND STRESS

Stress theory has been one of
the core theoretical approaches
to the study of health disparities in
the United States, arguing that
social and psychological demands
can be taxing and lead to adverse
health outcomes.24 Meritocratic
ideology may be a source of stress.
If social status tends to be attrib-
uted to individual responsibility,
meritocratic ideology may be as-
sociated with adverse health out-
comes among African Americans
by increasing the risk of internal-
izing negative self-attributions for
failure to obtain the American
Dream. To endorse meritocratic
ideology—as most Americans
do—means to be at risk for the
psychic toll borne from percep-
tions about not measuring up.
Alford Young’s ethnography of
poor African American men from
Chicago’s near west side25 is par-
ticularly instructive in this regard.
When asked if race was an im-
portant issue in American life, one
participant responded, ‘‘It ain’t
important. . . . To me it’s within the
individual to get along. To me it’s
up to the person, you know. I don’t
think it’s a racial thing.’’25(p143)

This exemplifies both meritocratic
ideology and related system justi-
fication. If it’s up to ‘‘the individual
to get along,’’ then society is ex-
empt from the responsibility to
remediate racial inequities.

Such denial of racism can have
a harmful impact on health.
Among working-class African
American women and men, re-
spondents who denied experienc-
ing discrimination had higher
blood pressure than did those who
reported discrimination.26 Simi-
larly, denial of racial discrimination

vis-à-vis self-report and implicit
assessment was associated with
hypertension among African
American respondents with less
than a college degree.27 These
paradoxical findings may indi-
cate that individuals who can
express their experience with
racism face lower health risks
than do individuals who inter-
nalize it.26 If meritocratic ideol-
ogy subverts the recognition and
articulation of racial inequality,
rather than acting as a source of
uplift, it may in fact place indi-
viduals at risk.

Meritocratic ideology may also
be associated with adverse health
by increasing health-damaging,
high-effort coping to overcome
adversity. Evidence suggests that
in low status groups, the endorse-
ment of meritocratic ideology can
lead to self-blame for failure to
reach a goal instead of attribution
of discrimination. Research on
John Henryism, a term inspired by
the story of John Henry, the steel-
driving man who collapsed after
competing with a high-powered
machine, shows that persistent
high-effort coping in the face of
impediments to success can lead
to hypertension among African
Americans from low socioeco-
nomic backgrounds.28 Merito-
cratic ideology may be an impor-
tant catalyst for John Henryism by
increasing the propensity for sin-
gle-minded determination to suc-
ceed and increasing self-blame
and demoralization.

CONCLUSIONS

The association of meritocratic
ideologies with poor health for
African Americans has implica-
tions for public health and health
policy. The World Health Organi-
zation sees health equity as ac-
tionable through social and eco-
nomic policy interventions.29

COMMENTARIES

October 2010, Vol 100, No. 10 | American Journal of Public Health Kwate and Meyer | Peer Reviewed | Commentaries | 1833

Three overarching recommenda-
tions are to (1) improve daily living
conditions; (2) tackle the inequi-
table distribution of power,
money, and resources; and (3)
measure both the extent of health
inequities and the impact of policy
and action. At the heart of the
second aim is a call to address
inequities in the way society is
organized.29 To do that requires
recognizing that societal structure
is not simply the reflection of
variation in individual talents and
effort, as suggested by meritocratic
ideologies.

To accomplish significant
changes, we must broadly define
health policy as encompassing
a range of governmental policies,
including labor, education, and
transportation.30 For example,
educating American youths
about inequality—given that
many Americans are not aware
of social disparities and the
means by which they are per-
petuated11—is not just good ped-
agogy, it is indirectly health pol-
icy. African American parents
socialize their children to nego-
tiate their social world from
a position of psychological
strength, self-efficacy, and opti-
mism while remaining cognizant
of the inequality they are likely
to face. So too must the United
States socialize children to attend
to long-standing disparities in
the distribution of resources and
life chances. Again, the goal is
not to quash the American
Dream for US youths but to
discourage uncritical acceptance
of a deeply held but vexed cul-
tural value. A steadfast belief in
the United States as the land of
opportunity may be as hazardous
as it is inspiring. The American
Dream remains central to Amer-
ica’s sense of self, but as Langston
Hughes asks, ‘‘What happens to
a dream deferred?’’31(p426) j

About the Authors
At the time of writing, Naa Oyo A. Kwate
and Ilan H. Meyer were with the
Department of Sociomedical Sciences,
Mailman School of Public Health,
Columbia University, New York, NY.

Correspondence should be sent to Naa Oyo
A. Kwate, PhD, Associate Professor,
Department of Human Ecology, School of
Environmental & Biological Sciences,
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey,
55 Dudley Rd, Cook Office Building, New
Brunswick, NJ 08901-8520. Reprints can
be ordered at http://www.ajph.org by clicking
the ‘‘Reprints/Eprints’’ link.

This commentary was accepted March
31, 2010.

Contributors
Both authors conceptualized and wrote
the article.

Acknowledgments
An RWJF Investigator Award (award
66488) in Health Policy Research from
the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation,
Princeton, New Jersey, provided support
for this article.

We would like to thank Ayana April
and Anjali Dixit for their assistance with
the article’s preparation.

References
1. The White House. Remarks by the
president to the NAACP centennial con-
vention; 2009. Available at: http://
www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/
Remarks-by-the-President-to-the-NAACP-
Centennial-Convention-07/16/2009.
Accessed March 11, 2010.

2. Smedley BD, Stith AY, Nelson AR, eds.
Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and
Ethnic Disparities in Health. Washington,
DC: National Academies Press; 2003.

3. Colen CG, Geronimus AT, Bound J,
et al. Maternal upward socioeconomic
mobility and Black–White disparities in
infant birthweight. Am J Public Health.
2006;96(11):2032–2039.

4. McCoy SK, Major B. Priming meri-
tocracy and the psychological justification
of inequality. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2007;
43(3):341–351.

5. Geronimus AT, Thompson JP. To
denigrate, ignore or disrupt: racial in-
equality in health and the impact of
a policy-induced breakdown of African
American communities. Du Bois Rev.
2004;1(2):247–279.

6. Kamp D. Rethinking the American
dream. Vanity Fair. Available at: http://
www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/
2009/04/american-dream200904?
printable = true&currentPage = all.
Published April 2009. Accessed June 11,
2010.

7. Major B, Kaiser CR, O’Brien LT, et al.
Perceived discrimination as worldview
threat or worldview confirmation: impli-
cations for self-esteem. J Pers Soc Psychol.
2007;92(6):1068–1086.

8. Merton RK. Continuities in the the-
ory of social structure and anomie. In:
Social Theory and Social Structure.
Glencoe, IL: Free Press; 1957:215–248.

9. Brooks R. Racial Justice in the Age of
Obama. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univer-
sity Press; 2009.

10. James SA. Confronting the moral
economy of US racial/ethnic health dispar-
ities. Am J Public Health. 2003;93(2):189.

11. Hochschild JL. Ambivalence about
equality in the United States or, did
Tocqueville get it wrong and why does
that matter? Soc Justice Res. 2006;19(1):
43–62.

12. Jost J, Pelham B, Sheldon O, et al.
Social inequality and the reduction of
ideological dissonance on behalf of the
system: evidence of enhanced system
justification among the disadvantaged.
Eur J Soc Psychol. 2003;33:13–36.

13. Jost JT, Banaji MR, Nosek BA. A
decade of system justification theory:
accumulated evidence of conscious and
unconscious bolstering of the status quo.
Polit Psychol. 2004;25(6):881–919.

14. Napier JL, Mandisodza AN, Andersen
SM, et al. System justification in respond-
ing to the poor and displaced in the
aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Anal Soc
Issues Public Policy. 2006;6(1):57–73.

15. Appelbaum LD, Lennon MC, Aber
JL. Public Attitudes Toward Low-Income
Families and Children Research Report No.
2: How Belief in a Just World Influences
Views of Public Policy. New York, NY:
National Center for Children in Poverty;
2003.

16. Wilkinson RG, Pickett KE. The
problems of relative deprivation: why
some societies do better than others. Soc
Sci Med. 2007;65:1965–1978.

17. Cohen LA. Consumers’ Republic: The
Politics of Mass Consumption in Postwar
America. New York, NY: Knopf; 2003.

18. Lehrer J. Remembering the GI Bill: A
NewsHour With Jim Lehrer Transcript.
July 4, 2000. Available at: http://
www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/
july-dec00/gibill_7-4.html. Accessed
March 12, 2010.

19. Massey D, Lundy G. Use of Black
English and racial discrimination in urban
housing markets. Urban Aff Rev. 2001;
36(4):452–469.

20. Farley R, Steeh C, Jackson T, et al.
Continued racial residential segregation
in Detroit: ‘chocolate city, vanilla suburbs’
revisited. J Housing Res. 1993;4(1):
1–38.

21. Krysan M. Community undesirabil-
ity in Black and White: examining racial
residential preferences through commu-
nity perceptions. Soc Probl. 2002;49(4):
521–543.

22. Williams DR, Collins C. Racial resi-
dential segregation: a fundamental cause
of racial disparities in health. Public Health
Rep. 2001;116(5):404–416.

23. Shapiro TM. The Hidden Cost of
Being African American: How Wealth
Perpetuates Inequality. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press; 2005.

24. Clark R, Anderson NB, Clark VR,
et al. Racism as a stressor for African
Americans: a biopsychosocial model. Am
Psychol. 1999;54(10):805–816.

25. Young AA. The Minds of Marginal-
ized Black Men. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press; 2004.

26. Krieger N, Sidney S. Racial discrim-
ination and blood pressure: the CARDIA
study of young Black and White adults.
Am J Public Health. 1996;86(10):1370–
1378.

27. Krieger N, Carney D, Lancaster K,
et al. Combining explicit and implicit
measures of racial discrimination in
health research [published online ahead
of print Nov 17, 2009]. Am J Public
Health. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2009.
159517.

28. James SA, Keenan NL, Strogatz D,
et al. Socioeconomic status, John Henryism,
and blood pressure in Black adults. The
Pitt County Study. Am J Epidemiol. 1992;
135(1):59–67.

29. Davies M, Adshead F. Closing the
gap in a generation: health equity through
action on the social determinants of
health. An international conference based
on the work of the Commission on Social
Determinants of Health, 6–7 November
2008, London. Glob Health Promot.
2009;(suppl 1):108–109.

30. Williams DR, Jackson PB. Social
sources of racial disparities in health.
Health Aff. 2005;24(2):325–334.

31. Rampersad A, Roessel D, eds. The
Collected Poems of Langston Hughes. New
York, NY: Knopf; 1994.

COMMENTARIES

1834 | Commentaries | Peer Reviewed | Kwate and Meyer American Journal of Public Health | October 2010, Vol 100, No. 10

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.jesp.2006.04.009&citationId=p_4

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1525%2Fsp.2002.49.4.521&citationId=p_21

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1467-9221.2004.00402.x&citationId=p_13

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F1757975909103770&citationId=p_29

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/action/showLinks?pmid=15757915&crossref=10.1377%2Fhlthaff.24.2.325&citationId=p_30

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/action/showLinks?pmid=12042604&crossref=10.1016%2FS0033-3549%2804%2950068-7&citationId=p_22

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1530-2415.2006.00102.x&citationId=p_14

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1017%2FS1742058X04042031&citationId=p_5

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/action/showLinks?pmid=17547489&crossref=10.1037%2F0022-3514.92.6.1068&citationId=p_7

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/action/showLinks?pmid=10540593&crossref=10.1037%2F0003-066X.54.10.805&citationId=p_24

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/action/showLinks?pmid=17618718&crossref=10.1016%2Fj.socscimed.2007.05.041&citationId=p_16

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/action/showLinks?system=10.2105%2FAJPH.93.2.189&citationId=p_10

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/action/showLinks?system=10.2105%2FAJPH.86.10.1370&citationId=p_26

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1007%2Fs11211-006-9999-2&citationId=p_11

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F10780870122184957&citationId=p_19

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/action/showLinks?system=10.2105%2FAJPH.2005.076547&citationId=p_3

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fejsp.127&citationId=p_12

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/action/showLinks?pmid=1736661&crossref=10.1093%2Foxfordjournals.aje.a116202&citationId=p_28

This article has been cited by:

1. Adrian M. Bacong, Attallah S. Dillard, Natalie J. Bradford. Appendix D: Glossary . [Citation] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
2. Kimberly R. Dong, Aviva Must, Alice M. Tang, Curt G. Beckwith, Thomas J. Stopka. 2018. Competing priorities that

rival health in adults on probation in Rhode Island: substance use recovery, employment, housing, and food intake. BMC
Public Health 18:1. . [Crossref]

3. Audrey M. W. Simons, Inge Houkes, Annemarie Koster, Daniëlle A. I. Groffen, Hans Bosma. 2018. The silent burden
of stigmatisation: a qualitative study among Dutch people with a low socioeconomic position. BMC Public Health 18:1. .
[Crossref]

4. Heather Came, Derek Griffith. 2018. Tackling racism as a “wicked” public health problem: Enabling allies in anti-racism
praxis. Social Science & Medicine 199, 181-188. [Crossref]

5. Jennifer Malat, Sarah Mayorga-Gallo, David R. Williams. 2018. The effects of whiteness on the health of whites in the
USA. Social Science & Medicine 199, 148-156. [Crossref]

6. He Xian, Jeremy Reynolds. 2017. Bootstraps, Buddies, and Bribes: Perceived Meritocracy in the United States and China.
The Sociological Quarterly 58:4, 622-647. [Crossref]

7. Megan C. Stanton, Samira Ali, Sambuddha Chaudhuri. 2017. Individual, social and community-level predictors of wellbeing
in a US sample of transgender and gender non-conforming individuals. Culture, Health & Sexuality 19:1, 32-49. [Crossref]

8. Carmen H. Logie, Jesse I. R. Jenkinson, Valerie Earnshaw, Wangari Tharao, Mona R. Loutfy. 2016. A Structural Equation
Model of HIV-Related Stigma, Racial Discrimination, Housing Insecurity and Wellbeing among African and Caribbean
Black Women Living with HIV in Ontario, Canada. PLOS ONE 11:9, e0162826. [Crossref]

9. Jeremy Reynolds, He Xian. 2014. Perceptions of meritocracy in the land of opportunity. Research in Social Stratification and
Mobility 36, 121-137. [Crossref]

10. Audrey Maria Wilhelmina Simons, Daniëlle …