My research is positioned at the intersection of medical sociology, social psychology, and social networks. Below I describe my three major on-going projects, the Migraine, Identities, and Social Networks (MISN) Study, the VidaSana Study, and Experiments of Pain Legitimacy.
Migraine, Identities, and Social Networks (MISN) Study
Funded by an American Sociological Association Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grant (sponsored by the National Science Foundation), the MISN study explores the role of social connection in the process by which migraine affects individuals’ identities and wellbeing. To do so, I draw on multiple sources of original data, including 54 in-depth interviews of people with migraine, an online survey of individuals with migraine, and participant observations of two migraine patient conferences.
You can read about the study in my dissertation, available on ProQuest Dissertations or by request. Additional manuscripts are in preparation, with drafts available upon request.
The VidaSana Study
The VidaSana study is a longitudinal study that examines the social networks and physical, dental, and mental health of Hispanic immigrants from Mexico and Central America living in Indiana. From starting as a research assistant and data manager for Co-PIs, Dr. Gerardo Maupomé and Dr. Brea Perry, my involvement in this project has led to numerous publications, with more on the way.
For example, in a sole-authored paper entitled, “Resilience or Risk? Evaluating Three Pathways Linking Hispanic Immigrant Networks and Health,” published in the Journal of Health and Social Behavior, I tested two competing theories of the positive and negative health consequences of social networks for Hispanic immigrants: the Hispanic health paradox and the tenuous ties perspective. Using data from the VidaSana study, I conducted egocentric social network analysis to explore how network characteristics are associated with physical health, mental health, and healthcare access, finding differential patterns across outcomes. While greater social capital (i.e., larger networks, more educated, and health literate networks) promoted all kinds of health, the positive effect of social bonding (i.e., close, dense networks) was limited to mental health and healthcare utilization, whereas greater network stress (frequent hassling) threatened mental health while promoting healthcare access.
In another collaborative paper I co-led with Dr. Melissa Garcia, entitled “Pandemic Precarity: COVID-19’s Impact on Mexican and Central American Immigrant Families,” published in the Journal of Marriage and Family, we examined how familial social ties, through marriage and parenthood, have gendered impacts for financial stress in response to the pandemic, referred to as pandemic precarity. We found men and parents report the greatest economic stress due to the pandemic, and while for women, marriage is associated with less precarity, for men, marriage increases precarity. We theorize hegemonic masculinity creates the expectation that men will financially provide for their family which may elevate economic stress for married men yet assuage financial stress for married women.
Experiments of Pain Legitimacy
In collaboration with Dr. Emily Ekl, we use survey experiments to examine how social characteristics of both vignettes and respondents shape the legitimation of chronic pain. Our current project investigates how gender operates as a multilevel, relational construct to shape the legitimacy of headache disorders.
In previous work, published in Social Psychology Quarterly entitled “Take the Day Off: Examining the Legitimation of Chronic Back Pain by Race and Gender,” we examined how race, gender, and their intersection are associated with entrance into the sick role, operationalized as the acceptability of missing work for pain and treatment recommendations. Our experiment used four vignettes describing people experiencing back pain where we varied the race and gender using names and photographs. We found that while white women are least likely to view pain as a valid reason to miss work, they endorse the most treatments. Moreover, Black women were recommended to do the most to treat their pain. These findings highlight how race and gender impact both who validates pain and whose pain is validated.