Unit6Assign1RACE

Was that Racist? An Experimental Study of Microaggression Ambiguity and Emotional Reactions for Racial–Ethnic Minority and White Individuals

Karen W. Tao1 • Jesse Owen2 • Joanna M. Drinane2

Published online: 22 June 2017

� Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Abstract This study examined racial–ethnic minority and

white identified participants’ perceptions of racial microag-

gressions in four video scenarios involving a white professor

and a black student. Participants (N = 261) were randomly

assigned to observe a one of the four video conditions. The

video involved an interaction with no microaggression, a

very ambiguous microaggression, an ambiguous microag-

gression, or an overt microaggression. Participants rated their

observations of (a) negative emotions toward the committer

(white professor) and receiver (black student) of the

microaggression, (b) positive emotions toward the committer

and receiver of the microaggression, (c) perceptions on the

degree of biasedness of committer, and (d) degree of positive

perceptions of the committer. Analysis compared ratings of

two groups, including racial–ethnic minority and white

observers. We found a significant difference between the

overt condition and other three conditions on negative

emotions, positive emotions, and attributions of the professor

(i.e., cultural biasedness and positive perceptions). However,

there were no differences between the no microaggression,

very ambiguous, and ambiguous conditions. No significant

differences between racial–ethnic minority and white par-

ticipants’ ratings were detected. Implications for training,

practice, and future research are offered in our discussion.

Keywords Racial microaggressions � Racism � Emotion � Attributional ambiguity

Introduction

The US media typically draws attention to the most extreme

examples of race-based discriminatory events. However,

there is less public focus on the cumulative and everyday

race-related events that are also associated with psychological

distress and racial conflict. The concept of racial microag-

gressions was first introduced by psychiatrist Dr. Chester

Pierce in 1969 to describe the damaging impact of frequent,

often nuanced, oppressive, and derogatory racist offenses

experienced by black individuals on a regular basis (Pierce

1969, 1970, 1974). Since its inception over 40 years ago,

research on racial microaggressions has aptly been utilized as

a lens through which to examine acute/specific and chronic/

cumulative effects of discrimination for racially (e.g., African

American) and socially (e.g., sexual; religious; class)

oppressed groups in varying contexts (e.g., Constantine and

Sue 2007; Nadal et al. 2014; Ong et al. 2013; Owen et al.

2010; Robinson and Rubin 2016; Torres-Harding and Turner

2015). Interest in the prevalence of microaggressions within

educational settings, in particular, has resulted in a growing

body of research on the college student population (Ong et al.

2013; Poolokasingham et al. 2014; Solórzano et al. 2000;

Yosso et al. 2009). This has only been compounded by the

increasing number of adverse race-based events occurring on

large state university campuses (e.g., University of Missouri–

Columbia, University of Michigan).

Microaggression Ambiguity and Emotional Reactions

Today, racial microaggressions are commonly defined as

‘‘brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or

environmental indignities, whether intentional or

& Karen W. Tao [email protected]

1 Department of Educational Psychology, University of Utah,

1720 Campus Center Drive, SAEC 3247, Salt Lake City,

UT 84112, USA

2 University of Denver, Denver, CO, USA

123

Race Soc Probl (2017) 9:262–271

DOI 10.1007/s12552-017-9210-4

unintentional that communicate hostile derogatory or

negative racial slights and insults toward people of color’’

(Sue et al. 2007, p. 271). Recognizing differences in the

manifestation, potential intention, and varying degree of

implicitness/explicitness, Sue et al. (2007) developed a

taxonomy of racial microaggressions, which include three

main forms—microassaults, microinsults, and microinval-

idations. Microassaults are overt racially instigated verbal

or nonverbal attacks, which are intended to harm the

recipient. These often include conscious name-calling and

explicit racial discrimination (e.g., use of the ‘‘N’’ word

directed toward an African American individual); however,

they are often committed in contexts where the perpetrator

can maintain some degree of anonymity (e.g., social

media). Microinvalidations are conveyances that con-

sciously or unconsciously ostracize and/or deny the psy-

chological and social experiences of members of minority

groups. Several examples specifically related to people of

color include color-blind statements in which visible

racial–ethnic minority individuals are consistently told that

‘‘all people are the same,’’ which can negate experiences of

people who identify as racial or ethnic minorities. Com-

ments that serve to downplay how people of color feel

in situations where racial differences are highlighted (e.g.,

‘‘it’s not a big deal’’ or ‘‘you are being too sensitive’’) are

also common microinvalidations.

Our study focuses on a third component of the taxon-

omy, microinvalidations, which are verbal or nonverbal

messages, often subtle, and infused with demeaning or

nullifying messages toward a person of color. For example,

a student asking his African American classmate if she is

receiving an athletic scholarship calls into question the

African American student’s academic ability. Another

well-documented example is when Latina or black women

in science are initially presumed by co-workers to be

members of the custodial staff (Williams et al. 2015).

Microinvalidations include statements such as ‘‘you must

have got a great sports scholarship to come here’’ or ‘‘you

are a credit to your race’’ to an African American or ‘‘you

speak English so well’’ to an Asian American who was

born and raised in the USA.

Attributional Ambiguity—‘‘Did I hear that right?’’

The complexity of microaggressions and of microinvali-

dations more specifically derives from their ambiguous

nature (Crocker et al. 1991; Dovidio and Gaertner 2004).

For example, a frequent question directed toward Asian

Americans by white individuals ‘‘Where are you from?’’ is

perceived to some Asian Americans as a neutral question

generated out of curiosity. Yet, for other Asian Americans,

this question is racially charged and reifies the perpetual

alien stereotype in which familiar Asian phenotypic char-

acteristics (aka nonwhite) are conflated with being non-

American. Unlike explicit racism, such ambiguous situa-

tions often evoke some confusion or dilemmas on whether

to react due to lack of awareness and ill-intent on the part

of the committer (Wang et al. 2011).

Related to ambiguous nature of microaggressions, the

same statement may also vary in its level of intensity,

which has the potential to moderate the target’s reaction

and response. Using the same example above, ‘‘Where are

you from?’’ may at first utterance appear harmless, yet

evolve into a situation where the issue of racial stigmati-

zation takes center stage. This is illustrated below:

Person A (white man): Hey, where are you from?

Person B (Asian American woman): Uh… Hawaii Person A: No, I mean, where are you REALLY

from? Person B: Honolulu, Hawaii

Person A: That’s not what I’m asking.

Person B: I’m not sure what to tell you.

The interaction above demonstrates a likely presumption

that the Asian American woman being represented by Person

B is not from the USA. Additionally, her first and second

responses are dissatisfactory which in turn compels her to

further explain. Although this interaction may not be overtly

malicious on the part of Person A and is also plausible that

Person B did not initially perceive this as racist, there is still

potential harm. For example, race scholar Sumie Okazaki

asserts ‘‘perception of racism by a racial minority individual

[may not] be necessary for an encounter or an environmental

factor to have a deleterious effect’’ (2009, p. 105). However,

studies on perceived bias also emphasize the insidiousness of

the ambiguity itself, including the emotional distress induced

by trying to determine whether a statement was or was not

racist as well as the negative psychological and physiological

effects of consistently being interrogated about one’s racial

identity (Crocker et al. 1998; Smith et al. 2011).

In a study of gender discrimination against women

(n = 87), participants who experienced overt gender prej-

udice reported significantly higher levels of self-esteem

than participants who received ambiguous prejudice cues

(Major et al. 2002). Another study with Latino participants

(n = 63) demonstrated the undermining effects of attribu-

tional ambiguity. Participants who received positive feed-

back from white individuals on participants’ leadership

abilities actually discounted these complements and expe-

rienced negative symptoms as well as attributed negative

feedback to discrimination (Hoyt et al. 2006). These

studies demonstrate the pernicious effects of daily stig-

matizing interactions in which social identities, including

race and gender, are harmfully activated.

In the present study, we aimed to extend the literature on

individuals’ recognition of, evaluation of, and emotional

Race Soc Probl (2017) 9:262–271 263

123

reaction to cross-race dialogue. We suggest that appraisal

of such an exchange is dependent on cues that include

(a) no microaggression, (b) very ambiguous microaggres-

sion, (c) ambiguous microaggression, and (d) overt

microaggression. Our study is also interested in discerning

whether participants, based on their self-identified race,

have similar or dissimilar appraisals of the same interac-

tions. We draw from the transactional model of prejudice

(Major et al. 2003), which posits individuals do not have

the same emotional response to a stressful event. Other

variables including situational factors or individual differ-

ences may in fact influence the emotional response to a

discriminatory event. Accordingly, we purport that con-

textual factors may prime individuals’ attributional and

affective appraisal of a racial interaction between a black

student and white professor. Furthermore, the inclusion of

observers offers a unique examination of reactions of

potential allies or bystanders to these specific types of

cross-race dialogue.

First, we hypothesize that negative emotions would be

positively associated with interactions that were increas-

ingly more explicit microaggressions from a white pro-

fessor toward a black student (Hypothesis 1a).

Additionally, we predict that emotions will be rated more

negatively by R-EM observers as compared white indi-

viduals (Hypothesis 1b).

Second, we posit that observers’ positive emotions

toward the white professor will significantly decrease with

as the microaggression scenarios become more explicit

(Hypothesis 2a). Specifically, we predict that R-EM partic-

ipants will indicate significantly lower ratings than other

racial–ethnic minority and white observers (Hypothesis 2b).

Third, we predict that observers’ ratings of the white

professor as racially biased would significantly increase

across each of the scenarios based on explicitness of the racial

microaggression (Hypothesis 3a) and that ratings of bias

would be highest for R-EM participants (Hypothesis 3b).

Finally, we hypothesized that positive perceptions of the

white professor would decrease across interaction type

(e.g., lowest ratings for overt racist and highest ratings for

no microaggression scenario) (Hypothesis 4a). We also

predicted that the ratings would be significantly lower

across all scenarios for R-EM participants within each

interaction type (Hypothesis 4b).

Method

Participants

There were 261 participants who were recruited from one

university and one community college in Midwest/South

region of the USA of which 180 identified as female and 81

identified as male. The age of participants ranged from 18

to 55 years old (M = 25.84; SD = 8.22). There 115 par-

ticipants who were in their 1st year of college, 79 in their

second year, 15 in their third year, 35 in their fourth year,

and 17 who did not indicate their grade level. In regard to

race/ethnicity, 133 identified as white/Caucasian, 81 iden-

tified as African American, 24 identified as biracial/ethnic,

9 identified as Asian American, 7 identified as Latino/a or

Hispanic, 4 identified as Middle Eastern American, and 3

identified as Indian American.

Microaggression Conditions

We randomized participants to one of the four conditions.

In each situation, the participants were given the following

background information prior to watching the interaction:

‘‘Background: Dr. Scott is a white American political

science professor at the University of Rancho Cucamonga.

Denise is a 21-year-old African American student in Dr.

Scott’s political science class. After a session, Denise stays

after class to inquire on an upcoming research paper that is

due in 3 weeks. Here is how the conversation follows.’’

After receiving the background information, participants

are prompted to watch a brief video.

We had four experts in microaggressions, race, and

multiculturalism examine the vignettes. We provided them

a definition of microaggressions based on those indicated

by Sue et al. (2007). The experts provided written com-

ments about the vignettes to improve the clarity and those

were incorporated into the final product. Experts all agreed

that the four conditions fit the definition, and then, they

graded each condition based upon the ambiguity of the

microaggression expression. Below are the verbatim tran-

scripts of the four conditions. In the videos, the same

professor and student acted the situation. Importantly, the

student after stating ‘‘Thank you very much…see you next week’’ stepped away and was no longer on the video when

the professor made the microaggression statements in

conditions 2, 3, and 4. This was purposeful, so participants

would not see her reaction to the comments. A university

professor and a graduate student each volunteered to con-

tribute to this project by serving as the actors in the vign-

ettes. The statements do not reflect beliefs that either the

professor or the student holds in real life.

Condition 1: Control (No Microaggression)

Denise: Hello, Dr. Scott, I wanted to ask you something

pertaining to our research assignment that is due soon.

Professor: Sure, Denise! What is it you’d like to know?

Denise: Well, I am almost finished completing my rough

draft for it, and would like for you to look over it

264 Race Soc Probl (2017) 9:262–271

123

hopefully next week before I revise it for the final copy

to turn in.

Professor: I can surely do that. Just get it to me and I’ll

review it and get it back to you within a couple of days.

Denise: Thank you very much Dr. Scott, I’ll bring it in

next class, see you next week.

Condition 2: Very Ambiguous Microaggression

Denise: Hello Dr. Scott, I wanted to ask you something

pertaining to our research assignment that is due soon.

Professor: Sure, Denise! What is it you’d like to know?

Denise: Well, I am almost finished completing my rough

draft for it, and would like for you to look over it

hopefully next week before I revise it for the final copy

to turn in.

Professor: I can surely do that. Just get it to me and I’ll

review it and get it back to you within a couple of days.

Denise: Thank you very much Dr. Scott, I’ll bring it in

next class, see you next week.

Professor: Yeah…see you next week…um…Denise you are really doing a good job in this class, you’ve really

surprised me this semester…Keep up the good work!

Condition 3: Ambiguous Microaggression

Denise: Hello Dr. Scott, I wanted to ask you something

pertaining to our research assignment that is due soon.

Professor: Sure, Denise! What is it you’d like to know?

Denise: Well, I am almost finished completing my rough

draft for it, and would like for you to look over it

hopefully next week before I revise it for the final copy

to turn in.

Professor: I can surely do that. Just get it to me and I’ll

review it and get it back to you within a couple of

days….I must say most students don’t worry about that until the week before.

Denise: I really try to stay on top of things.

Professor: Wow…that’s….REALLY good for you….You know…you seem very punctual and well put together. You’re always intelligent and articulate in class, you

really are doing a great job as a student. You’ve greatly

surprised me this semester…keep up the good work!

Condition 4: Overt Microaggression

Denise: Hello Dr. Scott, I wanted to ask you something

pertaining to our research assignment that is due soon.

Professor: Sure, Denise! What is it you’d like to know?

Denise: Well, I am almost finished completing my rough

draft for it, and would like for you to look over it

hopefully next week before I revise it for the final copy

to turn in.

Professor: I can surely do that. Just get it to me and I’ll

review it and get it back to you within a couple of

days….I must say most students don’t worry about that until the week before.

Denise: I really try to stay on top of things.

Professor: Wow…that’s….REALLY good for you….- How can I put this…well…most African American students do just enough to get by, but you…you seem so punctual and well put together. You’ve greatly surprised

me this semester just with how intelligent and articulate

you are in class…keep up the good work!

Measures

UWIST Mood Adjective Checklist (UMACL; Matthews

et al. 1990)

The UAMCL is a 29-item self-report measure of mood.

Responses provide state measures of emotional reactions

based on level of arousal and valence (i.e., positive or

negative). For purposes of this study, we relied on positive

and negative dimension (e.g., tense, nervous, annoyed,

happy, sad, satisfied). Matthews et al. (1990) found that the

psychometric properties of the scales were satisfactory.

Cronbach’s alpha for the generic arousal scale was

reported as .75 (Matthews et al. 1990; also see Biernacka

et al. 2014). In the current study, the Cronbach’s alpha was

.80 for positive emotions and .83 for negative emotions.

Likability Approach

We asked participants five items about their ‘‘impression of

the Professor (Dr. Scott).’’ Then we asked the same five

items about their ‘‘impression of the Student (Denise)’’ The

five items were: ‘‘Likable, Pleasant, Approachable, Cold,

and Hostile.’’ The five items were rated on a scale ranging

from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). In the

current study, the Cronbach’s alpha was .93 for the pro-

fessor and .91 for the student ratings.

Cultural Biases Questionnaire

We adapted three questions from other measures of cultural

competencies (e.g., Cross-Cultural Counseling Inventory—

Revised; LaFromboise et al. 1991). The three questions

were: ‘‘The Professor (Dr. Scott) was insensitive about the

Student’s (Denise) cultural group.’’; ‘‘The Professor (Dr.

Scott) seemed unaware of the realities of race and racism’’;

and ‘‘The Professor (Dr. Scott) seemed to have cultural

biases.’’ The three items were rated on a scale ranging from

Race Soc Probl (2017) 9:262–271 265

123

1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). We did not ask

specifically about the microaggressions expressed by the

professor in order to not bias the participants. In the current

study, the Cronbach’s alpha was .76.

Procedure

After watching the video, participants first completed the

UWIST to gauge their emotional reactions to the video.

Next they rated the professor’s and the student’s likability

approach. Then, they rated the professor on the cultural

biases questionnaire. Finally, participants completed the

demographic form.

Results

We conducted a MANOVA with five outcomes as the

dependent variables and with two independent variables.

The five outcome variables for this study were: (1) positive

emotional reactions, (2) negative emotional reactions, (3)

positive view of professor, (4) positive view of student, and

(5) professor’s cultural biases. We utilized the video con-

dition as the primary independent variable and we included

participants’ race/ethnicity (white vs. R-EM) as the second

independent variable (to note, the results were consistent

when we compared white participants to African American

participants).

The results demonstrated that there was a main effect for

the video condition, Wilk’s ^ = .70, F (15, 682) = 6.22, p \ .001. However, there was no main effect for partici- pants’ race/ethnicity, Wilk’s ^ = .97, F (5, 247) = 1.74, p = .126. Additionally, there was no significant interaction

effect for participants’ race/ethnicity and video conditions

Wilk’s ^ = .92, F (15, 682) = 1.33, p = .181.1 Examining the results for each dependent variable was also consistent

with the main effects (i.e., no significant effects for par-

ticipants’ race/ethnicity and the interaction effect).

Accordingly, we reported the overall mean scores for the

conditions in Table 1 and Fig. 1 for visualization of data.

As hypothesized, there was a significant difference

between the overt condition and the other conditions on

negative emotions (partially supporting Hypothesis 1a),

positive emotions (partially supporting Hypothesis 2a),

viewing the professor as biased (partially supporting

Hypothesis 3a), and viewing the professor positively

(partially supporting Hypothesis 4a).

However, as noted above there were no statistically

significant differences based on participant race/ethnicity;

thus, Hypotheses 1b–4b were not supported. Additionally,

there were no statistically significant differences between

the no microaggression, very ambiguous microaggression,

and ambiguous microaggression conditions on the depen-

dent variables by condition, with one exception. There was

a statistically significant difference between the no

microaggression condition and the ambiguous microag-

gression condition on viewing the professor as expressing

cultural biases (d = .43, p = .015). The difference

between the no microcondition and the very ambiguous

condition was not statistically significant, d = .32,

p = .066. Although not hypothesized, there were no dif-

ferences across conditions in how positively the partici-

pants rated the student.

Discussion

This study aimed to expand the body of research on racial

microaggressions and to examine how a specific type of

racial microaggression, a microinvalidation, is differen-

tially perceived (perceptually and affectively) by EM and

white observers. We were particularly interested in how

varying levels of ambiguity in four scenarios influenced

participants’ ratings on five outcomes. Specifically, we

found that the overtly microaggressive scenario (e.g., most

African American students do just enough to get by… but you…you seem so punctual and well put together) evoked higher ratings of negative mood (e.g., tense; angry) and

lower positive mood (e.g., pleasant), perceptions of the

professor as more hostile and less likeable, and views of the

professor as more culturally biased (less aware of racism)

when she was overtly microaggressive. These outcome

ratings were significantly higher than the other three con-

ditions (i.e., control, very ambiguous, ambiguous), which

supports past studies that have assessed for participants’

emotional reactions to discriminatory situations (Sue et al.

2007; Wang 2013).

For example, a study by Wang et al. (2011) with 149

Asian American and 178 white college students examined

the association of negative and positive emotions with

twelve ostensibly harmless situations (e.g., ‘‘Imagine that

you are eating dinner with your family at a busy restaurant.

You are trying to get the attention of the server. You notice

that she looks around the room, but ignores you.’’ p. 1676).

Participants appraised the extent to which race was primary

impetus for interactions as well as the degree to which they

1 Given the priming of race in our instructions and a video interaction

involving black and white actors, we conducted an analysis, which

only included the black (n = 80) and white (133) participants. Similar

to results between R-EM and white participants, there were no

between-subject effects for participants’ race/ethnicity for any of the

variables (ps ranged from .08 to .31). Additionally, there was no

significant interaction effect for participants’ race/ethnicity and video

conditions for any of the variables (ps ranged from .06 to .97).

However, the significant effects for video condition were consistent

with all ps \ .01 with the exception of viewing the student positive, which was not significant (p = .99).

266 Race Soc Probl (2017) 9:262–271

123

would experience specific emotions if they had been in

similar situations (e.g., anger, sadness, anxiety). Investi-

gators found that Asian American participants’ race-rele-

vance appraisals were significantly associated with higher

levels of externalizing and internalizing negative emotion,

including shame, anxiety, anger, and resentment. A similar

relationship was also found for white participants; how-

ever, the degree of associations was much lower than Asian

Americans.

Equal-Opportunity Microaggression Detection

Although our findings did not support the hypothesis of

group differences between R-EM and white participants,

we were still intrigued by these results. Given the fre-

quency of racial microaggressions directed toward EM

(Hook et al. 2016; Ong et al. 2013) and thus being

potentially more ‘‘primed’’ to react more strongly to them,

we expected R-EM participants to experience greater

Table 1 Means, standard deviation, and between group comparisons

1. No microaggression 2. Very ambiguous 3. Ambiguous 4. Overt Statistical differences

M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)

Positive emotion 4.73 (1.15) 4.65 (1.29) 4.77 (1.36) 3.28 (1.51) 4 [ 1,2,3 Negative emotion 2.20 (1.56) 2.04 (1.31) 2.12 (1.38) 3.43 (1.57) 4 [ 1,2,3 Positive professor 5.73 (1.52) 5.83 (1.41) 5.83 (1.35) 4.77 (1.63) 4 \ 1,2,3 Positive student 5.92 (1.40) 6.14 (1.13) 6.15 (1.01) 6.04 (1.09) None

Professor cultural 2.64 (1.40) 3.13 (1.63) 3.32 (1.74) 4.86 (1.58) 4 [ 1,2,3 Bias 3 \ 1

Negative Emotion

Positive Emotion

Professor Culturally Biased

View Professor Positively

0

2

4

6

0

2

4

6

0

2

4

6

0

2

4

6

None Very Ambiguous Ambiguous Overt Microaggression Type

M e a n R

a tin

g

Identity Status REM

White

Fig. 1 This figure presents a visualization of mean observer

ratings of their positive and

negative emotions after viewing

the student–professor

interaction and their perceptions

of the professor, including her

level of biasedness and

likeability approachability, for

each of the four

microaggression conditions

Race Soc Probl (2017) 9:262–271 267

123

negative reactions to conditions where there were

ambiguous and clear microaggressions. However, this was

not the case. R-EM and white participants made similar

attributions and reported similar intensity of emotions in all

conditions. One optimistic interpretation of this finding is

that individuals from any racial group, R-EM and white,

can equally detect microaggressions. Therefore, the onus of

bringing these cultural ruptures to the attention of the

committer does not necessarily need to fall on the recipient

of the microaggression. In fact, witnesses to racial trans-

gressions are equally accountable to interject as they occur.

To illustrate, other students who may have observed the

interaction between student and professor in the third or

fourth condition could possibly have gone up to the student

afterward and remarked, ‘‘That was completely inappro-

priate and were clearly racial stereotypes’’ or ‘‘I can

imagine how hurtful those comments could be. I’m sorry

you had to hear that. Is there anything I can do?’’ We

present the option of supporting the student/recipient of the

microaggression in this case given the professor’s position

of power wherein students are in a vulnerable role. How-

ever, if a colleague of equal status to the professor had been

in the room, it would behoove this co-worker to address

this professor about the microaggression directly.

Another potential reason for the lack of significant dif-

ference in outcomes between R-EM and white participants

is our current study tests explicit attitudes of participants.

This was primed at the outset of each scenario in which

participants were told the professor is white and student is

black. Invariably, this gives a fairly clear indication that

this experiment was about race versus other identity sta-

tuses. Therefore, ratings of the professor’s behavior par-

ticularly for white participants are potentially experienced

as an overt evaluation of participants’ racial beliefs and

evoked some degree of social desirability bias (e.g., I don’t

want to be viewed as racist and therefore will rate the

professor as being culturally insensitive). Studies exam-

ining implicit racial associations and explicit racial atti-

tudes of whites have also demonstrated these are ‘‘different

components in a system of dual attitudes’’ (Dovidio et al.

2002, p. 67). For example, white individuals’ self-reported

prejudice is predictive of intentional behaviors, including

verbal biases directed toward racial minorities. Implicit

racial attitudes, however, are predictive of nonverbal or

reflexive behavior, including increased eye blinking and

avoidant eye contact, which are indicative of discomfort.

Thus, cross-race communication may involve the use of

different cues—verbal or paralinguistic—and add a layer

of complexity to how the situation is perceived. In other

words, attribution ambiguity is likely inherent in all

interracial interactions. By considering explicit and

implicit attitudes distinctly, our findings must be inter-

preted through the lens of the former.

It is important, however, to briefly note findings from

studies of implicit racial attitudes (Banaji and Greewald

2013; Green et al. 2007), which offer an important per-

spective of how what people say are not necessarily con-

sistent with what they actually do or how they think. For

example, Green et al. (2007) assessed physicians’

(N = 287) preferences toward white and black patients

described in two vignettes, which revealed no difference in

physicians’ explicit racial preferences. Yet, implicit atti-

tudes indicated significant differences in preferences

toward white versus black patients, with more negative

attitudes toward the latter racial group (e.g., black patients

viewed as less cooperative). Researchers also found that as

physicians’ racial preferences toward white patients

increased, the probability of treating white patients for

medical issue increased while likelihood of treating black

patients decreased.

Intention Versus Impact

We found positive emotions toward the professor to remain

moderately high despite perceptions of her cultural

biasedness. One interpretation for this finding is how par-

ticipants reacted to the professor’s tone, which was fairly

positive and enthusiastic in all scenarios.

Secondly, she was also open to reviewing her student’s

draft, which could have been seen as helpful. The ordering

of the professor’s statements may have also produced an

anchoring effect and influenced participants’ first impres-

sions of the professor who responded in a friendly manner

and was open to assisting the student prior to committing a

microaggression. Accordingly, the professor may have

been granted the benefit of doubt, which is also a common

initial response by observers and/or receivers of microag-

gressions who are unclear as to whether the interaction was

due to discrimination (Solórzano et al. 2000; Sue et al.

2008). Internal dialogue may include, ‘‘the professor is

actually a nice person and probably didn’t mean what she

said.’’ or ‘‘the professor’s statements were meant to be

compliments, but came out wrong.’’ Perhaps the resistance

to seeing her as racist or ‘‘evil’’ despite her microaggres-

sive comments is also a form of psychological resistance

functioning to protect observers from the deeper implica-

tions of such interactions (Crocker et al. 1998; Ong and

Edwards 2008). Finally, our finding may also be corre-

sponding to a pattern also found by researchers examining

the emotional and physiological reactions to social rejec-

tion and acceptance (Mendes et al. 2008). They found

participants (N = 122) were the most angered by negative

feedback provided by different-race evaluators (vs. same-

race evaluators) in that social rejection perceived as based

on racial discrimination was damaging to both white and

black participants.

268 Race Soc Probl (2017) 9:262–271

123

When further examining outcomes between each of the

four conditions, the only significant difference was found

in ratings of the professor’s biasedness between the

ambiguous (e.g., ‘‘…you’re always intelligent and articu- late in class, you are really doing a great job as a stu-

dent…’’) and control condition. This finding highlights how attributional ambiguity, or situations in which there is

confusion as to the intention or meaning behind specific

statements may evoke higher levels of psychological dis-

comfort and greater negative reactions (Lewis et al. 2000;

Major et al. 2002; Solórzano et al. 2000; Sue et al. 2007).

For example, a study examining the effects of explicit

versus ambiguous evidence of prejudice (N = 255)

demonstrated impairment in performance on a Stroop task

for black participants when they were exposed to

ambiguous evidence of prejudice (Salvatore and Shelton

2007). This phenomenon of lowered performance was also

evidenced in a study pairing white and black participants,

in which dyads with a white partner perceived as an

aversive racist versus blatant racist were less efficient in

finishing a task (Dovidio 2001).

Study Limitations and Recommendations for Future

Research

As discussed above, there is potential to further understand

the psychological and emotional impact microaggressions

have for specific groups. Our sample, however, only

included university students, which limits generalizability

with regard to age, education, and socioeconomic status.

Future studies would benefit from a broader representation

of participants to further illuminate the ways in which

microaggressions are perceived based on reference group

membership. Relatedly, both actors were female. By

including scenarios where a professor is a white male and

the student is a black male or including a male–female

dyad, we may have observed different outcomes. Secondly,

our study can be extended by including measures that

examine moderating factors, which influence perceptions

of cross-race interactions or bias detection (e.g., level of

exposure and quality of interactions with other racial

groups; internal motivation to recognize varying forms of

racism; attitudes toward social justice; stigma conscious-

ness). Thirdly, we recognize that participants’ self-identi-

fied race is not synonymous with racial identity.

Specifically, the detection of a racial microaggression may

rely heavily on individuals’ beliefs on whether racial dif-

ferences and racism exist. Accordingly, examining the

relationship between participants’ racial awareness and

interpretation of racially charged (yet ambiguous) dialogue

as well as their ability to detect microaggressions would

greatly refine interpretation and implications of our results.

An additional measure assessing participants’ views about

the general quality of the student and professor relationship

(e.g., contentious, warm, respectful) could augment our

interpretation of the lack of significant differences between

black and white participants.

We also recognize the transactional nature of microag-

gressions, including the host of contextual factors influ-

encing individuals’ reactions in any cultural rupture.

Individuals who have experienced or delivered microag-

gressions can attest to the multitude of contextual variables

leading to the way a statement or action was perceived

followed by another set of factors affecting how individ-

uals sought resolution (or not). For example, studies on the

effects of microaggressions in therapy highlight the

importance of addressing microaggressions in therapy and

developing a positive therapeutic alliance (Owen et al.

2010, 2014). In other words, the history between individ-

uals and their relationship matters. Continued research in

this area beyond the therapeutic setting would provide

valuable insight into the types of factors that mediate the

experience of a microaggression incident.

Another area for future microaggression research is

related to the role of participants. In our study, we used an

observer approach in which participants were not intended

to be a direct recipient of a microaggression; whether

participants imagined they were the white teacher or black

student is undeterminable. An interesting question that

emerges, however, is whether perceptions of microag-

gressions are substantively different when the situation is

posed as an ‘‘as if’’ scenario. In other words, would the

psychological experiences between an observer and recip-

ient of a microaggression be dissimilar and how so? Are

there particular types of emotions that are elicited when

microaggressions are either observed (e.g., nervous, tense)

or received (e.g., angry, annoyed)? The detection of these

nuanced responses would be a fascinating area for future

study to better understand the psychological processes

involved in microaggressive interactions. Similarly, the

need to understand how detection can be mobilized into

action (vs. inhibitory effects) would also be an important

area for examination.

Implications

The current study deepens our knowledge of how whites and

R-EMs detect microaggressions and appraise characteristics

of the parties involved in a cross-race interaction. Our

findings also underscore a need for studies that can further

identify factors influencing how cross-race interactions are

perceived as well as considering each incident from four

stakeholder angles, including the recipient, committer,

bystander, and ally (Jones et al. 2017). Moreover, how do

individuals operating from often contradicting interpersonal

cues find a common ground to repair cultural ruptures? For

Race Soc Probl (2017) 9:262–271 269

123

example, in psychotherapy training, a common approach is

to increase multicultural awareness, knowledge, and skills

through formal instruction and experiential activities. Stu-

dents are expected to engage in deep examination of their

biases, attitudes, and stereotypes that may potentially impact

their clinical work. An overarching goal is to heighten

trainees’ awareness of what they say and do in session can

have significant influence on their clients’ outcomes. How-

ever, this type of training is usually relegated to one seme-

ster-long class, which is not nearly sufficient. For many

students, completion of this course indicates ‘‘competence

achieved’’ despite instructors imploring their classes to think

of multicultural competence as a lifelong endeavor versus a

discrete endpoint. Our current study reiterates the incessant

nature of ambiguity in cross-race interactions (e.g., did she

say what I think she said; I don’t know if I offended him by

that statement; am I overly sensitive?; I didn’t mean for that

comment to be construed that way). Accordingly, we are

compelled to recognize that engaging in interracial interac-

tions is not something to master, but situations that require

more than just knowledge and awareness. Rather, they

necessitate cultural humility and an unwavering sense of

conscientiousness.

Acknowledgements We would like to thank Zac E. Imel for his assistance with the figure in this study.

References

Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2013). Blind spot: Hidden biases

of good people. New York: Delacorte Press.

Biernacka, M., Jakubowska-Winecka, A., & Biernacki, M. (2014).

The role of emotional control in the regulation of mood in

parents of children with mucopolysaccharidosis. Stress and

Health: Journal of the International Society for the Investigation

of Stress, 30(3), 253–258.

Constantine, M. G., & Sue, D. W. (2007). Perceptions of racial

microaggressions among black supervisees in cross-racial dyads.

Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54(2), 142–153. doi:10.1037/

0022-0167.54.2.142.

Crocker, J., Voelkl, K., Testa, M., & Major, B. (1991). Social stigma:

The affective consequences of attributional ambiguity. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 218–228.

Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C. (1998). Social stigma. In T.

Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social

psychology (4th ed., pp. 504–553). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Dovidio, J. F. (2001). On the nature of contemporary prejudice: The

third wave. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 829–849.

Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2004). Aversive racism. In M.

P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp.

1–52). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Dovidio, J. F., Kawakami, K., & Gaertner, S. L. (2002). Implicit and

explicit prejudice and interracial interaction. Journal of Person-

ality and Social Psychology, 82, 62–68.

Green, A. R., Carney, D. R., Pallin, D. J., Ngo, L. H., Raymond, K. L.,

Lezzoni, L. I., et al. (2007). Implicit bias among physicians and

its prediction of thrombolysis decisions for black and white

patients. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 22, 1231–1238.

Hook, J. N., Farrell, J. E., Davis, D. E., DeBlaere, C., Van Tongeren,

D. R., & Utsey, S. O. (2016). Cultural humility and racial

microaggressions in counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychol-

ogy, 63(3), 269–277. doi:10.1037/cou0000114.

Hoyt, C. L., Aguilar, L., Kaiser, C., Blascovich, J., & Lee, K. (2006).

The self-protective and undermining effects of attributional

ambiguity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43,

884–893.

Jones, K. P., Arena, D. F., Nittrouer, C. L., Alonso, N. M., & Lindsey,

A. P. (2017). Subtle discrimination in the workplace: A vicious

cycle. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives

on Science and Practice, 10, 51–76.

LaFromboise, T. D., Coleman, H. K., & Hernandez, A. (1991).

Development and factor structure of the cross-cultural counsel-

ing inventory—Revised. Professional Psychology: Research and

Practice, 22, 380–388.

Lewis, A., Chesler, M., & Forman, T. (2000). ‘‘I’m not going to think

of you as black, I’ll just think of you as my friend’’: Students of

colors’ experiences on predominately white college campuses.

Journal of Negro Education, 69, 74–91.

Major, B., Quinton, W. J., & McCoy, S. K. (2002). Antecedents and

consequences of attributions to discrimination: Theoretical and

empirical advances. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in

experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 251–330). San

Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Major, B., Quinton, W. J., & Schmader, T. (2003). Attributions to

discrimination and self-esteem: Impact of group identification

and situational ambiguity. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology, 39, 220–231.

Matthews, G., Jones, D. M., & Chamberlain, A. G. (1990). Refining

the measurement of mood: The UWIST mood adjective check-

list. British Journal of Psychology, 81(1), 17–42. doi:10.1111/j.

2044-8295.1990.tb02343.x.

Mendes, W. B., McCoy, S., Major, B., & Blascovich, J. (2008). How

attributional ambiguity shapes physiological and emotional

responses to social rejection and acceptance. Journal of

Personality Social Psychology, 94, 278–291.

Nadal, K. L., Mazzula, S. L., Rivera, D. P., & Fujii-Doe, W. (2014).

Microaggressions and Latina/o Americans: An analysis of

nativity, gender, and ethnicity. Journal of Latina/o Psychology,

2(2), 67–78. doi:10.1037/lat0000013.

Okazaki, S. (2009). Impact of racism on ethnic minority mental

health. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(1), 103–

107.

Ong, A. D., Burrow, A. L., Fuller-Rowell, T. E., Ja, N. M., & Sue, D.

W. (2013). Racial microaggressions and daily well-being among

Asian Americans. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60(2),

188–199. doi:10.1037/a0031736.

Ong, A. D., & Edwards, L. M. (2008). Positive affect and adjustment

to perceived racism. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,

27, 105–126.

Owen, J., Tao, K. W., Imel, Z. E., Wampold, B. E., & Rodolfa, E.

(2014). Addressing racial and ethnic microaggressions in

therapy. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 45,

283–290.

Owen, J., Tao, K., & Rodolfa, E. (2010). Microaggressions and women

in short-term psychotherapy: Initial evidence. The Counseling

Psychologist, 38(7), 923–946. doi:10.1177/0011000010376093.

Pierce, C. (1969). Is bigotry the basis of the medical problem of the

Ghetto? In J. Norman (Ed.), medicine in the Ghetto (pp.

301–314). New York: Meredith Corporation.

Pierce, C. (1970). Offensive mechanisms. In F. Barbour (Ed.), In the

black seventies (pp. 265–282). Boston, MA: Porter Sargent.

Pierce, C. (1974). Psychiatric problems of the black minority. In S.

Arieti (Ed.), American handbook of psychiatry (pp. 512–523).

New York: Basic Books.

270 Race Soc Probl (2017) 9:262–271

123

Poolokasingham, G., Spanierman, L. B., Kleiman, S., & Houshmand,

S. (2014). ‘‘Fresh off the boat?’’ Racial microaggressions that

target South Asian Canadian students. Journal of Diversity in

Higher Education, 7(3), 194–210.

Robinson, J. L., & Rubin, L. J. (2016). Homonegative microaggres-

sions and posttraumatic stress symptoms. Journal of Gay &

Lesbian Mental Health, 20(1), 57–69.

Salvatore, J., & Shelton, J. N. (2007). Cognitive costs of exposure to

racial prejudice. Psychological Science, 18, 810–815.

Smith, W. A., Hung, M., & Franklin, J. D. (2011). Between hope and

racial battle fatigue: African American men and race-related

stress. The Journal of Black Masculinity, 2, 35–58.

Solórzano, D., Ceja, M., & Yosso, T. (2000). Critical race theory,

racial microaggressions and campus racial climate: The experi-

ences of African American College students. Journal of Negro

Education, 69, 60–73.

Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., Holder,

A. M. B., Nadal, K. L., & Esquilin, M. (2007). Racial

microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical

practice. American Psychologist, 62(4), 271–286. doi:10.1037/

0003-066X.62.4.271.

Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., & Holder, M. B. (2008). Racial

microaggressions in the life experience of black Americans.

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 39, 329–336.

Torres-Harding, S., & Turner, T. (2015). Assessing racial microag-

gression distress in a diverse sample. Evaluation & the Health

Professions, 38, 464–490.

Wang, J. (2013). Why and when do racial microaggressions hurt? The

role of perceived diversity credentials. (Unpublished doctoral

dissertation). Seattle: University of Washington.

Wang, J., Leu, J., & Shoda, Y. (2011). When the seemingly innocuous

‘‘stings’’ racial microaggressions and their emotional conse-

quences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(12),

1666–1678.

Williams, J.C., Phillips, K.W. & Hall, E.V. (2015). Double jeopardy:

Gender bias against women of color in science. Published online

at www.worklifelaw.org.

Yosso, T., Smith, W., Ceja, M., & Solórzano, D. (2009). Critical race

theory, racial microaggressions, and campus racial climate for

Latina/o undergraduates. Harvard Educational Review, 79(4),

659–691.

Race Soc Probl (2017) 9:262–271 271

123

Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.