Unpacking Young Adults’ Experiences of Race and Gender-Based Microaggressions

Abstract

To date the majority of the research on microaggressions has focused on the experiences of targets, rather than the perpetrators, of microaggresive behaviors. The present study set out to investigate 278 college students’ (M_age = 19.12, SD = 1.34, 52.52% cisgender women, 74.82% European American) reported types of experience (a) unaware, b) aware, c) observer, d) perpetrator, and e) target) with race and gender-based microaggressive behaviors and the association between their experiences and ambivalent sexist and colorblind racial attitudes. Participants completed an online survey composed of a modified Racial and Ethnic Microaggression Scale (REMS), a modified Female Microaggression Scale (FMS), an Ambivalent Sexism Index, and a Color-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale. As hypothesized (H1), participants were more likely to have heard of or observed than to report having been the target or perpetrator of microaggressions. In support of our second hypothesis (H2), significant gender and race differences were found in the frequencies of type of exposure to microaggressions. Finally, as expected (H3), exposure to microaggressions was associated with colorblind and ambivalent sexist attitudes. Unexpectedly, however, complete unawareness of the existence of microaggressions did not show any significant associations with social attitudes. This study’s findings highlight the importance of unpacking social experiences of discrimination to better understand what types of experiences contribute to being critical of and reducing the commission of microaggressions.

In 2020, as the U.S. is stratified by systems of privilege, power, and marginalization, discrimination continues to be part of the social fabric of individuals’ everyday social experiences. For instance, individuals have reported frequent experiences of being exoticized because they are women and/or women of color, assumed to be inferior or criminal because they are men of color, and assumed to be a foreigner and to not belong because of their appearance, among a series of other behaviors (Nadal et al., 2015; Sue, 2010; Sue et al., 2007). These instances of discriminatory behavior have been termed in the scholarly literature “microaggressions,” which are subtle, commonplace, verbal and non-verbal behaviors or environmental factors that communicate derogatory, hostile, and/or negative messages (e.g. put downs, insults, slights) towards a targeted group or person (Pierce et al., 1978; Sue et al., 2007). Microaggressions, as everyday actions, perpetuate larger systems of inequality (Pérez Huber & Solorzano, 2015). To date, the majority of the research on microaggressions has focused on the experiences of those who directly report having been the targets (Lilienfeld, 2017; Sue, 2010) rather than the deliverers of microaggresive behaviors (Kanter et al., 2017). However, microaggressions have been reported to occur in social contexts in which often there are other participant observers beyond the perpetrator-target dyad, such as the classroom (Suárez-Orozco et al., 2015). Microaggressions are not occurring in a social vacuum, and therefore there is a need to investigate the experiences of perpetrators and bystanders as well as targets (Anthony Clark & Spanierman, 2018).

In the present study we focus on both race and gender-based microaggressions. Both types of microaggressions, which are manifestations of patriarchy, racism, and white supremacy, are reported as frequent experiences by women and people of color (Gartner, 2019; Nadal, 2011; Ong et al., 2013). For instance, in a recent study with a racially-ethnically diverse sample of 220 undergraduate women Gartner (2019) found that 99.6% of participants reporting having experienced at least one form of gender microaggression within the past year. Similarly, a study with 152 Asian American undergraduate students, found that approximately 78% of participants had been the target of at least one racial microaggression over a period of two weeks (Ong et al., 2013). White American individuals, as they belong to the racial majoritized group, consistently report experiencing being targets of racial microaggressions less frequently than individuals in other ethnic racial groups (Banks & Landau, 2019; Nadal et al., 2011; 2014a,b). On the other hand, in term of overall frequency, monoracial Asian American, African American, and Latinx individuals, in addition to multiracial individuals, report on average experiencing the same frequency of racial microaggressions (Nadal et al., 2011; 2014a). Likewise, women report experiencing more gender-based microaggressions than do men (Levchak, 2013).

Being the target of microaggressive behaviors has been associated with a series of negative mental health outcomes. Racial microaggressions have been found to predict lower self-esteem, depression, and lower affect (Nadal et al., 2014a,b; Ong et al., 2013). Being the target of gender microaggressions (everyday sexism) has been associated with lower comfort, increases in feelings of depression and anger, anxiety, stress, school avoidance, alcohol use, and lower self-esteem (Gartner, 2019; Nadal, 2010; Nadal & Haynes, 2012; Swim et al., 2001). Therefore, in the context of increasingly diverse classrooms, investigating awareness and experiences of racial and gender microaggressions in academic settings is essential for informing interventions aimed at making classrooms more inclusive, and empowering bystanders to learn to recognize and stop microaggressions when they occur (Cheung, Ganote & Souza, 2016).

The Role of Experiences

As mentioned above, prior research has found that different groups of people experience different frequencies and types of microaggressions (Nadal et al., 2014a,b; Sue, 2010). The microaggression literature has often assumed that having fewer experiences with discrimination as a result of privilege makes it harder for White individuals to recognize acts as discriminatory, as “most White Americans do not share these multiple experiences” (Sue et al., 2007, p. 279) and “are not targets of racial microaggressions”(Anthony Clark & Spanierman, 2018, p. 138). Similarly, Basford and colleagues (2014) theorized that men may be less apt at recognizing subtle forms of gender discrimination because they experience gender discrimination less frequently. Ultimately, Sue (2017) argues that microaggressions are “about experiential reality and about listening to the voices of those most oppressed” (p. 171). However, to our knowledge, no study has directly investigated to what extent majoritized and privileged groups, such as Whites and men, are exposed to and aware of microaggressive behaviors as part of their experiential reality.

The present study set out to investigate young adults’ reported types of experience with race and gender-based microaggressive behaviors and the connection between their experiences and their attitudes around race and gender. In particular, this study is an attempt to unpack the inherently dynamic and social contextual nature of the microaggression experience. We argue that there are varying levels of exposure to experiencing microaggressive behaviors, most of which have already been noted in the literature although not fully explored. Importantly, we use the term “exposure” but we recognize that some individuals may be exposed to microaggressions but not cognizant of or aware of these experiences. In this study we identify and examine five levels of possible exposure to the experiential reality of a microaggressive behavior: 1) never heard or have seen such a microaggressive behavior (i.e., unaware), 2) has heard of the microaggressive behavior happening to someone else (e.g., aware), 2) has seen the microaggressive behavior happen to someone else (i.e., bystanders or observers), 4) has engaged in (“done”) a microaggressive behavior to someone else (i.e., perpetrator or transgressor), 5) has had a microaggressive behavior directed at themselves (i.e., target). Most of the microaggression literature has focused on type 5 exposure as “experience.” However, we consider that the four other levels of exposure to microaggressive behavior should be distinguished if we are to investigate how experiential reality informs perceptions and social attitudes regarding social inequalities such as racism and sexism. Furthermore, such an investigation extends our understanding of microaggression behaviors as being part of the social fabric, as experienced by more than the target, and allows for investigation into whether such behaviors are being “seen” “heard” and “done” by both majoritized and minoritized groups.

The Nature of Microaggressive Behaviors: Race and Gender Based

Investigations into the nature of microaggressions have noted several processes, sources, and categories of microaggressive behaviors. Microaggressive behaviors are prompted by stereotypes or prejudice (Thomas & Skowronski, 2020). Microaggressions can be delivered verbally, nonverbally, or through the environment (Sue, 2010). According to Sue et al. (2007) microaggressions can be categorized into three forms: microassaults, microinsults, and microinvalidations. These three forms are considered to vary in terms of the awareness and the intentions of the perpetrator (Sue, 2010). Behaviors that are intended to be harmful and attack a group identity, and make those of the group feel inferior or less than are referred to as microassaults. At the interpersonal level, example behaviors include using offensive language as well as treating a person as less than through actions such as ignoring a person (e.g., refusing to serve them) because of their group membership. On the other hand, microinsults and microinvalidations are often considered unconscious behaviors that either imply that a group’s experiences are invalid or untrue (microinvalidation) or send negative or insulting messages that are stereotypical, rude, or demeaning of an individual or group based on a specific group membership (microinsult).

Across a variety of studies, participants from different groups have provided examples of the types (or themes) of microaggressive messages and behaviors that they have experienced as targets. Examples of race-based microaggressions include messages that assume inferiority, criminality, and sameness (Sue, 2010; Sue et al., 2007). Moreover, examples of gender microaggressions include denial of the reality of sexism, assumption of inferiority, sexist language, and sexual objectification (Capodilupo et al., 2010; Nadal, 2010).

While, as intimated by the brief literature review above, most of the scholarship has focused on the experience of being the target of microaggressive behaviors, individuals are also commissioners of micraggressions. For instance, according to Sue (2010), “all of us are both perpetrators and targets of racial, gender, and sexual-orientation microaggressions” (p.58). Furthermore, Nadal et al., (2013) point out that women are targets of gender microaggressions from both male and female aggressors. In addition, multiracial individuals reported experiences of exclusion or isolation as well as being exoticized by both majority race individuals and other people of color (POC) (Nadal et al., 2011). These findings suggest that future studies should investigate the commission of microaggressions within and across-groups.

Moreover, individuals are not only the targets and commissioners of discriminatory behaviors, they are also observing and learning of these behaviors second-hand. Baker (2017) found that almost half of 500 White Canadian first-year college students reported having witnessed others engaging in racist behavior. In another study, Low et al. (2007) found that being the bystander (i.e., observing) and being the target of harassment based on ethnicity were both relatively frequent occurrences (e.g., 46.7% of graduate students reporting witnessing or learning of other’s experiences of being harassed based on race/ethnicity). They point out that ethnic harassment is not “solely an ethnic minority issue” (p. 2292). However, whether observing discriminatory behaviors is associated with greater acceptance or rejection of such behavior is a matter in need of empirical investigation.

Attitudes & Discriminatory Experiences

As found in the case of being the target of race and gender-based microaggressions, individuals differ in their perceptions and attitudes towards race and gender-based inequalities. For instance, ambivalent sexist and colorblind attitudes have been often linked with upholding gender and racial-based inequalities (Glick et al., 2000; Neville et al., 2000). Colorblind attitudes include a denial of White privilege, denial of the prevalence and existence of blatant racial discrimination, and rejection of the need to address institutional forms of racism (Neville et al., 2000). Moreover, Yi, Todd, and Mekawi (2019) found that men were higher in colorblind attitudes than women (see also, Neville et al., 2014), and in support of other studies, also found that POC college students scored significantly lower on colorblindness than their White counterparts (Neville et al., 2000; 2014). Ambivalent sexism refers to the dual and mutual reinforcing attitudes present in sexism: hostile and benevolent sexism (Glick & Fiske, 1996). Hostile sexism includes attitudes that are supportive of male dominance and superiority, while benevolent sexism includes holding gender traditional and stereotypic expectations for women (i.e., women as homemakers; Glick & Fiske, 1996). Moreover, prior scholarship has found that men were more likely to hold more tolerant attitudes towards sexual harassment, hostile sexism, and social dominance than were women (Glick & Fiske, 1996; Glick et al., 2001; Russell & Trigg, 2004).

Recent scholarship has also shown that being the target of discrimination is linked to perceptions and attitudes related to social inequality. For instance women who report experiencing more sexist events were less likely to hold attitudes that deny individual, institutional, and cultural discrimination in regards to women (Moradi & Subich, 2002). Individuals who report being frequent targets of racial microaggressions were less likely to find the perpetrating of power evasion microaggressions (e.g., a White individual saying “everyone has the same chance to succeed regardless of their race”) acceptable (Mekawi & Todd, 2018). Moreover, other forms of exposure to discrimination, such as witnessing or learning of racism and sexism has also been linked to social attitudes. Becker and Swim (2011) found that encouraging women to observe and note sexist events led to a greater likelihood of rejecting sexist attitudes. On the other hand, the study found that observing sexist events did not seem to impact men’s attitudes towards sexism.

Furthermore, although not often studied, attitudes have been linked to likelihood of committing discriminatory behaviors. For instance, Kanter and colleagues (2017) found that White (college) students who reported a greater likelihood of committing a microaggression were also more likely to endorse colorblind attitudes. Similarly, Swim and colleagues (2004) found that individuals who endorsed modern sexist beliefs were more likely to employ sexist language. However, less research has studied whether different types of exposure to racial and gender microaggressions are associated with differences in colorblind and sexist attitudes.

The Present Study

Microaggressions often occur in contexts in which there are third-party observers (e.g., classrooms), and individuals may learn of their occurrence second-hand. We argue that extending the work on microaggressions to consider the level of exposure that individuals have to the experience of microaggresions is an essential contribution to understanding the degree to which positionality and social experience is associated with being aware of and being critical of microaggressions. In addition to concerns of feasibility and replicability, the current study focuses on college students’ experiences with microaggression behaviors, for two other reasons: 1) college is a space where students are often exposed to greater diversity (i.e. first time young adults are living beyond segregated neighborhoods and schools), and 2) microaggressions in school settings have been found to be particularly harmful to self-esteem (Nadal et al., 2014b). Furthermore, in order to inform interventions aimed at reducing the acceptance and commission of microaggressions and empowering bystanders to intervene when they observe others being targeted by microaggressions, we investigated whether these different types of exposure to discrimination contributed to awareness of discrimination attitudinally (e.g., colorblindness).

Our study tested the following hypotheses:

H1: Given that our sample was primarily majoritized and privileged individuals, we expected that participants would, generally, report few instances of experiencing or engaging in microaggressions and that they would be more likely to report seeing, hearing, and also being unaware of gender and racial microaggressions.

H2: We expected that women and POC would report hearing, seeing, and experiencing more racial and gender microaggressions than would men and White participants.

H3: We expected that reported experiences would be related to individuals’ colorblind and sexist attitudes. Specifically, we expected those who had been targets of microaggressions would be less likely to hold sexist and colorblind attitudes. Furthermore, we expected that those who reported hearing and seeing microaggressions would be less likely to hold colorblind and sexist attitudes. Finally, we expected that those who were less aware of the existence of microaggressive behaviors (i.e. never), and those who had committed more microaggressions, would be more likely to hold colorblind and sexist attitudes.

Methods

Participants

A total of 278 college students from a public university in a Southern state in the US, completed a battery of measures online through Qualtrics for course credit. The racial-ethnic composition of the sample was representative of the composition of the university. Almost three-fourths of participants (74.82%) of the sample self-identified as European American/White, 5.76% identified as African American/Black, 6.12% identified as Latinx, 7.55% identified as Asian American, 3.60% identified as Multiracial American, and 2.16% identified as Other American. Overall, around half of participants (47.48%) identified as cisgender male, and the other half identified as cisgender female (52.52%; See Table 1 for participant characteristics by race/ethnicity and gender). Around a third (35.97%) of participants were 18 years of age, another third were 19-years-old (34.89%), and the rest were in their twenties and early thirties (M_age=19.12, SD=1.34). The majority of participants (91.37%) identified as heterosexual, 5.76% identified as bisexual,1.08% identified as homosexual, 1.44% preferred not to say, and 0.36% identified as pansexual. The great majority of participants (92.09%) reported being born in the U.S., while 3.59% lived in the US for over 10 years, and the remainder lived in the U.S. between 1-9 years. Almost half of participants (45.32%) were in their first year of college, 35.97% were in their second year, and 12.59% were in their third year, and 6.12% had 4+ years of college.

Table 1.

Participant Characteristics by Self-Reported Race/Ethnicity and Gender

Race/Ethnicity	Women	Men	Total
African American/Black	65.20%	34.80%	5.76%
Asian American	42.86%	57.14%	7.55%
European American/White	54.81%	45.19%	74.82%
Latinx	35.29%	64.71%	6.12%
Multiracial	40%	60%	3.60%
Other	50%	50%	2.16%

Note. Percentages for the Total category reference to percentage of the sample self-reporting that race/ethnicity and percentages for women and men reference to the percentage of that race/ethnic group that identified as women or men.

Data Collection & Recruitment

Participants were recruited in the Fall semester of 2019 from the subject pool for a psychology department at a predominantly white institution. Data collection ended when the semester ended. This study followed the standards set by the “North Carolina State University’s” IRB, where each participant provided informed consent (IRB Protocol # 20347). Only those who completed the entire survey were included. Therefore, while 317 participants began the survey, our analysis was based on only 278 participants’ data. The order of the measures in the Qualtrics survey was randomized. Power analysis conducted in G*Power 3.1 suggested that the sample size required to test our main hypothesis (H3) through a multiple regression model (R² increase), with seven predictors, with an alpha of .05, a power of .80, and sensitive to a small effect size of f = .06, required a minimum sample size of 247 (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007).

Measures

Demographics.

An open-ended demographic questionnaire was used for participants to self-identify their gender, age, race and ethnicity, sexuality, length of time living in the U.S., and year of study.

Color-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale (CoBRAS).

Colorblind ideology was measured using the Colorblind Racial Attitudes Scale (Neville et al., 2000). This 20-item scale measures individual unawareness of racism, and has been shown to be significantly associated with individual racial prejudice, a belief in a just world, and gender prejudice (Neville et al., 2000). The CoBRAS has three subscales: racial privilege(e.g., “Everyone who works hard, no matter what race they are, has an equal chance to become rich.’), institutional discrimination ( e.g., “Social policies, such as affirmative action, discriminate unfairly against White people”), and blatant racial issues( e.g., “Racial problems in the U.S. are rare, isolated situations”). Participant response options for each item are presented in a 6-point Likert-type scale, from 1(strongly disagree) to 6(strong agree). A total score is calculated across subscales, as well as separate scores for each subscale. In the current study, the Chronbach’s alpha for each susbscale, racial privilege α = .85, institutional discrimination α = .74, and blatant racial issues α =.82, with a total score of α = .89.

Ambivalent Sexism Index (ASI).

Sexist attitudes were measured through the Ambivalent Sexist Inventory (Glick & Fiske, 1996). This 22-item scale measures ambivalent sexist attitudes through two subscales: hostile sexism (e.g. “Women exaggerate problems at work”) and benevolent sexism (e.g. “women should be cherished and protected by men”). For each item participants are presented with a 6-point Likert-type scale (0 (disagree strongly) to 5(agree strongly)). A total mean score is calculated across subscales, as well as separate mean scores for each subscale (11 items each). The scale has shown strong internal reliability within the US, across genders, and cultures (Glick, et al., 2000; Glick & Fiske, 1996). In the current study, the Chronbach’s alpha for each susbscale and the total score was α = .85 (combined), benevolent α = .76, hostile α = 86.

Modified Racial and Ethnic Microaggressions Scale (REMS).

Based on the reported behaviors and themes present in the microaggression literature, Nadal (2011) created the REMS to capture the frequency of being targets of racial-ethnic microaggressive experiences across ethnic-racial groups. The 45-item scale includes items on assumptions of inferiority (e.g. “Someone assumed that I was poor because of my race”), microinvalidations (e.g. “Someone told me that they “don’t see color””), and workplace and school microaggressions (e.g., “ My opinion was overlooked in a group discussion because of my race”), among others.

In order to capture the levels of exposure to these microaggressive behaviors, we modified the measure by editing the language to third person language, removing environmental micraggression items, and editing the choice options (1= I haven’t ever seen or heard this happen; 2= I have heard of someone experiencing this; 3=I have seen someone do this to someone else; 4= I have done this to someone else; 5= this has happened to me). As an example, a modified item on the assumption of inferiority stated, “Someone assumed that a person would not be intelligent because of their race.” Participants were asked to indicate whether they had seen, heard, and/or experienced the events described in the past 6 months, and to indicate all that apply. A sum score was created for each type of exposure to the 37 items, so that each exposure type (e.g., heard, seen), had a possible score ranging from 0 (none of the items applied) to 37 (had that type of exposure to all of the items). The Chronbach’s alpha for the overall scale was α = .97, α = .95 for never, α = .95 for the heard, α = .94 for seen, α = .89 for done, and α = .93 for experienced.

Modified Female Microaggressions Scale.

Based on the literature of women’s experiences of gender microaggressions, Miyake (2018) developed the Female Microaggression Scale to capture the frequency of individuals’ experience of gender microaggressions over their lifetime. The scale consisted of 34 items that included microaggressions based on traditional gender roles (e.g., “someone expected that I should cook and clean because of my gender”), use of sexist language (e.g., “someone called me a “tease””), and denial of the reality of sexism (e.g., “someone told me that women have the same opportunities as men) among others.

Similarly to modifications for the REMS, in order to capture the levels of exposure to these microaggressive behaviors, we edited the language to third person language, removed environmental micraggressions, and modified choice options (1= I haven’t ever seen or heard this happen, to 5= this has happened to me; for access to either or both modified scales please contact the first author). As an example, a modified traditional gender roles item stated, “someone assumed that a person wanted children because of their gender.” Participants were asked to indicate whether they had seen, heard, and/or experienced the events described in their lifetime, and to indicate all that apply. The modified scale consisted of 30 items. A sum score was created for each type of exposure to the 30 items, so that each exposure type (e.g. heard, seen), had a possible score ranging from 0 (none of the items applied) to 30 (hfad that type of exposure to all of the items). The Chronbach’s alpha for the modified overall scale was an α = .96, α = .89 for never, α = .94 for the heard, α = .93 for seen, α = .86 for done, and α = .95 for experienced.

Results

Racial Microaggressions

In order to test the hypothesis (H1) that participants would report hearing and seeing more racial microaggressions than they would report doing or experiencing racial microaggression, as well as the hypothesis (H2) that women and POC would report higher rates of hearing, seeing, and experiencing racial microagressions than men and White participants, we conducted a 2 (gender: male, female) x 2 (race: White, POC) X 5 (Type: never, seen, heard, done, experienced) ANOVA with repeated measures on the last factor. There was an interaction between type and gender: F (4, 1096) = 10.65, p < .001, η_p² = .03, see Table 2. This revealed that men were more likely to report never having experiences with racial microaggressions than were women, p < .001. Further, women were more likely to report heaving heard (p < .001) and experienced (p = .009) racial microaggressions than were men. Further, there was an interaction between type and race: F (4, 1096) = 7.99, p < .001, η_p² = .02. This revealed that POC were more likely to report experiencing racial microaggressions than were White participants, p < .001. Finally, although qualified by the interactions noted above, there was also a main effect for exposure type: F (4, 1096) = 168.34, p < .001, η_p² = .38. As shown in Table 2, all types were significantly different from all other types (all ps < .001), with participants most likely to report having heard or seen racial microaggressions and least likely to report having done or experienced racial microaggressions.

Table 2.

Reports by Types of Microaggressions (Gender and Race)

Type	Race					Gender
	Total Mean (SD)	Men Mean (SD)	Women Mean (SD)	POC Mean (SD)	White Mean (SD)	Total Mean (SD)	Men Mean (SD)	Women Mean (SD)
Never	9.82 (9.61)	11.45 (9.90)	8.35 (9.14)	8.66 (8.92)	10.22 (9.82)	4.73 (5.18)	6.29 (5.72)	3.32 (4.18)
Heard	22.07 (10.75)	19.27 (10.84)	24.60 (10.05)	22.13 (10.58)	22.05 (10.83)	20.71 (8.37)	18.66 (8.64)	22.55 (7.68)
Seen	15.38 (10.62)	14.73 (10.55)	15.97 (10.68)	16.53 (11.23)	15.00 (10.40)	16.90 (8.12)	14.92 (7.53)	18.70 (8.25)
Done	2.98 (4.52)	3.58 (5.37)	2.43 (3.51)	3.39 (4.52)	2.84 (4.52)	5.43 (4.75)	5.72 (5.41)	5.16 (4.06)
Experienced	3.58 (5.99)	3.39 (5.52)	3.75 (6.40)	8.86 (8.84)	1.80 (3.07)	9.94 (8.95)	3.92 (4.73)	15.38 (8.36)

Note. Range of scores was 0 (No Exposure to this type) to 37 (Exposure to all categories of this type) for racial microaggressions, and range of scores was 0 (No Exposure to this type) to 30 (Exposure to all categories of this type) for gender microaggressions.

Gender Microaggressions

In order to test the hypothesis (H1) that participants would report hearing and seeing more gender microaggressions than they would report doing or experiencing gender microaggression, as well as the hypothesis (H2) that women and POC would report higher rates of hearing, seeing, and experiencing gender microagressions than men and White participants, we conducted a 2 (gender: male, female) x 2 (race: White, POC) X 5 (Type: never, seen, heard, done, experienced) ANOVA with repeated measures on the last factor. There was an interaction between type and gender: F (4, 1096) = 402.08, p < .001, η_p² = .13, see Table 2. This revealed that men were more likely to report never having experiences with gender microaggressions than were women, p < .001. Further, women were more likely than men to report having heard, seen, and experienced gender microaggressions, ps < .001. There were no differences between POC and White participants. However there was a main effect for type: F (4, 1096) = 256.18, p < .001, η_p² = .48. As shown in Table 2, all types were significantly different from all other types (all ps < .001), except that there were no differences between no exposure (never) to gender microaggressions and having engaged in (done) gender microaggression. Further, participants were most likely to report having heard or seen gender microaggressions and least likely to report having done or experienced gender microaggressions.

Social Attitudes

Overall, POC and White participants did not vary significantly in their ambivalent sexist attitudes (Mean_white = 1.99, SD=.04, Mean_POC=2.00, SD=.07) and colorblind attitudes (Mean_white = 57.64, SD=1.03, Mean_POC=57.04, SD=.1.63). However, as shown in Table 3, social attitudes significantly differed by gender.

Table 3.

Means for Social Attitudes Scales by Gender

	Men N=132 M (SD)	Women N=146 M (SD)	Difference
Ambivalent Sexism (ASI)
Hostile Sexism	2.03(.06)	1.63(.07)	t(276)=3.98, p<.0001, d=.47
Benevolent Sexism	2.18(.06)	2.10(.06)	t(276)=.90, p=.36
COBRAS
Racial Privilege	23.43(6.94)	22.02(7.15)	t(276)=1.66, p=.09
Blatant Racial Issues	14.47(14.47)	12.70(4.74)	t(276)=3.12, p<.002, d=.37
Institutional Discrimination	22.50(5.38)	20.13(5.93)	t(276)=3.47, p<.0006, d=.41

Note. Significance of differences were tested through independent sample t-tests.

Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Benevolent Sexism.

In order to test our hypothesis (H3) that experiences with gender microaggressions would predict benevolent sexism scores on the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory, we conducted a hierarchical step-wise regression. In the first step, we entered gender (0 = male, 1 = female) and race (0 = POC, 1 = White). Next, scores for each type of experience for gender microaggressions were entered into the model (never, seen, heard, done, experienced). For the benevolent sexism subscale, the final model with all variables entered into the prediction equation accounted for an almost significant amount of variance, see Table 4. There were two significant predictors of benevolent sexism: hearing of gender microaggressions (B = −.02, β = −.17, p = .023), and experiencing gender microaggressions (B = −.02, β = −.20, p = .033). The more participants report experiencing and hearing gender microaggressions, the lower they scored on the benevolent sexism subscale.

Table 4.

Hierarchical Regressions Predicting Ambivalent Sexism

	Benevolent Sexism			Hostile Sexism
Variable	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β
Step 1
Gender (0=Male, 1=Female)	−.09	.09	−.06	−.40	.10	−.24***
Race (0=POC, 1=White)	.13	.10	.08	.04	.12	.02
R2 Change		.009			.05
F change		1.24			7.98***
Step 2
Gender	0.9	.12	.06	.16	.13	.09
Race	.13	.10	.08	.05	.11	.03
Gender: Never	−.01	.01	−.10	−.01	.01	−.04
Gender: Heard	−.02	.01	−.17*	−.02	.01	−.18**
Gender: Seen	.01	.01	.11	.01	.01	.11
Gender: Experienced	−.02	.01	−.06*	−.05	.01	−.47***
Gender: Done	.01	.01	.06	.05	.01	.29***
R2 Change		.039			.18
F change		2.21			9.74***

Note.

^*p<.05

^**p<.01

^***p<.001

Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Hostile Sexism.

In order to test our hypothesis (H3) that experiences with gender microaggressions would predict scores of hostile sexism on the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory, we conducted a hierarchical step-wise regression. In the first step, we entered gender (0 = male, 1 = female) and race (0 = POC, 1 = White). Next, scores for each type of experience for gender microaggressions were entered into the model (never, seen, heard, done, experienced). For the hostile sexism subscale, the final model with all variables entered into the prediction equation accounted for a significant amount of variance, see Table 4. There were three significant predictors of hostile sexism: hearing gender microaggressions (B = −.02, β = −.18, p = .008), and engaging in gender microaggressions (B = .05, β = .29, p < .001), and experiencing gender microaggressions (B = −.05, β = −.47, p < .001). Participants who reported engaging in gender microaggressions scored higher on the hostile sexism scale and those who reported hearing and experiencing gender microaggressions scored lower on the hostile sexism subscale.

Colorblind Attitudes: Racial Privilege.

In order to test our hypothesis (H3) that experiences with racial microaggressions would predict racial privilege scores, we conducted a hierarchical step-wise regression. In the first step, we entered gender (0 = male, 1 = female) and race (0 = POC, 1 = White). Next, scores for each type of experience for racial microaggressions were entered into the model (never, seen, heard, done, experienced). For the racial privilege subscale, the final model, with all variables entered accounted for a significant amount of variance, see Table 5. There was one significant predictor of racial privilege: participants who reported seeing fewer racial microaggressions scored higher on racial privilege (B = −.12, β = −.17, p = .047).

Table 5.

Hierarchical Regressions Predicting Colorblind Attitudes

	Racial Privilege			Institutional Discrimination			Blatant Racial Issues
Variable	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β
Step 1
Gender (0=Male, 1=Female)	−1.46	.85	−.10	−2.40	.69	−3.50***	−1.77	.57	−3.11**
Race (0=POC, 1=White)	.73	.98	.05	.35	.79	.03	.03	.66	.00
R2 Change		.01			.04			.03
F change		1.66			5.69**			4.73**
Step 2
Gender	−.80	.87	−.06	−1.43	.69	−.12*	−1.27	.58	−.13*
Race	.87	1.16	.05	.30	.92	.02	.10	.77	.01
Race: Never	.03	.07	.04	−.04	.06	−.07	−.09	.05	−.18
Race: Heard	−.07	.06	−.11	−.13	.05	−.25**	−.11	.04	−.25**
Race: Seen	−.12	.06	−.17*	−.02	.05	−.03	−.10	.04	−.24**
Race: Experienced	.06	.10	.05	−.02	.08	−.02	.02	.06	.02
Race: Done	.06	.10	.04	.29	.08	.23***	.06	.07	.06
R2 Change		.08			.09			.09
F change		3.81**			5.39***			4.92***

Note.

^*p<.05

^**p<.01

^***p<.001

Colorblind Attitudes: Institutional Discrimination.

In order to test our hypothesis (H3) that experiences with racial microaggressions would predict scores on the institutional discrimination subscale, we conducted a hierarchical step-wise regression. In the first step, we entered gender (0 = male, 1 = female) and race (0 = POC, 1 = White). Next, scores for each type of experience for racial microaggressions were entered into the model (never, seen, heard, done, experienced). For the institutional discrimination subscale, the final model with all variables entered into the prediction equation accounted for a significant amount of variance, see Table 5. There were three significant predictors of institutional discrimination: gender (B = −1.43, β = −2.07, p = .04), hearing of racial microaggressions (B = −.13, β = −.25, p = .004), and engaging in racial microaggressions (B = .29, β = .23, p < .001). Participants who reported engaging in racial microaggressions scored higher on the institutional discrimination scale, women, and those who reported hearing racial microaggressions scored lower on the institutional discrimination subscale.

Colorblind Attitudes: Blatant Racial Issues.

In order to test our hypothesis (H3) that experiences with racial microaggressions would predict scores on the blatant racial issues subscale, we conducted a hierarchical step-wise regression. In the first step, we entered gender (0 = male, 1 = female) and race (0 = POC, 1 = White). Next, scores for each type of experience for racial microaggressions were entered into the model (never, seen, heard, done, experienced). For the issues subscale, the final model with all variables entered into the prediction equation accounted for a significant amount of variance, see Table 5. There were three significant predictors of blatant racial issues: gender (B = −1.27, β = −.13, p = .029), hearing of racial microaggressions (B = −.11, β = −.25, p = .005), and seeing racial microaggressions (B = −.11, β = −.24, p = .005). Women, as well as those who reported hearing of and seeing racial microaggressions reported lower blatant racial issues attitudes.

Discussion

The current study set out to investigate the type of exposure that college students are having with race and gender-based microaggressions. Moreover, the study also investigated whether these different types of exposure to microaggressions were associated with social attitudes towards racism and sexism. The novel findings were that individuals reported varying types of exposure to both race and gender-microaggressions, and that the frequencies of types of exposure differed by race and gender. In addition, types of exposure to gender and race-based microaggressions were associated with differences in social attitudes. This study’s findings contribute to the literature by suggesting the value of an approach that unpacks experience and the role that experience plays in predicting social attitudes.

As hypothesized (H1), overall, participants were more likely to have heard of or seen racial and gender-based microaggression behaviors, than to report having been the target or perpetrator of such behavior. This finding highlights the fact that narrow attention to only perpetration of or being targeted by microaggressions limits our understanding of microaggressions. It is also in support of prior scholarship that has found that individuals are aware of and have knowledge of others’ engagement in discriminatory behaviors (Baker, 2017; Low et al., 2007). Moreover, as expected (H2), significant gender and race differences were found in terms of frequencies of exposure type to microaggressions. As suggested in the literature, White participants were less likely to report experiencing racial microaggressions as targets (Anthony Clark & Spanierman, 2018; Banks & Landau, 2019; Nadal et al., 2011; 2014a, b; Sue et al., 2007; 2019). However, no other race differences were found, suggesting, that at least for this sample, POC and White students were equally likely to have different types of exposures to racial microaggressions. Thus, both POC and White students were perpetrators of microaggressions (Nadal et al., 2011; Sue, 2010), suggesting the need to further study within-group similarities and differences in perpetrating microaggressions, as well as the possible relationship between perpetrating and being the target of racial microagressions.

In terms of gender microaggressions, as expected, men were more likely to report unawareness of gender microaggressions than were women (Swim et al., 2001). Interestingly, as also found with racial microaggressions, no gender differences were found in reports of perpetrating gender microaggressions. This supports Nadal et al.’s (2013) point that both men and women are perpetrators of gender microaggressions. Moreover, women were more likely to report having heard of, witnessed, and been the target of gender microaggressions (Levchak, 2013). Our findings may lend credence to the suggestion posited by Basford and colleagues (2014) that men may be less apt at recognizing subtle forms of gender discrimination because they experience gender discrimination less frequently. However, future research should directly examine whether experiences of gender microaggressions predict awareness of others’ exposure to gender microaggressions. The current findings also extend prior theorization by suggesting that is not only lack of experiencing gender discrimination as a target that may be influencing men’s recognition of gender discrimination, but also lack of knowledge of the behaviors that they should be on the lookout for.

As hypothesized (H3), exposure to racial and gender microaggressions were associated with colorblind and ambivalent sexist attitudes. In particular, those who reported perpetrating more racial microaggressions were more likely to score higher on institutional discrimination. This provides empirical evidence to support the work of Kanter and colleagues (2017) who documented that students who reported that they would be likely to commit a microaggression were also more likely to endorse colorblind attitudes. On the other hand, women, and those who reported hearing of more racial microaggressions scored lower on institutional discrimination attitudes. Moreover, those who reported seeing fewer racial microaggressions had higher racial privilege attitudes. Similarly, in the case of blatant racial issues attitudes, individuals who heard of more racial microaggressions, and saw more racial microaggressions, as well as women had lower blatant racial issues attitudes. This finding matches our finding that overall women were more likely to have heard (have knowledge) of racial microaggressions, and to have experienced them as a target (H2). On the other hand, men were more likely to report never having heard of racial microaggressions. These findings are in partial support of the possible “naivete” suggested by prior scholarship, of those of dominant groups (Sue et al., 2019, p. 133). However, it also highlights the value in investigating differences between and within groups, as the current study found that women (including White women) had greater knowledge of racial microaggressions than men.

Our findings also show the value of parceling out differences between being the target, perpetrator, and having knowledge of microaggressions. Those who had heard of other’s experiences of racial microaggressions were more likely to be aware of institutional discrimination and of blatant racial issues. Our findings provide potential evidence for Neville et al.’s (2013) suggestion that effects of intergroup contact on lowering colorblindness may be as a result of learning of their friend’s experiences that may “put a human face to racism” (p. 463). In other words, our findings suggest that learning of (hearing) others’ experiences with racial microaggressions may be what prior scholarship was capturing through the intergroup contact measure. Future scholarship should parcel out differences in colorblind attitudes as a result of hearing of others’ racial microaggression experiences and having friends from different racial-ethnic groups. Moreover, future studies should investigate when, how, and to whom individuals disclose their experiences of being targets of microaggressions.

In keeping with prior literature, participants who reported perpetrating more gender microaggressions scored higher on hostile sexism (Begany & Milburn, 2002). Furthermore, as expected, those who had heard of gender microaggressions occurring to others, and had been the target of gender microaggressions scored lower on hostile sexism. This supports theorization that being the target of sexism is one of the factors that contributes to less sexist attitudes (Moradi & Subich, 2002). This finding may help explain why Becker and Swim (2011) found that observing sexist events did not seem to impact men’s attitudes towards sexism. It may be that rather than witnessing gender microaggressive events, learning of others’ experiences of these events, may be more impactful in influencing individuals’ attitudes towards sexism. Perhaps learning of others’ experiences involves greater sharing of information on the negative impacts of sexism or greater ability to take the perspective of those who are targeted than does simply observing others’ victimization. Future research should further explore differences between observing and hearing about microaggressions to unpack these experiences.

As intimated above, our findings have implications for educational interventions attempting to reduce colorblind and sexist attitudes. Our findings show that learning of others’ experiences of microaggressions was associated with lower hostile sexist attitudes, and lower colorblind attitudes. This suggests that learning of others’ experiences of microaggressions may serve as a possible tool for reducing hostile sexist and colorblind attitudes. Future research should investigate what individuals are actually learning from having heard of and observing racial and gender microaggressions. It may be that increasing individuals’ exposure to discriminatory practices (through hearing and/ or seeing), may be the first step in helping individuals to learn how to recognize acts as discriminatory in other situations. Furthermore, future intervention efforts should build upon the findings of this study that document how frequently bystanders do observe others’ victimization to shape interventions that encourage bystanders to speak and do something when they observe microaggressions occurring (Sue et al., 2019).

Limitations

Although the present study contributed to the literature by providing evidence of differences in individuals’ exposure to the experiential reality of racial and gender microaggressions, it had several limitations. One limitation was that due to a small sample of POC, the study was unable to investigate between group differences within the students of color population. Moreover, the small sample sizes of subgroups also prevented analysis of possible differences between women of color, men of color, as well as the role of differences by sexuality, class, and disability. While the literature has found that POC, overall, tend to experience the same frequency of racial microaggressions, future research should investigate if there are differences in types of exposure to racial microaggressions across and within racial-ethnic groups, in the role of different types of institutions in exposure differences, as well as other types of microaggressions across intersecting identities. Furthermore, unexpectedly, we did not find that those who reported being the target of more racial microaggressions had lower scores in colorblindness. This may be as a result of the low frequency of reports of being the target of racial microaggressions in our sample, which is most likely as a result of the majority of sample participants belonging to a racial majoritized group at a PWI. Future research with a larger sample of POC should investigate whether possible within and across racial-ethnic group, as well as different intersecting identity differences in being targets of more microaggression types are associated with differences in colorblind and sexist attitudes. Furthermore, we did not investigate participants’ assessments of how acceptable or unacceptable the microaggressive behaviors are, so we were unable to report whether they agreed that these behaviors are microaggressive and if so, to what extent. Future research should investigate whether types of exposure to different items influences whether individuals consider the behavior microaggressive, and if so, how acceptable. Finally, this study was limited to college students in a PWI Southeastern university. Future studies should investigate possible regional and institutional differences in exposure to microaggressive behaviors.

Conclusion

The current study found that racial and gender microaggressions are part of the experiential reality of both majoritzed and minoritized groups. While a wealth of research has investigated the targets’ experiences of such behaviors, the onus of recognizing, recollecting, and reporting microaggressive behaviors has been on the targets of such behaviors, which has opened the field towards criticisms that microaggressions are limited to being in the eye of the beholder (Lilienfeld, 2017). Our study demonstrates that in a predominantly white institution, individuals are exposed to microaggressions through word of mouth, in addition to observing them, and being part of the target-perpetrator dyad. In other words, non-targets are seeing and hearing of microaggressions as well. Our study highlights that microaggressions are part of college students’ collective experience, although as found in prior scholarship, non-dominant groups continue to be targets of such behaviors at higher rates. Therefore, higher education continues to be a space, where through microaggressions, systems of power such as white supremacy and patriarchy are perpetuated (Pérez Huber & Solorzano, 2015). In addition, our findings show that learning of others’ experiences of racial and gender microaggressions may help lower colorblindness and hostile sexist attitudes. Considering that the scholarship has dedicated years to investigating targets’ experiences of discrimination, our finding that individuals are also exposed to and being influenced by others’ experiences of discrimination serves to highlight the importance of “listening to the voices of those most oppressed, ignored, and silenced” (Sue, 2017, p. 171). Our findings also show the value in investigating how different types of exposure, the unpacking of social experiences of discrimination, may better inform our understanding of what types of experiences may contribute to recognizing, being critical of, intervening, and reducing the commission of microaggressions, and ultimately unequal systems can be re-imagined.