Gendered Racial Microaggressions, Psychosocial Resources, and Depressive Symptoms among Black Women Attending a Historically Black University

Abstract

The current study integrates stress process model and intersectionality framework to explore psychological effects of an intersectional stressor experienced by black women: gendered racial microaggressions (GRMs). Prior research suggests GRMS negatively influence black women’s mental health. However, it is unclear whether specific dimensions of GRMS are more or less impactful to mental health. This study investigates: To what extent do black women experience GRMS overall and its specific dimensions: Assumptions of Beauty and Sexual Objectification; Silenced and Marginalized; Strong Black Woman Stereotype; Angry Black Woman Stereotype? What is the relationship between GRMS and depressive symptoms? Do psychosocial resources (i.e., social support, self-esteem, mastery) mediate the association between GRMS and depressive symptoms? We use data from black women attending a historically Black university in the Southeast (N = 202). We employed ordinary least squares regression analysis and performed mediation analysis. Study results revealed a positive association between GRMS and depressive symptoms; the Angry Black Woman Stereotype GRMS dimension had the most robust influence on depressive symptoms. Psychosocial resources partially mediated the relationship between GRMS and depressive symptoms. Study results suggest that sociological stress research underestimates the influence of stress on black women’s health when intersectional stressors like GRMS are not included in analytic models.

The Stress Process Model (SPM) has been the leading theoretical paradigm in sociological studies of the relationships among stress, psychosocial resources, and mental health for the past four decades (Pearlin and Bierman 2013; Pearlin et al. 1981; R. J. Turner 2013). A key tenet proposed by SPM is that greater exposure to social stressors is associated with poor mental health. Nevertheless, stressors unique to specific sociodemographic populations are rarely a topic of investigation (for an exception, see scholarship on acculturative stress among U.S. immigrants). This lacuna in the literature is surprising, as the core sociological element of SPM is its focus on how social statuses (e.g., race, socioeconomic status, gender) can influence all other components of the stress process (e.g., access to psychosocial resources, mental health outcomes) (Pearlin 1999; R. J. Turner 2013). This study focuses on a relatively new stress exposure that captures unique stressors experienced by black women at the intersection of their race and gender identities: gendered racial microaggressions (GRMs) (Lewis and Neville 2015).

Grounded in the work of black feminist scholars, intersectionality is an analytic tool often used to explain how multiple social categories intersect (e.g., race and gender) and impact social relations and human experiences. Black women are uniquely positioned at the intersection of two marginalized identities, specifically their racial and gender statuses (M. S. Jones et al. 2021; Lewis et al. 2017; Nelson et al. 2021). As a result, they are more likely to be exposed to both race- and gender-based discrimination (M. K. Jones et al. 2022). This study highlights how black women’s racial and gender identities intersect to create distinct microaggression experiences—largely different from ones experienced by other groups. Intersectionality is important when considering stress exposure in the context of black women’s lives, as it draws attention to how gendered racial microaggressions are rooted in systems of racial and gender oppression (Collins 2019; Crenshaw 1989, 1991). Drawing on intersectionality and the stress process model, we investigate the relationships among gendered racial microaggressions, psychosocial resources, and depressive symptoms among black college women.

The current study has three aims. The first is to assess the frequency of GRMS overall as well as the frequency with which each GRMS dimension is reported. Using a unique sample of black women attending a Historically Black College or University (HBCU) in the Southeast, we assess the “prevalence” of gendered racial microaggressions in a specific demographic and educational context. The HBCU context plays a substantial role in black women college attenders’ daily experiences. Studying black women at HBCUs offers important insight regarding how they are impacted by gendered racial microaggressions in predominantly black spaces.

The second aim is to assess whether GRMS, and its subdimensions, are associated with depressive symptoms. Although prior research reports that gendered racial microaggressions negatively influence black women’s mental health (Martins, de Lima, and Santos 2020; Moody and Lewis 2019; Wright and Lewis 2020), it remains unclear whether the specific dimensions of GRMS are more or less impactful for mental health. We fill this gap in the literature by examining the independent psychological effects of four GRMS dimensions: (a) Assumptions of Beauty and Sexual Objectification, (b) Silenced and Marginalized, (c) Strong Black Woman Stereotype, and (d) Angry Black Woman Stereotype (Lewis and Neville 2015).

Our third aim investigates whether psychosocial resources (i.e., mastery, self-esteem, social support) reduce or mediate the association between GRMS and depressive symptoms. This aim is motivated by another core tenet of the stress process which posits that access to psychosocial resources may reduce the influence of stress exposure on mental health (Pearlin 1999; Pearlin and Bierman 2013). This study contributes to a growing sociological literature uncovering the myriad stressors to which black women are exposed, the influence of stress exposure on their psychological health, and the ways in which psychosocial resources may be mobilized to reduce or mitigate the negative psychological effects of stress exposure (Erving, Satcher, and Chen 2021; Keith et al. 2010; Perry, Pullen, and Oser 2012; Turney, Kissane, and Edin 2012).

BACKGROUND

Theoretical Framework

SPM provides two premises that guide the current study: (1) exposure to social stressors negatively influence mental health, and (2) psychosocial resources may reduce or mediate the influence of stress exposure on mental health. A core sociological element of SPM that makes it unique from broader stress theories rooted in other disciplines is that social and economic statuses influence virtually all other elements of the stress process (Pearlin 1999; Thomas Tobin, Erving, and Barve 2021). Nonetheless, the stress process literature often focuses singularly on specific systems of stratification (e.g., race, class, and gender separately; for example, see R. J. Turner and Avison 2003).

SPM was developed with the purpose of examining how social conditions influence psychological well-being. As argued by social stress researchers, measures of psychological distress more readily capture how social conditions influence a continuum of mental well-being that diagnostic categories of mental disorder may mask (Mirowsky and Ross 2002; Pearlin 1999). Depressive symptoms have been a mainstay mental health outcome in the SPM research tradition (Pearlin et al. 1981; R. J. Turner, Lloyd, and Roszell 1999; R. J. Turner, Taylor, and Van Gundy 2004). We follow suit and focus on how social stressors to which black women are disproportionately exposed influence depressive symptomatology.

An intersectional perspective points to how related systems of stratification (e.g., racism and sexism) expose individuals to unique oppressive experiences that are particular to the joint influence of multiple systems (Collins 2019; Crenshaw 1989, 1991). Rooted in black feminist epistemology, black women were the original focus of the intersectionality framework (Collins 2019). As opposed to comparing stress and health across social groups (e.g., black women compared with white women), this study takes an intra-categorical methodological approach (McCall 2005). An intra-categorical analysis is advantageous because it allows us to “zoom in” on the experiences of a particular multiply-marginalized group to unpack their unique intersectional vulnerabilities that emerge within the context of their multifaceted marginalization. This study infuses the intersectionality framework into the stress process model by considering how racism and sexism, two oppression systems rooted in racial and sex stratification, manifest as a unique style of gendered racism experienced by U.S. black women. Moreover, because this study examines depressive symptoms, researchers will be able to compare the magnitude of the influence of a gendered racism stress exposure relative to other literature on black women’s mental health which uses traditionally studied stressors such as financial strain or everyday discrimination.

What Are Gendered Racial Microaggressions?

Gendered racial microaggressions refer to the “subtle and everyday verbal, behavioral, and environmental expressions of oppression based on the intersection of one’s race and gender” (Lewis et al. 2013:51). Drawing on Philomena Essed’s (1991) concept of gendered racism and Derald Wing Sue et al.’s (2007) concept of racial microaggressions, Jioni A. Lewis et al. (2013) coined “gendered racial microaggressions” to capture the intersecting forms of racism and sexism experienced by black women. Gendered racial microaggressions are normative (as opposed to anomalous) among black women (Lewis et al. 2016). Lewis and colleagues’ (2013) qualitative study of black women attending a predominantly white institution (PWI) revealed instances of gendered racial microaggressions across various social contexts ranging from school and work to public places like stores and nightclubs. For instance, one respondent described experiencing unwanted advances from a white male stranger while others reported feeling ignored by professors and “talked over” by white male student peers in educational settings (Lewis et al. 2013). In the same study, respondents engaged in self-censuring at work and school to ensure that they would not be perceived as an “Angry Black Woman.”

Quantitative research corroborates that black women report GRMS with disturbing frequency. Building on their qualitative work, Jioni A. Lewis and Helen Neville (2015) developed a multidimensional scale of Gendered Racial Microaggressions (GRMS) for use in quantitative research studies and discovered four core themes: (a) Assumptions of Beauty and Sexual Objectification, (b) Silenced and Marginalized, (c) Strong Black Woman Stereotype, and (d) Angry Black Woman Stereotype. When queried about the frequency with which gendered racial microaggressions occurred, U.S. adult black women report such experiences, on average, “a few times a year” (Lewis and Neville 2015; Moody and Lewis 2019; Wright and Lewis 2020) to “about once a month” (Martins et al. 2020). Only one study has examined the frequency with which black women report specific dimensions of GRMS. Lewis and Neville (2015) found that Silenced and Marginalized was the most frequently reported, followed by Angry Black Woman Stereotype, Assumptions of Beauty and Sexual Objectification, and, last, Strong Black Woman Stereotype. Here, we assess the extent to which black women attending an HBCU experience GRMS in general and the four GRMS dimensions in particular.

The Psychological Impact of Gendered Racism

A growing number of recent studies have investigated the relationship between gendered racism and depressive symptoms among black women. For example, Marisa S. Jones et al. (2021) found that greater instances of gendered racism were related to higher depressive symptoms among a sample of black college women. Similarly, Erika R. Carr et al. (2014) reported that gendered racism was related to higher depressive symptoms among a clinical sample of low-income black women. However, Tamara Nelson et al. (2021) reported gendered racism was not a significant predictor of depressive symptoms among a community sample of black women. Each of the prior studies used either modified versions of sexist discrimination scales (M. S. Jones et al. 2021; Nelson et al. 2021) or a racialized sexual harassment scale (Carr et al. 2014). We extend prior studies about gendered racism and depressive symptoms by drawing on the Gender Racial Microaggressions Scale (GRMS), a validated measure capturing life events distinct for black women. For example, participants report how often someone has made negative comments about their physical features, such as hair, skin tone, and buttocks, occurrences that systematically and disproportionately befall black women (Lewis and Neville 2015).

A recent review heralded gendered racial microaggressions as a critical determinant of black women’s mental health (Erving, Patterson, and Boone 2021). Research confirms this notion by demonstrating that GRMS are detrimental for black women’s mental health across a variety of outcomes, including self-esteem (Martins et al. 2020), anxiety symptoms (Wright and Lewis 2020), psychological distress (Lewis and Neville 2015), and traumatic stress symptoms (Moody and Lewis 2019). For example, Tafnes Varela Martins and colleagues (2020) found that a high frequency of GRMS predicted lower self-esteem among black women living in Brazil.

Though prior research examined the influence of gendered racial microaggressions on various mental health outcomes, the specific dimension(s) of GRMS most consequential for black women’s mental health have not yet been identified. For example, though Marlene G. Williams and Jioni A. Lewis (2019) reported that a greater frequency of gendered racial microaggressions predicted depressive symptoms, it is unclear whether a particular dimension or type of microaggressive experience is distressing. Accordingly, it is important to assess how specific dimensions (i.e., Assumptions of Beauty and Style Objectification, Silenced and Marginalized, Strong Black Woman Stereotype, and Angry Black Woman Stereotype) of gendered racial microaggressions impact black women’s mental health which, in turn, could influence the prioritization of mental health prevention and intervention efforts.

Can Psychosocial Resources Reduce the Psychological Impact of Gendered Racism?

Psychosocial resources are the “qualities that are capable of influencing the effects of stressors on people’s mental health” (Pearlin and Bierman 2013:330). Investigating psychosocial resources is an attempt to operationalize the reality that “people typically confront stress-provoking conditions with a variety of behaviors, perceptions, and cognitions that are often capable of altering the difficult conditions or of mediating their impact” (Pearlin et al. 1981:340). Psychosocial resources are a foundational component of SPM, serving two functions. First, as directly contributing to positive mental health, and second, acting as buffers against social stressors (Pearlin 1999; Pearlin and Bierman 2013). In the sociological stress literature, self-esteem, a sense of mastery, and social support are the most studied (Pearlin and Bierman 2013). In a general sense, high self-esteem, mastery, and social support are positively associated with mental health (Thoits 2011; R. J. Turner and Marino 1994; R. J. Turner and Roszell 1994; R. J. Turner et al. 2004). These findings also extend to black Americans (Alang 2014; Louie 2020; Miller, Rote, and Keith 2013). Psychosocial resources also may be deployed to safeguard against the psychological damage stressors inflict on black Americans (Miller et al. 2013).

Research consistently reports that access to psychosocial resources is associated with better mental health among black women (Assari 2019; Erving, Satcher, and Chen 2021; Jackson and Mustillo 2001; Keith et al. 2010). Moreover, some evidence suggests that psychosocial resources can reduce the influence of stress exposure on black women’s mental health (Erving, Satcher, and Chen 2021; Perry et al. 2012). Psychosocial resources may serve a similar role in the relationship between GRMS and mental health. For instance, mastery is cited as a valuable resource for black women’s mental health (Assari 2019; Keith et al. 2010). However, to date, no studies have examined how mastery might mediate the relationship between GRMS and mental health among black women. Having a high level of mastery, or sense of control over one’s life, may aid in black women’s resolve to remain resilient despite microaggressions. Other studies are consistent with this claim. For instance, Verna M. Keith and colleagues (2010) observed that mastery was a critical link between discrimination and depressive symptoms among black women. Here, we propose that mastery may reduce the influence of GRMs on depressive symptoms.

Self-esteem may serve as a protective psychological resource for young black women experiencing microaggressions. Black women and girls, on average, have higher self-esteem when compared with their white peers (Milkie 1999; Molloy and Herzberger 1998; C. B. Turner and Turner 1982), which may make them particularly resilient against the psychological assault of microaggressions. Martins and colleagues (2020) found that self-esteem mediated the relationship between gendered racial microaggressions and poor mental health. Sampling black women from various ages and educational backgrounds in Brazil, they concluded that self-esteem was a protective factor for black women’s mental health (Martins et al. 2020). We build on this study by investigating whether self-esteem mediates the association between GRMs and depressive symptoms among black women at an HBCU.

Social support may also aid in counteracting the psychological ramifications of gendered racial microaggressions. This argument is consistent with the stress process model, which refers to social support (a psychosocial resource) as a mediator that weakens the effects of stress on health (Pearlin and Bierman 2013). Recent literature, however, suggests mixed findings about the mediating role of social support. M. G. Williams and Lewis (2019) examined whether various coping strategies mediated the relationship between GRMS and depressive symptoms. One coping strategy involved the activation of social support including venting emotions, emotional support, and instrumental support. Contrary to expectation, social support did not mediate the relationship between GRMS and depressive symptoms (M. G. Williams and Lewis 2019). Nonetheless, a recent study found that social support mediated the relationship between gendered racism and depression among a sample of black college women (M. K. Jones et al. 2022). In sum, we assess whether three powerful psychosocial resources can preserve the psychological health of black women, even as they encounter microaggressions. Moreover, we examine these stress process dynamics in the context of an HBCU.

Black Women in the HBCU Context

Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) are “institutions of higher learning established before 1964, whose principal mission was then, as is now the [higher] education of Black Americans” (Albritton 2012:311–12). According to a recent report released by the United Negro College Fund (UNCF), HBCUs represent only three percent of the nation’s colleges and universities. Still, HBCUs enroll almost 10 percent of all black undergraduate students and graduate 17 percent of all black undergraduates (Saunders and Nagle 2018). The educational impact of HBCUs is profound. Since their origin, HBCUs have been committed to advancing black students’ educational attainment and promoting community empowerment (Albritton 2012).

Studies that examine black women’s experiences at HBCUs often point to two narratives—one highlighting the supportive and liberating nature of HBCUs, the other emphasizing the constraining aspects of attending an HBCU (Hirt et al. 2008; Njoku and Patton 2017). Black women who report positive experiences of attending an HBCU often value its family-like environment (Lockett, Gasman, and Nguyen 2018). The intimate setting of HBCUs is especially important as black women are more likely to feel heard and seen by the institution. For example, Joan B. Hirt and colleagues (2008) found that HBCU administrators form close relationships with students to cultivate an inclusive environment and encourage a sense of belonging (Hirt et al. 2008). Early adulthood is a critical period in which black women’s identities begin to take shape (Wilkins 2012), romantic partnerships develop (Holway, Umberson, and Thomeer 2017; Thorsen and Pearce-Morris 2016), and life decision making becomes salient (Uecker and Wilkinson 2020). Hence, HBCUs have the potential to become a liberating experience for black women who have been marginalized in mainstream society (Kennedy 2012), shaping how they transition to early adulthood.

While the liberating nature of HBCUs is well documented, more recent studies call attention to the specific challenges black women face attending an HBCU. HBCUs are often criticized for their highly conservative environments, characterized by curfews, dress code norms, and strict drinking policies (Njoku and Patton 2017). For black women students at HBCUs, a major source of tension is managing self-presentation—as respectability politics often police students’ self-expression. Respectability politics exclude black women who do not conform to gender or behavioral norms (i.e., “loose women” and sexual minorities) (Pattillo 2007:117). Drawing from two independent research projects of black women at HBCUs, Nadrea R. Njoku and Lori D. Patton (2017) found that HBCU environments were both constrictive and supportive of diverse expressions of black womanhood. For example, women received subtle snubs when they did not conform to standard expressions of womanhood (e.g., wearing feminine attire)—from both faculty and peers. Other studies highlight how black women at HBCUs grapple with issues around sexuality. Nadrea R. Njoku, Malika Butler, and Cameron C. Beatty (2017) draw attention to the marginalization of sexual assault survivors at HBCUs. Other researchers have found that black women report positive intimate experiences at HBCUs (A. L. Johnson, Orbe, and Cooke-Johnson 2014). In sum, the HBCU ambience may function as both a resource and a restraint for black women students.

Current Study

Building on the small but growing literature on gendered racial microaggressions, this study has three aims. First, in the context of an HBCU, to what extent do black women experience gendered racial microaggressions (GRMS) overall and particular dimensions of GRMS (Assumptions of Beauty and Sexual Objectification; Silenced and Marginalized; Strong Black Woman Stereotype; Angry Black Woman Stereotype)? Although gendered racial microaggressions have been explored among black adolescent girls (Gadson and Lewis 2022) and across a diverse range of adult black women (e.g., Martins et al. 2020; M. G. Williams and Lewis 2019), our study of black women in an HBCU contributes greater contextual nuance to the extant literature. Second, we investigate: what is the relationship between GRMS overall (and each GRMS dimension) and depressive symptoms? Despite research revealing a consistent association between GRMS overall and mental health, the specific dimensions most impactful of mental health remain unclear. Last, does access to psychosocial resources (i.e., social support, self-esteem, mastery) mediate the association between GRMs and depressive symptoms? With our last aim, we offer a more holistic “test” of the stress process, using the case of intersectional stress exposure among black women. In sum, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Consistent with past research, GRMS will be reported among black women in this sample, with a frequency of “a few times a year” or higher.

We have no a priori predictions about which dimensions of GRMS will be reported more or less frequently.

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Higher overall GRMS scores will be associated with higher depressive symptom scores (2a). GRMS subscales including Assumptions of Beauty and Sexual Objectification (2b), Silenced and Marginalized (2c), Strong Black Woman Stereotype (2d), and Angry Black Woman Stereotype (2e) will be associated with higher depressive symptom scores.

Because prior research has not examined which dimensions of GRMS are more or less harmful for psychological health, we do not have a priori hypotheses regarding whether the magnitude of the effects of GRMS dimensions on depressive symptom scores will differ.

Hypothesis 3 (H3): Mastery (3a), self-esteem (3b), and social support (3c) will partially mediate the association between GRMS and depressive symptom scores.

DATA AND METHODS

The sample is from a mixed-method study titled Gendered Racism and Well-being Questionnaire. The overarching goal of the study was to ascertain how gendered racism influences the psychological well-being of black-identified women. With a cross-sectional design, the sample comprised 234 black female-identified undergraduate and graduate students attending a southern HBCU. All participants were English speaking, ages ranged from 18 to 65 years, and were enrolled in course-work at the time of participation. Participants completed an online survey via Qualtrics with several measures including sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., age, employment status), stress exposure (e.g., GRMS, anticipatory stress), psychosocial resources (e.g., social support, resilience), and mental health (e.g., depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms). Data collection occurred between September 2020 and April 2021. Participant recruitment occurred in two stages. First, in fall 2020, black female-identified students enrolled in undergraduate psychology courses at HBCU were the initial target sample. Respondents were incentivized by receiving extra credit in their psychology course. Second, in spring 2021, data collection was expanded to black female-identified students across the university (i.e., of any major, undergraduate, and graduate level) who were sent a recruitment flyer with a link to the survey through their university email accounts. As an incentive to participate, the second group of students participated in a raffle for the chance to win one of six $25 Amazon Gift Cards as compensation for their time and participation in the online survey. The survey took 30 to 40 minutes to complete. Should they feel discomfort when responding to sensitive questions (e.g., experiences with discrimination), participants were provided contact information for the university counseling center and other local community mental health resources before and after survey completion. The university IRB approved the study.

With regard to college major or field of study, respondents reported a range of degree programs (e.g., Psychology, Health Sciences, Nursing, and Chemistry). Demographically, the majority of participants were born in the United States (93 percent), identified as heterosexual (84 percent), and were not parents (76 percent). Other demographic characteristics of the sample are described in the Results.

Measures

The dependent measure, depressive symptoms, is the 12-item version of the Center for Epidemiological Studies–Depression (CES-D) Scale (Radloff 1977). This version of the CES-D has been used extensively to assess depressive symptomatology among U.S. black women (Erving, Patterson 2021; Erving, Satcher 2021; Keith et al. 2010; Torres 2012). Respondents were asked the frequency with which they experienced symptoms in the past week. Example of items include, “I felt depressed,” “I had crying spells,” and “I had trouble keeping my mind on what I was doing.” Response options included “rarely or none of the time (less than 1 day),” “some or little of the time (1–2 days),” “occasionally or a moderate amount of the time (3–4 days),” and “most or all of the time (5–7 days).” We created an additive scale with scores ranging from 0 to 33. Higher values reflect more frequent depressive symptoms.

Gendered racial microaggressions were assessed using the Gendered Racial Microaggressions Scale (GRMS), a 26-item measure that assesses black women’s experiences of everyday and subtle gendered racism (Lewis and Neville 2015). Study participants reported the frequency of their experiences in the past year on a 5-point Likert-type scale with response options including “never” (0), “less than once a year” (1), “a few times a year” (2), “about once a month” (3) and “a few times a month or more” (4). Scores were averaged to calculate a total mean frequency score. Significant positive correlations with measures of racial microaggressions and perceived sexist events indicate convergent validity (Lewis and Neville 2015). Internal consistency reliability estimates for GRMS frequency have been good with community-based samples of black women (Lewis and Neville 2015). Of note, GRMS was originally developed to examine societal-level gendered racial microaggressions (Lewis and Neville 2015). Thus, GRMS scale items were not constrained to experiences of gendered racial microaggression on the HBCU campus. Accordingly, respondents were able to draw from their social experiences more broadly.

In addition to the global GRMS scale, we were interested in ascertaining whether specific components were associated with depressive symptoms. The four GRMS subscales included: Assumptions of Beauty and Sexual Objectification (11 items; e.g., “Someone made negative comments about my hair when natural”; α = .92), Silenced and Marginalized (seven items; e.g., “I have been disrespected in a workplace, school, or other professional setting”; α = .88), Strong Black Woman Stereotype (five items; e.g.,” I have been told that I am too assertive”; α = .75), and Angry Black Woman Stereotype (three items; e.g., “Someone accused me of being angry when speaking calm”; α =.80) The global scale (α = .95) and subscales have high reliability.

Mastery is a seven-item scale that assesses perceived control over one’s life (Pearlin and Schooler 1978). The scale includes items such as “Sometimes I feel like I’m being pushed around in life” and “I can do just about anything I set my mind to.” Response categories range from “strongly agree” (1) to “strongly disagree” (7). We averaged items to produce a score with a theoretical range of 1 to 7. Appropriate items were recoded such that a higher score reflects higher mastery (α = .78). Self-esteem is measured using the Morris Rosenberg (1986) 10-item scale. The scale includes items such as “I feel that I am a failure” and “I feel that I have a number of good qualities.” Response categories range from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (4). The appropriate items were recoded such that higher scores reflected higher self-esteem (α = .88; theoretical range: 1–4). To assess social support, we used the 12-item Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (Zimet et al. 1988). This measure of social support captures the receipt of support from three sources: friends, family, and “a special person.” The scale included items such as “[source] is around when I am in need,” “I can share my joys and sorrows with [source],” “I get the emotional help and support I need from [source],” and “[source] really tries to help me.” Response options ranged from “very strongly disagree” (1) to “very strongly agree” (7). Items were averaged to produce a possible range of 1 to 7, with higher scores reflecting greater social support (α = .93).

All models controlled for other sociodemographic factors commonly associated with depressive symptoms. First-generation college students (=1) are distinguished from those who are continuing-generation (=0). Age distinguished among respondents who were 18 to 22 years (reference), 23 to 30 years, 31 to 40 years, and 41 years of age and older. Work status distinguished working (reference) and not working as well as respondents who replied “other.” Marital status compared married and “other” relationship statuses (i.e., divorced, separated, widowed, other) (reference) to those who were single.

Analytic Strategy

The analysis commences with descriptive statistics (i.e., means, proportions, standard deviations, range) for the study measures (Table 1). Next, in Table 2, we use ordinary least squares (OLS) regression to assess the association between gendered racial microaggressions (GRMs) and depressive symptoms, adjusting for the study controls. Supplemental analysis revealed that OLS analyses were substantively similar to regression models appropriate for count dependent measures (e.g., negative binomial regression); moreover, depressive symptoms in this sample is normally distributed given the sample size (Skewness = .25; Kurtosis = 2.30; Kim 2013), making OLS an ideal modeling approach because of our ability to conduct mediation analysis more readily in the context of linear models. Because we are interested in whether specific dimensions of GRMS are associated with depressive symptoms, we next enter each of the four subscales into separate models followed by the inclusion of all GRMS subscales in the final model. The next set of analyses tests whether psychosocial resources mediate the association between GRMS and depressive symptoms. In Table 3, each psychosocial resource (mastery, self-esteem, and social support) is entered into the model separately, followed by a full model that controls for all psychosocial resources. We conducted a formal mediation analysis using the Reuben M. Baron and David A. Kenny (1986) method (Table 4). The next set of analyses adjusts for the GRM subscales, psychosocial resources, and the study controls (Table 5).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics (N = 202).

Measures	Mean or proportion (N)	SD	Min.	Max.
Depressive Symptoms (CES-D-12)	13.43	7.57	0.00	33.00
GRMSa	1.88	0.98	0.000	4.00
GRMS Subscales
Assumptions of Beauty and Sexual Objectification	1.68	1.08	0.00	4.00
Silenced and Marginalized	1.91	1.11	0.00	4.00
Strong Black Woman Stereotype	2.00	1.06	0.00	4.00
Angry Black Woman Stereotype	2.30	1.25	0.00	4.00
Psychosocial Resources
Pearlin Mastery Scale	4.96	1.05	3.00	7.00
Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale	3.06	0.61	1.10	4.00
Multidimensional Scale of Social Support	5.35	1.21	1.25	7.00
Controls
First-generation college student	0.41 (82)
Continuing-generation student (reference)	0.59 (120)
Age
18–22 years (reference)	0.60 (121)
23–30 years	0.18 (36)
31–40 years	0.09 (19)
41 years and older	0.13 (26)
Work status
Not working/other	0.27 (56)
Full-time or part-time (reference)	0.73 (146)
Marital status
Single	0.76 (153)
Married/divorced/separated/other (reference)	0.24 (49)

Source. Gendered Racism and Well-being Questionnaire (2020–2021).

Note. CES-D-12 = 12-item version of the Center for Epidemiological Studies–Depression; GRMS = Gendered Racial Microaggressions Scale.

^aGRMS and GRMS subscales are mean scores.

Table 2.

OLS Regression of the Association between GRMS Overall, GRMS Subscales, and Depressive Symptoms (N = 202).

Measures	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5	Model 6
GRMS, Average Frequency	3.13*** (0.48)
GRMS Subscales
AB & SO+		2.69*** (0.44)				1.19 (0.73)
Silenced and Marginalized			2.63*** (0.42)			1.32 (0.68)
Strong Black Woman				1.85*** (0.46)		−1.01 (0.66)
Angry Black Woman					2.33*** (0.38)	1.48* (0.57)
Controls
First-gen. College Student	−1.02 (0.93)	−0.99 (0.95)	−0.86 (0.94)	−1.13 (0.99)	−1.45 (0.95)	−1.14 (0.93)
Age
23–30 years	0.25 (1.27)	0.40 (1.30)	−0.29 (1.28)	−0.51 (1.35)	0.45 (1.30)	0.62 (1.28)
31–40 years	0.83 (1.71)	1.38 (1.74)	−0.02 (1.71)	−0.01 (1.81)	0.92 (1.73)	1.19 (1.73)
41 years and older	−5.28** (1.69)	−4.66** (1.74)	−6.50*** (1.69)	−6.66*** (1.78)	•4.72** (1.73)	−4.46* (1.78)
Work status
Not working/other	1.46 (1.07)	1.33 (1.08)	1.46 (1.08)	1.88 (1.13)	1.43 (1.08)	1.15 (1.06)
Marital status
Single	2.10 (1.29)	2.08 (1.31)	2.00 (1.30)	1.25 (1.36)	2.28 (1.31)	2.65* (1.29)
Constant	6.53*** (1.76)	7.77*** (1.71)	7.74*** (1.69)	9.68*** (1.77)	6.98*** (1.78)	6.03*** (1.77)
R 2	.30	.28	.29	.21	.28	.33

Source. Gendered Racism and Well-being Questionnaire, 2020–2021.

Note. Reference categories for age, work status, and marital status are 18 to 22 years, working full- or part-time, and not single, respectively. Standard errors in parentheses. OLS = ordinary least squares; GRMS = Gendered Racial Microaggressions Scale; AB & SO = Assumptions of Beauty and Sexual Objectification.

^*p < .05.

^**p < .01.

^***p < .001.

Significance levels were assessed using two-tailed tests.

Table 3.

Ordinary Least Squares Regression of the Association between Gendered Racial Microaggressions Scale Overall, Psychosocial Resources, and Depressive Symptoms (N = 202).

Measures	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5
Gendered Racial Microaggressions Scale	3.13*** (0.48)	1.89*** (0.39)	1.94*** (0.39)	2.53*** (0.44)	1.57*** (0.37)
Psychosocial Resources
Pearlin Mastery Scale		−4.15*** (0.39)			−2.48*** (0.45)
Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale			−6.92*** (0.65)		−3.74*** (0.79)
Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support				−2.37*** (0.36)	−0.69* (0.33)
R 2	.30	.56	.56	.43	.63

Source. Gendered Racism and Well-being Questionnaire, 2020–2021.

Note. All models control for first-generation college status, age, work status, and marital status. Standard errors in parentheses.

^*p < .05.

^**p < .01.

^***p < .001.

Significance levels were assessed using two-tailed tests.

Table 4.

Mediation Analysis of Psychosocial Resources (N = 202).

Measures	Average causal mediated effect	Direct effect	Total effect	% of total effect mediated
Psychosocial Resource
Pearlin Mastery Scale	3.54	20.44	23.98	14.96
Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale	3.96	15.59	19.55	20.65
Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support	2.38	11.44	13.82	16.94

Source. Gendered Racism and Well-being Questionnaire, 2020–2021.

Note. Mediation analysis is based on Models 2, 3, and 4 in Table 3. Mediation analysis is based on the Baron and Kenny (1986) method, using the medeff command in STATA.

Table 5.

OLS Regression of the Association between GRMS Subscales, Psychosocial Resources, and Depressive Symptoms (N = 202).

Measures	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5
GRMS Subscales
Assumptions of Beauty and Sexual Objectification	1.19 (0.73)	0.28 (0.59)	0.57 (0.59)	1.16 (0.66)	0.29 (0.55)
Silenced and Marginalized	1.32 (0.68)	0.72 (0.55)	0.42 (0.56)	0.86 (0.63)	0.32 (0.51)
Strong Black Woman Stereotype	−1.01 (0.66)	0.18 (0.54)	0.41 (0.55)	−0.79 (0.60)	0.57 (0.51)
Angry Black Woman Stereotype	1.48* (0.57)	0.70 (0.47)	0.55 (0.47)	1.20* (0.52)	0.41 (0.43)
Psychosocial Resources
Pearlin Mastery Scale		−4.10*** (0.40)			−2.51*** (0.45)
Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale			−6.90*** (0.69)		−3.79*** (0.81)
Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support				−2.29*** (0.36)	−0.66 (0.34)
R 2	.33	.56	.56	.44	.64

Source. Gendered Racism and Well-being Questionnaire, 2020–2021.

Note. All models control for first-generation college status, age, work status, and marital status. Standard errors in parentheses. OLS = ordinary least squares; GRMS = Gendered Racial Microaggressions Scale.

^*p < .05.

^**p < .01.

^***p < .001.

Significance levels were assessed using two-tailed tests.

Although 234 respondents completed the survey, several respondents were missing on key study measures. For instance, 19 respondents were missing on the dependent measure, depressive symptoms, leaving a sample of 215. To retain as much of the sample as possible, we imputed age for the 19 respondents missing data on age by using the mean age of respondents within their reported college standing category (e.g., undergraduate sophomore). The analytic sample for the present study comprised 202 black women from the Gendered Racism and Well-being Questionnaire who were non-missing on the dependent, independent, and control measures. We also explored multiple imputation to retain more of the sample. Results were substantively similar, with the magnitude and direction of the coefficients being relatively unchanged. Because mediation methods are less clear in the context of multiple imputation, we report results from the unimputed data. All analyses were conducted with STATA 16.1 (StataCorp 2019).

RESULTS

Descriptive Statistics

Means, proportions and, where appropriate, standard deviations for the study measures are reported in Table 1. The depressive symptoms score has a mean of 13.43 (SD = 7.57); depressive symptoms are higher in this sample compared with the 7.1 mean depressive symptom score reported in a nationally representative sample of African American women (Erving, Satcher, and Chen 2021; Torres 2012). The frequency of gendered racial microaggressions approaches the “a few times a year” category (mean = 1.88; SD = .98) (H1 supported). Relative to other studies that assess GRMS frequency, the means and standard deviations for this sample are similar to those reported in M. G. Williams and Lewis (2019), yet slightly lower compared with other studies (Martins et al. 2020; Moody and Lewis 2019; Wright and Lewis 2020). Regarding the GRMS subscales, the Angry Black Woman Stereotype is the most frequently reported (mean = 2.30; SD = 1.25), followed by the Strong Black Woman Stereotype (mean = 2.00; SD = 1.06) and Silenced and Marginalized (mean = 1.91; SD = 1.11). The least experienced microaggression is Assumptions of Beauty and Sexual Objectification (mean = 1.68; SD = 1.08).

Regarding the psychosocial resources, mastery (mean = 4.96; SD = 1.05), self-esteem (mean = 3.06; SD = .61), and perceived social support (mean = 5.35; SD = 1.21) are moderately high in the sample. Approximately 41 percent of the sample is a first-generation college student. Three-fifths of the sample is between the ages of 18 and 22 years, followed by 18 percent between 23 and 30 years of age, 9 percent reporting 31 to 40 years of age, and 13 percent being 41 years of age or older. Most of the sample is either working full-time or part-time (73 percent), while 27 percent are not working or reported some other working status. Seventy-six percent of respondents are single.

Regression Analysis

In Table 2, the association between GRMS overall, GRMS subscales, and depressive symptoms are examined. Beta coefficients and standard errors are reported. In Model 1, a unit increase in GRMS overall is associated with a 3.13 increase in the depressive symptom score (p < .001) (H2a supported). The effect of GRMS on depressive symptoms suggests a 12.52 difference in depressive symptom scores between those who report “never” experiencing GRMS compared with those who report an average GRMS of “a few times a month or more.” Models 2 through 6 introduce the GRMS subscales. Per Model 2, Assumptions of Beauty and Sexual Objectification is associated with higher depressive symptoms (b = 2.69, p < .001). Silenced and Marginalized is associated with elevated depressive symptoms in Model 3 (b = 2.63, p < .001). In Models 4 and 5, the Strong Black Woman (b = 1.85, p < .001) and Angry Black Woman (b = 2.33, p < .001) stereotypes, respectively, are associated with depressive symptoms. When GRMS subscales were entered individually into the models, Hypothesis 2b–2e were supported. However, when all subscales are entered in Model 6, Angry Black Woman stereotypes are associated with higher depressive symptoms (b = 1.48, p < .05) but the other subscales are not. This suggests that the Angry Black Woman stereotype has the most powerful negative influence on mental health. Of note, the R² in Model 6 indicates that GRMS and the study controls explain 33 percent of the variation in depressive symptoms.

Regarding the study controls, age is associated with depressive symptoms. Specifically, women 41 years of age and older have fewer depressive symptoms compared with traditional college-aged women (i.e., 18–22 years). In Model 5 only, divorced/separated/widowed/other women have fewer depressive symptoms than those who are single.

Table 3 examines the extent to which psychosocial resources are associated with depressive symptoms, and whether psychosocial resources reduce the influence of GRMS on depressive symptoms. For the sake of comparing the GRMS coefficient across models before and after including psychosocial resources, Model 1 includes GRMS overall and the study controls. In Model 2, mastery is associated with fewer depressive symptoms (b = −4.20, p < .001). Model 3 shows that self-esteem is associated with fewer depressive symptoms (b = −6.92, p < .001), and Model 4 shows that social support is associated with better mental health (b = −2.37, p < .001). In Model 5, which adjusts for all psychosocial resources and GRMS, mastery (b = −2.48, p < .001), self-esteem (b = −3.74, p < .001), and social support (b = −.69, p <.05) remain statistically significant. In comparing the coefficient for GRMS in Model 1 and Model 5, the coefficient is reduced by 50 percent (3.13 – 1.57 / 3.13). This is only suggestive evidence that psychosocial resources may mediate (at least partially) the association between GRMS and depressive symptoms.

Formal mediation analysis was conducted using the Baron and Kenny (1986) method. Results are reported in Table 4. Results revealed that mastery mediated 14.96 percent, self-esteem mediated 20.65 percent, and social support mediated 16.94 percent of the direct effect of GRMS on depressive symptoms. Collectively, these psychosocial resources mediated 52.55 percent of the direct effect of GRMS on depressive symptoms.

In Table 5, we evaluate whether psychosocial resources reduce the influence of GRMS subscales on depressive symptoms. Model 1 includes GRMS subscales and the study controls to compare the coefficients before and after the introduction of psychosocial resources. Recall, the Angry Black Woman Stereotype is associated with higher depressive symptoms (b = 1.48; p < .05). After mastery is included in Model 2, the Angry Black Woman Stereotype coefficient falls to statistical non-significance (b = .70). In Model 3, with the inclusion of self-esteem and Model 4, which included social support, the Angry Black Woman Stereotype is significant (b = 1.201, p < .01), but the coefficient is smaller compared with Model 1. In Model 5, the coefficient for Angry Black Woman Stereotype is no longer statistically significant and is reduced by 72.30 percent between Models 1 and 5 (1.48 – .41 / 1.48). Accordingly, the negative influence of Angry Black Woman Stereotype on depressive symptoms is substantially decreased by access to mastery, self-esteem, and social support. Collectively, results presented in Tables 3–5 lend support to Hypothesis 3a–3c.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Drawing from the stress process model and the intersectionality framework, this study had three goals. First, in the context of an HBCU, we investigated the extent to which black women experienced gendered racial microaggressions (GRMs). Second, we examined the association between GRMS overall (and each GRMS dimension) and depressive symptoms. Third, we assessed whether psychosocial resources (i.e., social support, self-esteem, mastery) reduced or mediated the influence of GRMS on depressive symptoms. Our study findings confirmed results reported in the small body of research on GRMS (Lewis and Neville 2015; M. G. Williams and Lewis 2019); however, we revealed psychosocial mechanisms that can aid in psychologically shielding black women from GRMS.

First, the occurrence of GRMS overall approached the “a few times a year” category, a frequency similar to prior studies examining GRMS among other samples of black women (e.g., Lewis and Neville 2015; M. G. Williams and Lewis 2019). That black women experience microaggressions, on average, a few times a year demonstrates that microaggressions do not tend to be singular, isolated events. Ongoing stress exposure has cumulative psychological effects over time (Pearlin and Bierman 2013); thus, this volume of GRMS stress exposure among black women is substantial. Of the specific dimensions of GRMS, the Angry Black Woman Stereotype was the most frequently reported. This finding contrasts with Lewis and Neville (2015) which reported Silenced and Marginalized had the highest mean frequency in their sample of black women between the ages of 19 and 68 years of age representing a diverse range of geographical regions and socioeconomic statuses. These findings are surprising, given that the sample is composed of black women enrolled in an HBCU. Nevertheless, despite being a supportive and majority-black environment, the pressures of respectability, characterized by calmness and composure, continue to pervade HBCU campus culture (C. M. E. Johnson 2015; Pattillo 2007). In addition, though the women in this sample were attending an HBCU, they likely still had interactions with individuals outside of campus who could have been involved in microaggressive interactions they experienced.

Second, GRMS overall was associated with higher depressive symptoms, lending support to our first hypothesis. This finding is consistent with past research (Lewis and Neville 2015; M. G. Williams and Lewis 2019). When exploring specific dimensions, the Angry Black Woman Stereotype emerged as having the most robust influence on depressive symptoms. This finding is novel given that prior research on GRMS has only examined GRMS overall, leaving unanswered the question whether specific dimensions of GRMS were more harmful for mental health than others. The Angry Black Woman trope was canonized by the fictional TV character, Sapphire, from a U.S. television show that aired in the 1950s (Judd 2019). “Sapphire is seen as argumentative and harsh. Women who internalize this stereotype may fear being perceived as overly aggressive and may have difficulty expressing their anger” (Thomas, Witherspoon, and Speight 2004:437). In the context of the GRMS subscale, respondents reported being told to “calm down” and were accused of “being angry when speaking in a calm manner.” As noted by Bettina Judd (2019), “Sapphire is so totalizing that it does not take any real anger on the part of a black woman to be accused of being angry” (p. 185). Thus, given the negative connotation of black women’s characterization as “angry,” perhaps it is anticipated that such a label being attached to their being, even when they are attempting to defy the stereotype by “speaking calmly,” is distressing.

Third, consistent with our hypothesis, psychosocial resources partially mediated the association between GRMs and depressive symptoms: collectively, self-esteem, mastery, and social support reduced the direct effect of GRMs on depressive symptoms by 50 percent. Our finding contrasts with prior research which reported that social support did not mediate the association between GRMS and mental health (Lewis et al. 2017; M. G. Williams and Lewis 2019); instead, we find that social support mediated approximately 17 percent of the association between GRMS and depressive symptoms. Conflicting findings could be attributable to differences in the operationalization of social support (e.g., M. G. Williams and Lewis 2019 assess social support-related coping while this study assesses social support more generally) as well as the demographic characteristics of the study samples. Nevertheless, the impact of the psychosocial resources is major, as they partially alleviate the effect of GRMS on depressive symptoms. This set of findings not only indicates the importance of psychosocial resources for coping with GRMS, but also point to ways mental health practitioners can develop treatments to benefit black women. While these results are promising, the significant association between GRMS and depressive symptoms remained. Our results suggest the need for structural changes to dismantle gendered racism as opposed to an over-reliance on individual resources black women can deploy to individually cope with gendered racial microaggressions.

Theoretically, this study integrates SPM and intersectionality perspectives to incorporate an intersectional stress measure pertinent to black women’s experiences. In contrast to stressors measured in the broader U.S. population (e.g., stressful life events; daily hassles), the GRMS measure operationalizes a specific gendered-racialized stressor experienced by black women (Lewis and Neville 2015). The influence of GRMS on black women’s depressive symptoms was not trivial, as we identified a 13-point difference in depressive symptom scores for individuals who report “never” experiencing GRMS relative to those who experience it with the greatest frequency (i.e., a few times a month or more). Accordingly, our study results suggest that sociological stress research underestimates the influence of stress on black women’s health when intersectional stressors like GRMS are not included in empirical research. Black women’s stress exposure is critical to assess, as they remain a race-gender group with disproportionately poor health outcomes including self-rated health (Smith 2021), multiple chronic conditions (Erving and Frazier 2021), and post-traumatic stress disorder (Erving, Thomas, and Frazier 2019). Although we examined psychological health in this study, over time, the psychological health effects of GRMs could contribute to the activation of the body’s stress response and result in physiological dysregulation. This has yet to be empirically assessed but is a fruitful next step for research on gendered racial microaggressions.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

While our study contributes to the growing body of research on gendered racial microaggressions, there are some limitations. First, the study has a relatively small sample size, which may limit generalizability of the findings. Our non-probabilistic sampling strategy to recruit participants might have also biased the results. Only black women who were interested in the study may have completed the survey. As a result, our sample could reflect a population of women experiencing a greater frequency of GRMS. Despite the small sample, our data offer previously unexplored insights about the relationship between gendered racial microaggressions, psychosocial resources, and depressive symptoms. Moreover, though our sample is not representative of black women in general, we hope this research will motivate future national surveys to include intersectional stressors like GRMS to estimate the influence of intersectional stress exposure on black women at the national level. Second, the cross-sectional nature of the study prevents us from making causal claims about the relationship between GRMs and mental health. Longitudinal studies can provide clearer evidence for the predictive relationships between gendered racial microaggressions, psychosocial resources (i.e., mastery, self-esteem, and social support), and depressive symptoms. Third, in addition to frequency of microaggressive experiences, future research should evaluate stress appraisal which assesses the extent to which respondents found such experiences to be stressful (Lewis and Neville 2015; Martins et al. 2020; Wright and Lewis 2020). Fourth, future work should also consider how additional mechanisms mediate or moderate the GRMS and mental health association. For instance, gendered racial identity (Martins et al. 2020; M. G. Williams and Lewis 2019), socialization messages (Moody and Lewis 2019), physical activity (Wright and Lewis 2020), and disengagement coping (Lewis et al. 2017) influence the relationship between gendered racial microaggressions and mental health. Last, though our findings focus on black women in general, black women are not a monolithic population (Erving, Patterson, and Boone 2021; Erving and Smith 2021). Research is needed that examines how black women of varied ethnicities and immigrant statuses experience and cope with gendered racial microaggressions.

Implications for Clinical Practice

Our study suggests several implications for clinical practice. First, clinicians must be cognizant of the impacts of gendered racial microaggressions on black women’s quality of life. Few practitioners identify as black women, and thus, nonblack and male providers must be culturally competent and comfortable with offering safe, affirming, and non-judgmental spaces for black women to share and process their experiences (Bryant-Davis 2007; Comas-Díaz, Hall, and Neville 2019). Second, healing from gendered racial microaggressions will require the use of culturally appropriate treatment (Sue and Sue 2015; T. R. Williams, Walker, and Wyatt 2022). In other words, clinicians’ treatment approach must address cultural or other diversity factors that inform black women’s experiences. Third, clinicians need to screen and assess for experiences of GRMs as well as any other contextual or oppressive factors that intersect and impact the mental health of black women (Bryant-Davis 2007; Comas-Díaz et al. 2019). Last, clinicians must be mindful of black women’s psychological internal (i.e., self-esteem and mastery) and external (i.e., social support) resources, as these are strengths that may mitigate the stress associated with GRMS (Hall 2018). Clinicians can target interventions to strengthen psychological resources and coping skills to manage ongoing stress exposure and mitigate the influence of GRMs on depressive symptoms. In sum, results provide empirical insight that can positively impact treatment and therapeutic interventions for black women impacted by GRMS.