Discussion Post (3)

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jappdp
Daily multidimensional racial discrimination among Black U.S. American
adolescents
Devin Englisha,⁎
, Sharon F. Lambertb
, Brendesha M. Tynesc
, Lisa Bowlegb
, Maria Cecilia Zeab
,
Lionel C. Howardb
a Rutgers School of Public Health, United States of America
b The George Washington University, United States of America
c University of Southern California, Rossier School of Education, United States of America
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Black youth
African American youth
Racism
Ecological momentary assessment
Daily diary
Racial joking
Race-based discrimination
ABSTRACT
This study examined frequencies and psychological effects of daily racial discrimination experienced individually, vicariously, online, offline, and through teasing. Participants were 101 Black U.S. American adolescents for this ecological momentary assessment study that measured daily racial discrimination and 14-day
depressive symptoms slopes. Confirmatory factor analyses specified subscales, t-test analyses compared subscale
means, and hierarchical linear analyses tested associations between subscales and depressive symptoms slopes.
Results showed that six subscales fit the data well: individual general, vicarious general, individual online,
vicarious online, individual teasing, and vicarious teasing. Participants reported 5606 experiences of racial
discrimination during the study and averaged 5.21 experiences per day across the six subscales. The two online
subscales were more frequent than the offline subscales. Aside from online vicarious experiences, all subscales
were positively associated with depressive symptoms slopes. Findings underscore the multidimensional, quotidian, and impactful nature of racial discrimination in the lives of Black adolescents in the U.S.
Introduction
The rise in hate crimes against Black U.S. American1 youth since the
2016 presidential election (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2018)
provides a stark indicator that anti-Blackness continues to be deeply
woven into the U.S. societal fabric. Indeed, an accumulating body of
research (see Benner et al., 2018) provides evidence that persistent
racial discrimination targeting Black adolescents contributes to increased psychological symptoms (e.g., anxiety, depressive, trauma
symptoms; Greene, Way, & Pahl, 2006; Priest et al., 2013), increased
substance use (e.g., Gibbons, Gerrard, Cleveland, Wills, & Brody, 2004),
decreased academic achievement (e.g., Chavous, Rivas-Drake, Smalls,
Griffin, & Cogburn, 2008; English, Lambert, & Ialongo, 2016; Neblett
Jr., Philip, Cogburn, & Sellers, 2006), and increased physiological
problems among these youth (e.g., inflammation, high blood pressure;
Brody, Yu, Miller, & Chen, 2015; Clark & Gochett, 2006). Despite this
evidence, researchers have suggested that their studies may underestimate the association between racial discrimination and negative
biopsychosocial outcomes among Black adolescents (e.g., Berkel et al.,
2009; English, Lambert, & Ialongo, 2014; Pachter, Bernstein, Szalacha,
& García Coll, 2010) because they assessed a limited set of a larger
group of qualitatively-indicated (e.g., Rosenbloom & Way, 2004) and
theoretically-relevant (e.g., Sue, Capodilupo, & Holder, 2008) contemporary experiences of racial discrimination. In the present study, we
sought to address this by examining the frequency and psychological
effects of a broad set of daily racial discrimination experiences among
Black adolescents including those experienced individually, vicariously,
online, offline and through teasing.
Theoretical models of racial discrimination effects
The present study draws upon the theoretical models put forth by
García Coll et al. (1996), Quintana and McKown (2008), and Sue et al.
(2007). We extend García Coll and colleagues’ integrative model for the
study of developmental competencies in minority children to incorporate both traditional, or offline, contexts as well as those online.
This model centers the social position of adolescents of color, and for
the present study, we are particularly concerned with race and its associated indicators of social position. These include skin color, hair
texture, language and/or accent. García Coll and colleagues argue that
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2019.101068
Received 5 February 2019; Received in revised form 17 September 2019; Accepted 19 September 2019
⁎ Corresponding author at: Rutgers School of Public Health, One Riverfront Plaza, Suite 1020 (10th Floor), Newark, NJ 07102-0301, United States of America.
E-mail address: [email protected] (D. English). 1 Throughout this manuscript the descriptor “Black” refers to Black U.S. Americans.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 66 (2020) 101068
Available online 11 December 2019
0193-3973/ © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
T
aspects of social position alter developmental trajectories for adolescents of color through pervasive social stratification mechanisms such
as discrimination and oppression. Further, they note that discrimination
experiences may be subtle or overt.
Following this model, we account for the fact that racial discrimination is experienced regularly by Black adolescents in a myriad of
forms, like peer harassment and teasing (Keltner, Capps, Kring, Young,
& Heerey, 2001). In addition to these more overt forms, there are
subtle, nuanced slights and insults based on phenotypic traits and/or
racial group identification referred to as daily racial hassles (Pierce,
1970) or everyday racism (Essed, 1991). Evidence indicates these forms
of racial discrimination can be experienced by Black adolescents as
individual racial microaggressions—automatic, and potentially unintentional, expressions of subtle verbal, behavioral, and environmental
exploitations of racial power against Black individuals in the U.S. (Sue
et al., 2007; Sue et al., 2008). García Coll et al. (1996) framed these
multiple forms of racial discrimination experiences as significant barriers to the healthy development of racial/ethnic minority youth. They
suggested that these discrimination experiences can create inhibiting
environments that influence child characteristics (e.g., health status,
temperament) and ultimately affect cognitive, social, and emotional
development for racial/ethnic minority youth.
Along with the García Coll and colleagues model, we draw upon
Quintana and McKown’s (2008) integrated model of the influences of
race and racism on the developing child. This model stresses the importance of vicarious racial discrimination experiences in addition to
those experienced individually through teasing, harassment, and other
forms of discrimination. Much of the research on racial discrimination
has focused on individual experiences, but the researchers note that
adolescents do not necessarily need to be personally involved for the
discriminatory experience to influence their psychological adjustment
(Quintana & McKown, 2008). Although not experienced directly,
Quintana and McKown note that vicarious exposure to racial discrimination may be traumatic and equally impactful on developmental
outcomes. Additionally, Tynes, Giang, Williams, and Thompson (2008)
applied Quintana and McKown’s model to online experiences of racial
discrimination, identifying that individual and vicarious racial discrimination can occur online in a myriad of expressions such as witnessing the use of racial epithets in social media.
To date, the literature on individual racial discrimination, and the
comparatively limited literature on vicarious racial discrimination,
have tended to focus on more overt forms of the stressor. Indeed, the
literature on racial microaggessions is often published separately or, if
included in racial discrimination studies, is measured separately (see
Tynes, Markoe & Rose, 2013). The application of the microaggressions
framework to online racial discrimination experiences is particularly
complex, as early research suggests that once messages are written,
voiced or shown graphically in digital formats, experiences may no
longer be considered subtle (Tynes, Del Toro, & Lozada, 2013). For this
reason, and following the above models, the present study assesses
racial microaggessions in traditional or offline settings, but not in online settings.
We believe that examining microaggressions is critical because,
despite evidence for key mechanisms, moderators, and outcomes associated with the racial discrimination for Black adolescents (see
Benner et al., 2018; Priest et al., 2013), the microaggressions framework has recently come under criticism for lacking empirical support
(e.g., Lilienfeld, 2017). In particular, critics have asserted that, contrary
to theory, there is little evidence that subtypes of microaggressions
actually occur on a regular basis for Black U.S. Americans. The present
study aims to address this gap in the literature and examine the daily
frequency of underlying subtypes of microaggressions identified in
theoretical and qualitative research with Black U.S. Americans (Sue
et al., 2008). Taken together, the aforementioned theoretical models
frame our focus on vicarious and individual general discrimination
offline (including microaggressions), individual and vicarious
experiences online, and individual and vicarious teasing.
Developmentally-specific content of racial discrimination
experiences
Recent reviews of racial discrimination assessment among adolescents of color have suggested that there is a need for more developmentally-appropriate (e.g., Benner et al., 2018) and contemporaneously-relevant (e.g., Seaton, Gee, Neblett, & Spanierman,
2018) approaches to racial discrimination measurement among Black
youth. Indeed, recent research suggests that two types of racial discrimination experiences are particularly relevant, yet understudied, for
Black adolescents: racial teasing and vicarious experiences of racial
discrimination.
Research indicates that teasing, or the intentional provocation of a
target individual around a topic important to them with some level of
playfulness, is particularly relevant during childhood given it encompasses several forms of developmentally-normative social interactions during this period (e.g., play fighting; Keltner et al., 2001). Additionally, developmental theory on ethnic/racial identity indicates
that, because adolescence is a key period for the development of ethnic/
racial identity and bias perception, racial teasing may be particularly
impactful for Black individuals during adolescence (Umaña-Taylor
et al., 2014). This is critical as evidence indicates teasing is an exceedingly common way in which adolescents address race/ethnicity
with their peers (Douglass, 2013) and that teasing experiences earlier in
life predict negative psychosocial outcomes later in life (e.g., Ledley
et al., 2006; McCabe, Miller, Laugesen, Antony, & Young, 2010). In fact,
although adolescents often characterize racial/ethnic teasing as innocuous, daily teasing experiences are both frequent and lead to shortterm increases in anxiety symptoms among adolescents of color
(Douglass, Mirpuri, English, & Yip, 2016). This evidence notwithstanding, few studies have specifically focused on teasing as a form of
discrimination outside of integrating one or two teasing items (e.g.,
Harrell, 1997; Tynes et al., 2008). Furthermore, no studies, to our
knowledge, have focused on multiple forms of daily teasing experiences
that target Black adolescents specifically associated with their race
(e.g., targeting skin-tone, hair texture).
Vicarious racial discrimination, or “the secondhand exposure to the
racial discrimination and/or prejudice directed at another individual”
(p.235; Heard-Garris, Cale, Camaj, Hamati, & Dominguez, 2018) is the
least-studied form of racial discrimination among youth (Priest et al.,
2013). This is an important consideration because researchers posit that
vicarious discrimination directed at peers, family members, and other
racial group members may be the most frequent type of discrimination
for children and adolescents because, as a function of their social and
cognitive development, they have more difficulty recognizing individual discrimination (e.g., Brown & Bigler, 2005; Taylor, Wright,
Moghaddam, & Lalonde, 1990). This is relevant to online settings as
messages in social media settings are often directed at general groups or
other individuals (Tynes et al., 2008). Moreover, a growing body of
literature indicates that vicarious racial discrimination contributes to
negative psychosocial outcomes among Black adolescents (Heard-Garris
et al., 2018; Medina, Lewis, & Pati, 2010). However, there is currently
little evidence documenting the daily frequency and impact of several
different teasing and vicarious forms of racial discrimination among
Black adolescents.
Online forms of racial discrimination
An emerging literature indicates that the Internet is a critical context for racial experiences among Black adolescents (Keum & Miller,
2018; Tynes et al., 2015). Studies have found that the vast majority of
Black adolescents use the Internet daily and spend more time online
and on social media than their peers from different races/ethnicities
(Rideout, Lauricella, & Wartella, 2011). In particular, a Pew Research
D. English, et al. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 66 (2020) 101068
2
Center study found that 34% of Black youth report going online “almost
constantly,” a substantially higher rate than their White peers (Lenhart
& Page, 2015). Critically, evidence indicates that racial discrimination
is common in online contexts since they are settings for quasi-anonymous self-expression where discrimination can occur with relative
social impunity (Tynes, Reynolds, & Greenfield, 2004). Studies using
the Online Victimization Scale (OVS; Tynes, Rose, & Williams, 2010)
show associations between online racial discrimination and negative
psychosocial outcomes for Black adolescents (e.g., Tynes et al., 2008;
Tynes et al., 2010). However, to our understanding, no studies have
examined the frequency and impact of daily online racial discrimination
using intensive daily longitudinal survey methods. Given the amount of
time Black adolescents spend online daily, quotidian measurement of
online racial discrimination is necessary to accurately assess its frequency and impact for these youth.
Addressing retrospective and acquiescence biases
Two primary sources of bias potentially affect the validity of current
racial discrimination self-report measurement with Black adolescents:
retrospective bias and acquiescence bias. Regarding retrospective bias,
although the majority of racial discrimination studies have focused on
long-term (e.g., one year) and non-specific (e.g., how often in ‘daily
life’) timeframes of racial discrimination experiences, more recent
evidence suggests that daily racial discrimination assessment may
provide more valid frequency estimates (Seaton & Iida, 2019). Indeed,
studies that utilize large timeframes for measurement (e.g., one year
and a lifetime; e.g., English et al., 2014; Seaton, Caldwell, Sellers, &
Jackson, 2008) reduce the chance of accurate and representative recall,
which causes retrospective bias (Stone & Shiffman, 2002), especially
when assessing highly nuanced stressors like microaggressions (Sue
et al., 2008; Wong, Eccles, & Sameroff, 2003). This is particularly relevant given adolescents, as a function of pubertal onset, are in the
process of major cognitive developments such as memory refinement,
an essential mechanism for measurement through self-report
(Bradburn, Rips, & Shevell, 1987).
Studies that use ecological momentary assessment (EMA), the repeated sampling of participants’ experiences over short time periods,
help to eliminate many of the retrospective biases inherent in self-report questionnaires, yielding data that are more reliable and accurate
(Ong & Burrow, 2017; Stone & Shiffman, 2002). EMA racial discrimination research may, therefore, provide a clearer picture of the
frequency of racial discrimination. For example, a study using daily
measurement found that Black adolescents experienced racial discrimination an average of 2.44 days over a two-week period (Seaton &
Iida, 2019)—a substantially higher estimate than past studies with
larger measurement frames (e.g., English et al., 2014). Additionally, a
recent meta-analysis found that measures with shorter time frames
showed larger effects across psychosocial outcomes, suggesting that
EMA studies could be essential to assessing short-term changes in
psychosocial outcomes (Benner et al., 2018). In addition to the timeframe, survey methodologists find that multiple specific questions
about several social settings within an EMA paradigm aids in participant recall, comprehension, and classification (Schaeffer & Presser,
2003; Tourangeau, 2000). As such, utilizing EMA to assess the impact of
a comprehensive set of discrimination experiences (i.e., online, offline,
vicarious, and teasing experiences) may be beneficial to examining both
frequency and impact of racial discrimination experiences. Moreover,
since EMA surveys are administered every day, and the theoretical
literature indicates that racial discrimination occurs daily (e.g., Sue
et al., 2008), EMA provides a strong opportunity to test the assumptions
of those models (Lilienfeld, 2017; Ong & Burrow, 2017).
In addition to retrospective bias, current self-report measures of
racial discrimination risk acquiescence bias, or the tendency for respondents to consistently endorse in a single direction on survey scales
(Schaeffer & Presser, 2003). Because, to our knowledge, all items in the
extant measures of racial discrimination for Black adolescents ask only
about negative experiences without counterbalancing with items that
vary in their wording, they may encourage automatic and consistent
response patterns across items. As a result, these instruments may lead
to either the over- or under-estimation of racial discrimination frequency.
Racial discrimination and depressive symptoms
Over 25 years of racial discrimination research with Black adolescents provides robust evidence for a strong link between racial discrimination experiences and depressive symptoms among these youth
(see Benner et al., 2018). However, relatively few of these studies have
assessed this link longitudinally (see for exceptions: Brody et al., 2006;
English et al., 2014) and even fewer have examined associations between racial discrimination and short-term changes in depressive
symptoms (Lilienfeld, 2017). This is critical given that understanding
the immediate impact of racial discrimination among Black adolescents
provides guidance for clinicians, school staff, policy makers, and researchers on how to intervene in the most effective and time-sensitive
way (Ong & Burrow, 2017). Thus, it is important to know the types of
discrimination that are both the most frequent and most impactful for
short-term psychological symptoms among Black adolescents.
The present research
With the present study we sought to examine racial discrimination
in multiple forms and contexts to gain an understanding of the multidimensional presentation and impact of daily racial discrimination
among Black adolescents in the U.S. In particular, we focused on assessing racial teasing and more general racial discrimination messages
(i.e., with a serious tone), racial discrimination in online and offline
settings, and through individual and vicarious experiences. Thus, we
specified subscales that included individual general experiences, vicarious general experiences, individual teasing, vicarious teasing, individual online experiences, and vicarious online experiences. We then
examined their frequencies and tested their associations with changes
in depressive symptoms across a two-week period. Additionally, specifically with individual general experiences, we tested tenets of microaggressions theory by examining whether groups of items were interrelated around types of racial microaggressions among Black U.S.
Americans highlighted in past studies (Sue et al., 2007; Sue et al.,
2008).
In light of past research that suggests the internet is a common social context in which overt racial discrimination is frequently expressed
(Keum & Miller, 2018; Tynes et al., 2015), we expected online racial
discrimination to be more common among participants than offline
discrimination. In addition, given research suggests that young people
are more likely to perceive vicarious than individual discrimination
because of developmental considerations (e.g., Brown & Bigler, 2005;
Taylor et al., 1990), we expected vicarious forms of racial discrimination would be the most frequent. Additionally, we anticipated that all
forms of racial discrimination would be positively associated with
short-term increases in depressive symptoms. Finally, we engaged in
exploratory analyses to examine associations between subscales and
key demographic variables (e.g., age) and tested whether racial discrimination subscales were differentially associated with changes in
depressive symptoms by comparing the magnitudes of their effect sizes.
Method
Procedure
Participants were 101 students between the ages of 13 and 17 years
old. Eighty-eight percent of participants identified as African American
or Black, 1% identified as African, 1% identified as Afro-Latino, 2%
D. English, et al. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 66 (2020) 101068
3
identified as biracial/multiracial, and 8% identified as “other” and reported or wrote in an answer (e.g., “mixed with black, white, and indian”). To incorporate the diversity of ways in which participants
identified, we use the term ‘Black’ to refer to their race throughout the
manuscript. Table 1 presents additional demographic information on
the sample.
We collaborated with three different educational programs located
in predominantly Black U.S. American neighborhoods in southeast and
northeast Washington D.C. to recruit a non-random sample of participants. The racial composition of these schools and neighborhoods reflect those of the majority of Black adolescents in the U.S. who attend
predominantly Black schools and live in predominantly Black neighborhoods as a function of high and growing racial segregation in the
U.S. (Reardon & Owens, 2014). In total, we had four cohorts of participants from these three educational programs. The first cohort was
from a middle school during December 2014 (n = 20); two cohorts
came from the same high school: one in May 2015 (n = 54) and another
in July 2015 (n = 17); and the final cohort consisted of high school
students from a variety of Washington D.C. public schools enrolled in a
pre-college academic enrichment summer program during July 2015
(n = 10). Across the four cohorts, we invited six classrooms of students
to participate in the study. Of the approximately 120–140 students in
these classrooms, 101 students assented and their legal guardians
consented for them to be in the study. Summer participants indicated
their grade based on the previous school year. For the high school with
two cohorts, we cross-checked names and consent forms to ensure that
there were no duplicate participants.
The primary purpose of the overall study was to examine a wide
array of racial discrimination items for Black youth to establish the
most frequent and salient experiences of racial discrimination to inform
measure development for EMA studies. As such, our priorities were to
collect data on as many racial discrimination items as possible within
the restrictions of a daily administration paradigm. This informed our
decisions described below to use a random administration design and to
measure racial discrimination daily, while measuring depressive
symptoms at baseline and follow-up. In particular, given the restrictions
of an EMA design, including limits on the number of daily items that
can be administered, we decided to utilize the EMA just for the racial
discrimination items, administering a random sample of these items to
each participant for each administration (Silvia, Kwapil, Walsh, &
Myin-Germeys, 2014).
We administered the quantitative research protocols on an Internetbased Qualtrics platform across 15 days for each cohort. The baseline
questionnaire occurred on the first day of the study period and included
self-report measures of psychosocial outcomes including depressive
symptoms. The EMA assessment portion started the day after and occurred for 14 days. Across days, participants received email and textmessage reminders to log on to the study server and complete the daily
survey. Each day, for each study participant, Qualtrics randomly administered 15 items. We decided on 15 daily items since past EMA
research showed that a comparable number of items lead to an acceptable amount of daily participant burden (Douglass et al., 2016). Of
these 15 items, 12 were discrimination items and 3 were positivelyvalenced items meant to counterbalance the item phrasing and protect
against acquiescence bias. We designed the positively-valenced items
using a comprehensive mixed-methods item development process described in English (2017) to be the opposite of racial discrimination.
Thus, we asked about experiencing, witnessing, and interpreting interracial interactions in which racial power was neither exerted nor
exploited. In line with a simple matrix design within an EMA framework (Silvia et al., 2014), we used simple randomization for a block of
88 discrimination items and a block of 13 positive items, separately.
Thus, on a given day for a given participant, each discrimination item
had a 3/22 (12 daily items/88 total items) chance of being administered.
The research team provided a cash incentive for participation based
on the number of surveys completed: $30 for 16 surveys (1 baseline, 14
daily surveys, 1 follow-up), $25 for 10–15 surveys, and $15 for less than
10 surveys. Every participant had the opportunity to engage in a debriefing discussion with one of the research team members, each of
whom is trained in clinical assessment, racial stress, and treatment of
emotional distress. The George Washington University Institutional
Review Board (protocol number: 051445, title: Youth Development
Study) approved this study protocol.
Measures
Racial discrimination
To assess across individual general, vicarious general, individual
online, vicarious online, individual teasing, and vicarious teasing experiences we utilized items from extant measures and also developed
original items. We drew the online items from the individual and vicarious subscales of the Online Victimization Scale (Tynes et al., 2010).
We drew items for the other subscales from the Perceptions of Racism in
Children and Youth (Pachter et al., 2010), Adolescent Discrimination
Index (Fisher, Wallace, & Fenton, 2000), Racism and Life Experiences
Scale (Harrell, 1997), Schedule of Racist Events (Landrine & Klonoff,
1996), Everyday Discrimination Scale (Clark, Coleman, & Novak,
2004), and Perceived Racism Scale-Child Version (Nyborg & Curry,
2003). The supplemental appendix specifies the items we used from
each subscale. These scales predominantly provided items that fit with
subtypes of individual general microaggressions. Since teasing and vicarious racial discrimination experiences were the least commonly assessed experiences in the aforementioned measures, we engaged in a
comprehensive mixed-methods item development process described in
( English, 2017). We also developed positively-valenced items during
the mixed-methods item development process that described experiencing or witnessing positive racial encounters between two people of
different races/ethnicities in which racial power was not exerted (e.g.,
“…did you have a positive discussion about race/ethnicity with a peer
of a different racial/ethnic background?”; “…did you see a positive
Table 1
Demographic and psychological variables for participants (N = 101).
Variable n(%)
Age (years)
13 13 (13%)
14 23 (23%)
15 29 (29%)
16 22 (22%)
17 11 (11%)
Grade
8th 18 (18%)
9th 53 (53%)
10th 4 (4%)
11th 9 (9%)
12th 15 (15%)
Gender
Male 41 (41%)
Female 57 (57%)
Race/Ethnicity
African American or black 89 (88%)
African 1 (1%)
Latino or hispanic (Afro-Latino) 1 (1%)
Biracial/Multiracial 2 (2%)
Other 8 (8%)
Neighborhood Racial Composition
Black or African American 96 (96%)
White or caucasian 3 (3%)
Latino or hispanic 1 (1%)
Variable M(SD)
Depressive symptoms (Baseline) 1.82 (0.48)
Depressive symptoms (Follow-Up) 1.75 (0.37)
Note. There is a small amount of missing data for each variable as a result
of participant omission.
D. English, et al. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 66 (2020) 101068
4
discussion about race/ethnicity on social media [e.g., Facebook, Twitter,
Instagram, comments section]?”). The response scale for all items ranged
from 0 (Did not happen) to 1 (Happened Once) up to 4 (Happened Four or
More Times). We conducted confirmatory factor analysis and alpha
statistics to examine reliability among the subscales. This process is
described in the Data Analysis section. Although researchers have
called into question whether racial discrimination experiences should
be tested as effect-indicator models (i.e., with latent variables within
CFAs; Lilienfeld, 2017), we deem it appropriate since we expect that
each item is an indicator of a broader set of discrimination experiences
that are driven by factors such as the social environment, which are
acknowledged, but unmeasured here. Items for each subscale, factor
loadings, and alphas for scales are presented in Tables 2-4.
Depressive symptoms
The Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale (CES-D;
Radloff, 1977) consists of 20 items measuring four factors of depressive
symptomatology: depressive affect, interpersonal problems, somatic
complaints, and positive affect. Items include: “I was bothered by things
that usually don’t bother me;” “I had trouble keeping my mind on what
I was doing;” and “My sleep was restless.” Participants indicated the
degree to which they have experienced a given symptom during the
previous week on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (Rarely) to
3 (Most or all of the time). We reverse coded scores in the positive affect
section. The CES-D has shown good psychometrics with samples of
Black U.S. American youth (α = 0.80 in Pittman & Chase-Lansdale,
2001; α = 0.89 in Sellers, Copeland-Linder, Martin, & Lewis, 2006).
The alpha statistic on standardized items in the present sample was 0.83
at baseline and 0.79 at follow-up.
Demographic variables
Participants provided demographic information including their
race/ethnicity, age, gender, grade, and perceived neighborhood racial
composition.
Data analysis
Prior to conducting the core analyses for this project we reviewed
two forms of validity checks for the racial discrimination random item
administration method. We first examined the item administration
frequencies to ensure an acceptable level of random missingness and
general parity in the number of times participants saw each item. We
also examined the mean difference in responses to two virtually
equivalent items using a t-test to assess if ratings were similar in frequency even though different participants received them on different
days.
Once we ensured the validity of the random itemization method, we
conducted between-participant confirmatory factor analyses (CFA)
within Mplus 8.2 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2017) using within-participant, per-day means across the 14-day EMA period. We calculated
these means for each participant by using their observed data for each
item across the 14-day period, and dividing the sum of their discrimination reports by the number of times each item was administered. For example, if a participant received a given item on four different days, and they experienced that item on one occasion, their mean
score for the item would be 0.25 (1 experience / 4 administrations). We
aggregated means to this level to avoid imputing a large amount of data
since each item had a 86.4% chance of being missing (12 items per
administration / 88 total items) and this level of missingness has been
understudied in best-practice examinations of missing data analysis
(e.g., Schlomer, Bauman, & Card, 2010).
We conducted CFAs based on items that conceptually fit into the
hypothesized subscales: individual general, vicarious general, individual online, vicarious online, individual teasing, and vicarious
teasing. In addition, given the majority of items drawn from past
measures were individual general experiences, we had the opportunity
to group these into subscales based on the types of microaggressions
identified in past research among Black U.S. Americans (Sue et al.,
2007; Sue et al., 2008). The subscales within the individual general
scale included assumptions of criminality (i.e., a participant being
judged as dangerous, criminal, or deviant based on their race/ethnicity), assumptions of intellectual inferiority (i.e., presumption of unintelligence), assumed universality of the Black American experience (i.e.,
being stereotyped or expected to understand and/or communicate for
all Black people), second-class citizenship (i.e., receiving poor treatment, especially in public accommodations, while others of different
Table 2
Confirmatory factor analyses factor loadings for racial discrimination subscales.
Scale Racial discrimination item Mean (SD) β (SE)
Individual Online … did people exclude you from a website 0.42 (0.91) 0.80 (0.10)
…did people show you a racist image online 0.69 (0.96) 0.68 (0.20)
… did people threaten you online 0.42 (0.82) 0.66 (0.26)
… did people say mean or rude things about you online a 0.46 (0.99) 0.57 (0.18)
Vicarious Online …did people crack jokes about people of your race/ethnic group online 0.54 (0.93) 0.80 (0.15)
…did you witness people saying mean or rude things about another Black person’s race/ethnicity online 0.68 (1.06) 0.71 (0.11)
…did people say things that were untrue about people in your race/ethnic group 0.67 (1.07) 0.63 (0.12)
Vicarious Teasing …did you witness a peer being made fun of because their race/ethnicity 0.47 (0.86) 0.76 (0.10)
…did you see a peer of your same race/ethnicity teased because of their race/ethnicity 0.27 (0.67) 0.73 (0.20)
…did you overhear or were told an offensive joke or comment a 0.35 (0.72) 0.67 (0.23)
…did you overhear a peer telling jokes about Black people 0.46 (0.80) 0.61 (0.15)
Individual Teasing …did a peer tease you a 0.37 (0.88) 0.89 (0.05)
… did a peer joke about the negative treatment of Black people in the United States (e.g., slavery, police brutality) 0.59 (1.01) 0.87 (0.05)
…did a peer tease you because you wear your hair natural 0.28 (0.65) 0.86 (0.05)
…did a peer joke about the texture of your hair a 0.40 (0.81) 0.79 (0.07)
…did a peer tease you because of your skin tone 0.45 (0.96) 0.79 (0.10)
… did a peer joke about your race/ethnic background 0.53 (0.99) 0.66 (0.12)
Vicarious General … did you hear about a family member experiencing something they described as racial discrimination 0.45 (0.77) 0.91 (0.07)
…did you hear about a friend experiencing something they described as racial discrimination 0.61 (1.09) 0.85 (0.05)
…did you hear about a family member being treated poorly because of their race/ethnicity 0.23 (0.53) 0.84 (0.08)
…did you hear about a friend being treated poorly because of their race/ethnicity 0.28 (0.69) 0.58 (0.14)
…were your parents or other family members treated unfairly or badly because of the color of their skin, language, accent, or
because they came from a different country or culture
0.36 (0.69) 0.55 (0.15)
Note. All factor loadings were significant at the 0.05 level. We randomly administered 12 of these items each day.
Means in this table represent per-day mean frequency of each item. a
Indicates an item that ends in “because of your race/ethnicity”
D. English, et al. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 66 (2020) 101068
5
Table 3
Confirmatory factor analyses factor loadings for individual general racial discrimination subscale.
Subscale Racial discrimination item M(SD) β (SE)
Assumption of criminality (AC) …did you see someone lock the doors of their car a 0.26 (0.75) 0.91 (0.09)
…did the police accuse you of having or selling drugs a 0.20 (0.66) 0.89 (0.05)
…did someone misunderstand your intentions and motives a 0.46 (0.97) 0.76 (0.14)
…did you see someone cross the street a 0.36 (0.79) 0.66 (0.15)
…did people look at you like you are a criminal a 0.41 (0.86) 0.64 (0.10)
…were you watched closely or followed around by security guards or store clerks at a store or mall a 0.51 (1.00) 0.64 (0.14)
…were the police verbally abusive to youa 0.23 (0.59) 0.53 (0.18)
Assumption of intellectual inferiority (AII) …did a teacher have low expectationsa 0.40 (0.94) 0.92 (0.07)
…did teachers treat you like you were not as smarta 0.41 (0.81) 0.89 (0.05)
…were you treated as if you were “stupid” or “talked down toa 0.38 (0.94) 0.88 (0.06)
…did people assume you’re not smart or intelligenta 0.43 (0.86) 0.70 (0.13)
…did people act as if you were not as smarta 0.52 (0.89) 0.58 (0.11)
Assumed universality of the black american
experience (AUBAE)
…were you asked to be a representative of your race/ethnicity during a discussion at school 0.51 (1.01) 0.83 (0.07)
…were you asked to speak for all members of your race/ethnicity during a class 0.48 (1.00) 0.73 (0.11)
… did a teacher assume that you were an expert on people of your same race/ethnic background 0.54 (1.07) 0.69 (0.10)
…did a peer point out that you fit a stereotype of your race/ethnicity 0.46 (0.87) 0.69 (0.12)
…were you mistaken for someone else of your same race/ethnicity 0.47 (0.90) 0.65 (0.10)
…did an adult refer to people of ‘your culture’ or ‘background’ in a negative way 0.34 (0.69) 0.62 (0.13)
…did a peer assume that you were an expert on people of your same race/ethnic background 0.39 (0.90) 0.61 (0.11)
…did a coach use a stereotype about your race/ethnicity during a sports game or practice 0.28 (0.66) 0.59 (0.13)
Second-class citizenship (SCC) …were you treated unfairly by people in service jobs (store clerks, waiters, bartenders, bank tellers and
others)a
0.43 (0.80) 0.82 (0.10)
… were you hassled by a store clerk or store guarda 0.32 (0.68) 0.74 (0.12)
…did you receive poor service at a restauranta 0.29 (0.65) 0.70 (0.11)
Assumption of inferior status (AIS) …did someone discourage you from trying to achieve an important goala 0.44 (0.84) 0.85 (0.09)
…did people act as if you were dishonesta 0.42 (0.88) 0.81 (0.10)
…did people act as if they were bettera 0.53 (1.00) 0.78 (0.09)
…did you encounter people who did not expect you to do wella 0.44 (0.90) 0.77 (0.10)
…did you encounter people who were surprised that you, given your race or ethnic background, did
something really well
0.60 (0.97) 0.76 (0.07)
…were you wrongly disciplined at schoola 0.45 (1.03) 0.71 (0.14)
…did people talk down to youa 0.40 (0.87) 0.63 (0.10)
Micro-assaults (MA) …were you excluded from a cliquea 0.34 (0.77) 0.93 (0.05)
…did someone ignore you or exclude you from activitiesa 0.40 (0.81) 0.79 (0.14)
…were you made fun of, picked on, pushed, shoved, hit, or threatened with harm a 0.32 (0.83) 0.71 (0.18)
…were you called bad names a 0.39 (0.86) 0.66 (0.16)
Environ micro-aggressions (EM) …were you uncomfortable in your community a 0.46 (0.94) 0.67 (0.06)
…were you out of place in a social situation a 0.28 (0.74) 0.62 (0.18)
Fit indices AC AII AUBAE SCC AIS MA EM
χ2
(df) 105.73 (21) 5.08 (5) 22.26 (20) 76.12 (10) 128.47 (21) 32.15 (6) –
CFI 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.99 1.00 –
TLI 0.95 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.98 1.00 –
RMSEA 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 –
Note. All factor loadings were significant at the 0.05 level. We randomly administered 12 of these items each day.
‘–‘indicates an under-identified model for which fit statistics are not produced. a Indicates an item that ends in “because of your race/ethnicity.”
Table 4
Mean differences and descriptives for racial discrimination subscales.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
1. Individual general 1
2. Vicarious general 0.80*** 1
3. Individual online 0.76*** 0.80*** 1
4. Vicarious online 0.50*** 0.55*** 0.61*** 1
5. Individual teasing 0.80*** 0.80*** 0.76*** 0.57*** 1
6. Vicarious teasing 0.71*** 0.67*** 0.69*** 0.53*** 0.79*** 1
7. Age −0.16 −0.12 −0.16 0.01 −0.14 −0.23** 1
8. Grade −0.14 −0.05 −0.08 0.06 −0.11 −0.13 0.79*** 1
9. Gender Identity −0.14 −0.14 −0.16 −0.03 −0.16 −0.04 −0.02 0.05 1
Mean 0.40 0.39 0.55 0.59 0.44 0.39 14.94 9.49 0.58
SD 0.62 0.65 0.81 0.85 0.74 0.61 1.22 1.29 0.49
Αlpha 0.96 0.86 0.78 0.79 0.88 0.78 – – –
χ2
(df) 13.31 (14) 3.75 (4) 1.59 (2) 0 (0) 12.83 (9) 3.36 (2) – – –
CFI 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.98 – – –
TLI 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.93 – – –
RMSEA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 – – –
Note. *** p ≤ .001, ** p ≤ .01, * p ≤ .05.
BL = Baseline, FU = Follow-up. The means in this table represent per-item, per-day mean frequency.
Correlations run in a single model with the discrimination subscale latent variables.
D. English, et al. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 66 (2020) 101068
6
races/ethnicities receive preferential treatment), assumption of inferior
status (i.e., a participant being treated as inferior in terms of their
abilities, status, etc.), micro-assaults (i.e., explicit and racially motivated attacks that include verbal [e.g., name-calling] and nonverbal
[e.g., physical violence] actions aimed at denigrating or excluding
someone), and environmental microaggressions (e.g., macro-level microaggressions that are evinced in an individual’s social and structural
environments; see Sue et al., 2007; Sue et al., 2008). Thus, for the individual general experiences subscale we estimated seven separate
CFAs to ensure a good fit for each subscale and then used the mean
scores for each subscale as indicators of an individual general discrimination latent variable in a separate CFA. In the specification of
each CFA, if needed, we eliminated items from measures that had factor
loadings below 0.50 and/or did not fit the conceptualization of the
subscale, which is the best practice in identifying indicators for latent
variables (Schmitt, 2011). As a result, for some subscales, we ran several CFA models to ensure high factor loadings and acceptable model fit
based on accepted indices (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
Once we established the items in each scale, we examined correlations between subscales and covariates, including age, grade, and
gender identity. In addition, we tested cohort differences using a
Kruskal-Wallis test and examined whether racial discrimination reports
changed across the study period using a one-way ANOVA. The latter
provided a test of potential administration effects on racial discrimination frequency. We then used paired t-test analyses to examine
scale differences between the means for each subscale. We aggregated
the subscales for the individual general subscale into one mean for that
analysis.
We then ran six individual hierarchical linear models in which separate racial discrimination subscales predicted within-person slopes in
depressive symptoms from baseline (Day 1) to follow-up (Day 15). We
ran the models in Mplus 8.2 using two-level random effects models (i.e.,
TYPE = TWOLEVEL) with Bayesian estimation (i.e., ESTIMATOR = BAYES) in which observations were clustered by participant ID
(CLUSTER = ID). We estimated a random slope with the depressive
symptoms regressed on administration day (centered at the middle day)
in the within-subjects level of the model. In the between-subjects level
of the model, we regressed this slope on the latent discrimination
variables established in the CFAs for each racial discrimination subscale. The use of Bayesian estimation allowed for the inclusion of all
participants’ item means, even if one of their subscales had missing data
for one or more items (i.e., because they were not administered a given
item in a scale due to the random administration design). We adjusted
for the effects of age, educational program, gender, and grade on the
between-subjects level.
To compare effect sizes across the discrimination scales, we ran a
series of random effects models with different pairs of scales that significantly predicted changes in depressive symptoms during the prior
round of analyses. In these models, if one scale remained significant and
one did not, we concluded that the scale with a significant association
accounted for additional unique variance in the depressive symptoms
slope that the other did not and, as such, had a stronger association
with the outcome (Clogg, Petkova, & Haritou, 1995). For the models in
which both scales significantly predicted changes in depressive symptoms, we planned to run a second model in which both pathways from
the discrimination subscales to the slope in depressive symptoms were
constrained to be equal. We then planned to compare the models with
and without the constrained pathways using a robust log-likelihood
ratio test (Satorra, 2001). However, as described below, we did not
have any need to use this approach.
Missing data represents a concern across all longitudinal studies and
was particularly relevant for this study in which we planned missingness for each daily discrimination item administration. For each of the
variables, the following were the rates of complete data: Baseline depressive symptoms (98%), follow-up depressive symptoms (71%), and
racial discrimination items (ranged from 66 to 83% across items). In
addition to the planned missingness for the discrimination items, participants missed 19% of their daily surveys. Based on Pearson correlation analyses between non-missing data and study variables, there was
no evidence that the number of surveys completed was related to
gender, cohort, age, grade, baseline depressive symptoms, baseline racial discrimination, or any other study measures in this study. As such,
we decided to use the Bayesian approach to missing data within Mplus
8.2 software which uses Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) estimation
based on the Gibbs sampler (Asparouhov & Muthén, 2010) under the
assumption that the data are missing at random (MAR). This is a widely
accepted way of handling missing data, and an appropriate method for
studies with planned missingness and with otherwise random missingness (Schafer & Graham, 2002).
Results
Out of a possible 1414 daily surveys (101 participants × 14 days),
participants completed 1139 daily surveys (81% response rate), a perparticipant average of 11.28 of 14 daily surveys (SD = 4.16, range = 0
to 14). At the item level, of a total of 13,668 administered discrimination items (12 daily discrimination items x 1139 surveys) participants completed 13,463 items (99% completion rate). Per day, response rates ranged from 45% to 100% over the course of the study. Of
the 101 participants, 71 completed the follow-up measure of depressive
symptoms. This rate of participant drop-out likely occurred because two
cohorts (high school cohorts during May–July 2015) participated
during the final weeks of the school term which, according to school
officials, is the lowest-attended period of the school year. Even with this
participant dropout, the frequency of survey completion was comparable to other EMA studies including a study of racial discrimination
with Black adolescents in which participants completed an average of
8.22 out of 14 daily surveys (59% response rate; Seaton & Iida, 2019).
To check that our randomized administration method was effective,
we investigated the range in administration frequencies and assessed
the grand means for two virtually equivalent items. The item administration frequencies ranged from 125 to 176 administrations across the
study with a mean of 153.00 (SD = 11.00). When aggregated to the
participant-level, participantn’s ranged from 66 to 83 (out of a possible
101) per item with a mean of 74.39 (SD = 3.57) meaning that rates of
missingness ranged from 18% to 35%. Past research indicates that this
level of planned missingness in a sample of 60 participants provides
sufficient power for multilevel models that are comparable to those in
the present study (Wood, Matthews, Pellowski, & Harel, 2018). As such,
we determined all items were administered with sufficient frequency to
examine descriptives and associations with within-participant slopes of
depressive symptoms. Additionally, the means for two virtually
equivalent items (Questions 15 and 20 in the supplemental appendix)
suggested that the randomization method was valid given that the
grand means were not significantly different: 0.41 (question 15) versus
0.47 (question 20), t(60) = 0.49, p = .63.
Overall, participants reported 5606 experiences of racial discrimination across 88 items during the 14-day EMA period. These 5606
experiences on a total of 13,463 completed items translates to 0.4164
experiences per item administration (5606 experiences / 13,463 item
administrations). Since participants received 12 items per day, this
translates to an average of 5.00 experiences per day (0.4164 experiences per item administration x 12 daily administrations) and 70 biweekly experiences (5 daily experiences x 14 days) across all 88 items.
Of the 58 items included in the final scales identified below, participants reported an average of 5.21 experiences per day across 12 daily
items.
CFA results indicated that six scales using 58 of the 88 items fit the
data well. Means standard deviations and factor loadings for each scale
are included in Tables 2 and 3.
Table 4 displays correlations between the subscales and covariates.
All correlations between racial discrimination subscales were
D. English, et al. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 66 (2020) 101068
7
significant and positive and ranged from moderate (r = 0.50; individual
general and vicarious online) to high (r = 0.80; individual general with
vicarious general and individual teasing; vicarious general with individual teasing). Regarding covariates, age was negatively associated
with vicarious teasing, such that younger participants reported more
vicarious teasing experiences. Grade and gender identity were not significantly associated with any subscales.
Independent samples Kruskal-Wallis analyses did not show any
significant differences across cohort in the means of any of the six
subscales, including individual general experiences, H (3) = 1.86,
p = .60, vicarious general experiences, H (3) = 0.17, p = .98, individual online experiences, H (3) = 0.18, p = .98, vicarious online
experiences, H (3) = 2.82, p = .42, individual teasing experiences, H
(3) = 5.06, p = .17, and vicarious teasing experiences, H (3) = 3.29,
p = .35. An ANOVA did not show any significant differences in racial
discrimination by day across the study period F(1, 94) = 0.25, p = .62,
suggesting the study protocol did not influence the frequency of racial
discrimination reports.
Regarding differences in frequency, individual online experiences
were significantly more frequent than vicarious teasing experiences, t
(89) = 1.92, p ≤ .05, vicarious general experiences, t(89) = 2.34,
p ≤ .05, and individual general experiences, t(90) = 2.70, p ≤ .01, but
did not significantly differ from individual teasing experiences, t
(90) = 1.51, p = .14. Vicarious online experiences were significantly
more frequent than individual teasing experiences, t(90) = 2.23,
p ≤ .05, vicarious teasing experiences, t(90) = 2.70, p ≤ .01, vicarious
general experiences, t(90) = 2.71, p ≤ .05, and individual general experiences, t(92) = 2.62, p ≤ .01. There was no evidence for a significant difference between vicarious online and individual online experiences, t(88) = 1.35, p = .18. There was no evidence for a
significant difference between any of the other discrimination scales.
The results of two-level random effects models predicting the
within-person slope in depressive symptoms from baseline to follow-up
showed that the majority of discrimination subscales predicted change
in depressive symptoms (Table 5). The individual general (β = 0.30,
95% CI [0.06, 0.50], p < .05), vicarious general (β = 0.29, 95% CI
[0.04, 0.51], p < .05), individual online (β = 0.29, 95% CI [0.01,
0.54], p < .05), individual teasing (β = 0.30, 95% CI [0.04, 0.54],
p < .05), and vicarious teasing (β = 0.27, 95% CI [0.04, 0.47],
p < .05) latent variables were positively associated with slopes in depressive symptoms from baseline to follow-up such that, as experiences
of discrimination increased, so did positive change in depressive
symptoms. The vicarious online scale was not significantly associated
with the depressive symptoms slope (β = −0.05, 95% CI [−0.34,
0.25], p = .74).
Exploratory analyses suggested that vicarious general experiences
(β = 0.19, 95% CI [0.01, 0.37], p < .05) were more impactful than
vicarious teasing experiences (β = 0.05, 95% CI [−0.14, 0.27],
p = .62); individual general experiences (β =0.31, 95% CI [0.00, 0.53],
p = .05) were more impactful than individual online experiences
(β = −0.09, 95% CI [−0.31, 0.22], p = .52); and individual general
experiences (β = 0.24, 95% CI [−0.02, 0.48], p = .055) were more
impactful than vicarious teasing experiences (β = 0.001, 95% CI
[−0.24, 0.22], p = .98). There were no other significant differences
between subscales.
Discussion
Expressions of racial hate are ubiquitous in the lives of contemporary Black U.S. American youth for whom the Internet, schools,
and neighborhoods serve as contexts in which they are exposed to daily
subtle and overt anti-Blackness. The present study assessed a broad
array of contexts and expressions of racial discrimination including
individual and vicarious, online and offline, and teasing and general
discrimination experiences. Results showed that, on average, participants reported over five experiences of racial discrimination per day,
that the Internet was the most frequent context for racial discrimination
experiences, and that these quotidian experiences led to short-term
increases in depressive symptoms. These results provide empirical
support for the frequency of daily microaggressions and underscore the
importance of assessing online, vicarious, and teasing experiences along
with the more commonly measured individual and general forms of
racial discrimination.
Our finding that Black adolescents reported over 5600 racial discrimination experiences across two weeks, and an average of over five
racial discrimination experiences per day, is substantially higher than
past long-term studies that have estimated that racial discrimination
occurs less than once a year (e.g., English et al., 2014). The per-participant average of 70 experiences across 14 days, is also more frequent
than past EMA studies with Black adolescents that have found that
racial discrimination occurs, on average, 2.44 out of 14 days (Seaton &
Iida, 2019). Our frequencies may be higher than past studies because
we administered items that assessed daily online discrimination, which
we found to be the most frequent type of discrimination experience. In
addition, in line with best-practices recommendations, we used intensive daily measurement to assess over 60 different experiences of
racial discrimination across a diverse set of contexts and expressions
that included vicarious and teasing experiences (Benner et al., 2018;
Ong & Burrow, 2017). Finally, our frequencies also may have been
higher because our daily racial discrimination scale allowed participants to report up to four or more experiences per day, in comparison to
two or more (e.g., Seaton & Iida, 2019) or one (e.g., Yip et al., 2019) in
past EMA studies.
These results provides support for qualitative research that suggests
racial discrimination happens many times per day for Black adolescents
(e.g., Berkel et al., 2009), and validates the daily hassles (e.g., Pierce,
1970) and aversive racism (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1998) theoretical literatures that assert racial discrimination occurs frequently through a
myriad of expressions for Black U.S. Americans. Additionally, although
the scientific microaggressions literature has received recent criticism
regarding a lack of empirical support for its hypothesized event base
rates (Lilienfeld, 2017), our findings suggest that individual general
experiences of different types of microaggressions occur an average of
several times per week for Black adolescents. Specifically, our findings
support that more serious microassaults as well as assumptions of
criminality, intellectual inferiority, the universality of the Black experience, inferior status, and second-class citizenship occur on a daily
basis. That these microaggressions lead to short term changes in depressive symptoms among participants provides evidence that microaggressions are, in fact, associated with changes in affective states
across time. As such, the present study supports an empirical impetus
for institutions such as schools to develop programs to prevent
Table 5
Parameter estimates for two-level hierarchical models examining associations
between depressive symptoms slope and racial discrimination subscales.
B 95% CI
Level 1
Depressive symptoms slopea −0.09*** [−0.18, −0.03]
Level 2
Individual general 0.30* [0.06, 0.50]
Vicarious general 0.29* [0.04, 0.51]
Individual online 0.29* [0.01, 0.54]
Vicarious online −0.05 [−0.34, 0.25]
Individual teasing 0.30* [0.04, 0.54]
Vicarious teasing 0.27* [0.04, 0.47]
Note. *** p ≤ .001, ** p ≤ .01, * p ≤ .05.
These are the results from six different models in which we estimated the effects
of racial discrimination subscales separately. We ran separate models primarily
to reduce convergence issues associated with sample size. a
The estimate for this parameter varied slightly ( ± 0.01) across models as a
result of small variations in missing data across subscales.
D. English, et al. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 66 (2020) 101068
8
microaggressions and their negative effects.
Our results are consistent with past research showing that individual and offline interpersonal experiences of discrimination based
on historically-entrenched negative stereotypes are both frequent and
impactful for Black adolescents (e.g., Brody et al., 2006; Clark et al.,
2004; Fisher et al., 2000). In addition to this established finding, the
present study highlights the relative frequency of online, teasing, and
vicarious racial discrimination experiences. For instance, our results
showed that online racial discrimination experiences, and particularly
vicarious online experiences, occur more frequently than offline experiences. This result is consistent with research that suggests a substantial portion of adolescent socialization, including experiences with
race and racial discrimination, occur in Internet-based contexts (Bolton
et al., 2013; Tynes et al., 2008). As such, our findings indicate that it is
essential for researchers, administrators and policy makers interested in
preventing and intervening upon common experiences of racial discrimination to account for those in online settings.
The present results also underscore the importance of assessing racial teasing, such as jokes about skin tone, hair texture, and U.S. societal
abuses of Black people (e.g., police brutality), since these expressions
appear to be occurring at a similar frequency and with similar effects as
other more general forms of racial discrimination. This is consistent
with past theoretical and empirical work that suggests that adolescents
are likely to report and be affected by teasing, whether it is occurring
individually or vicariously (e.g., Brown & Bigler, 2005; Douglass et al.,
2016). These results are particularly meaningful since, although youth
and adults (e.g., teachers) often identify teasing as harmless (Douglass
et al., 2016), these experiences may have insidious psychological effects
for Black adolescents.
In addition to teasing, although vicarious racial discrimination has
been the least-studied form of racial discrimination among adolescents
(Heard-Garris et al., 2018; Priest et al., 2013), our results suggest that it
is a primary way in which Black adolescents face racial discrimination,
particularly in online settings. Importantly, we also found that age was
significantly negatively correlated with vicarious teasing. Although past
studies suggest that racial discrimination atypically decreases across
development for Black adolescents (e.g.,Smith-Bynum, Lambert,
English, & Ialongo, 2014), it may be that some types of discrimination,
such as vicarious experiences, become less salient over time while direct individual forms of racial discrimination become more salient. This
interpretation is consistent with a developmental perspective on the
person/group discrimination discrepancy (Brown & Bigler, 2005;
Taylor et al., 1990), which suggests that individuals, and particularly
young people, are more prone to perceive group-based discrimination
rather than individual discrimination as a result of social processing
development and the psychological protectiveness of labeling groupbased, rather than individual, discrimination.
Contrary to past studies that have found that racial discrimination is
more common among boys than girls (e.g., Smith-Bynum et al., 2014;
Matthews, Salomon, Kenyon, & Zhou, 2005; Seaton et al., 2008), the
present study did not show any significant differences in overall frequency between boys and girls (see Cooper, Brown, Metzger, Clinton, &
Guthrie, 2013 for another exception). These results likely differed from
past research because we assessed experiences that are often considered
gendered and expected to be more common among youth perceived as
girls (e.g., experiences with their hair) and boys (e.g., experiences with
police harassment). As such, rather than comparing the frequency or
impact of discrimination across gender identities, future research could
strive to examine unique forms of discrimination targeting the intersection of racial and gender identities among Black adolescents, including transgender and gender non-conforming identities.
It is important to note that, while five of the subscales of racial
discrimination measured in this study had effects on short-term changes
in depressive symptoms, vicarious online discrimination experiences
did not. It is possible that because these experiences are happening so
frequently that changes in psychological and physiological symptoms
occur over a period of several hours, but do not persist beyond several
days. This would be relevant for the present study since we examined
changes in depressive symptoms across a two-week period. Thus, participants’ short-term stress reactions to racial discrimination might
show initial spikes and then decreases (Laurent, Gilliam, Wright, &
Fisher, 2015) that did not register across the present two-week measurement period. In that instance, the effects of these experiences would
be most effectively measured on a daily and/or hourly basis, as assessed
by Seaton and Iida (2019), among others. Such research may be particularly impactful since stress reactions from repeated experiences of
discrimination have been shown to contribute to long-term allostatic
load and negative health outcomes across the lifespan (Brody et al.,
2014).
Although the majority of our models comparing the strength of the
association between types of discrimination and the change in depressive symptoms did not reach significance, the significant associations
suggested that offline, general, and individual experiences may have a
greater effect on bi-weekly changes in depressive symptoms. As such,
our results appear to suggest that more personalized forms of racial
discrimination may be more impactful than vicarious forms even if they
are not more frequent. That noted, these findings should not be considered definitive given several null results between comparable experiences (e.g., vicarious general vs. individual general experiences). As
such, our results would be best used to guide hypotheses in future research examining the differential impact of varying forms and contexts
of racial discrimination. Thus, future larger-scale EMA research with
additional participants and daily outcomes assessments could examine
whether the different types of discrimination assessed in the present
manuscript are differently contributing to both short-term and longterm changes in psychosocial outcomes. Such research may be critical
to tailoring and optimizing individual and structural racial discrimination interventions aimed at preventing the stressor and its negative effects.
Regarding implications for policy and intervention, it is first essential to identify that an unmeasured socio-structural causal force that
drives the discrimination we measured in this study is historically
rooted and contemporaneously perpetuated structural racism that targets Black U.S. Americans and systematically privileges White U.S.
Americans (Kimmel & Ferber, 2016). Thus, interventions that seek to
take a critical equity stance and address structural racial discrimination
linked to inequities in economic opportunity, housing, incarceration,
etc., will be some of the most important approaches to addressing the
racial discrimination we assessed here. Examples may include the alteration, elimination, or differential application of laws and policies
that discriminately target Black communities and drive racial inequities
in police discriminaton and incarceration (National Urban League,
2018). Similarly, from a research funding standpoint, those entities
tasked with investigating and addressing racial inequities in health,
such as the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation, can fund implementation projects that seek to intervene upon
and/or prevent the ongoing contribution of racial discrimination to the
scaffolding that supports persistent racial health inequities.
In addition to these macro-level interventions, the present results
suggest that clinicians and administrators interested in improving the
lives of Black adolescents must consider racial discrimination a critical
aspect of their constellation of daily life stress. To do so, mental health
professionals can screen for their clients’ experiences with individual
and vicarious, online and offline, and teasing and general racial discrimination to identify whether these stressors are substantially contributing to their expression of psychological symptoms. In addition,
school-based anti-racial discrimination intervention may be important
since we measured common experiences of racial discrimination in
schools as well as in online platforms before, during, and after school
hours. Critically, evidence indicates that public school counselors and
teachers in the U.S., the majority of whom are White (e.g., Snyder &
Dillow, 2015) and have not experienced racial discrimination
D. English, et al. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 66 (2020) 101068
9
themselves (see Rothenberg, 2004), often take a colorblind approach to
issues of race and, as such, may fail to validate the racial experiences of
Black students and cause discrimination to be more harmful (e.g.,
Emdin, 2016). Thus, education research and policy that examines current practices among teachers and tests the efficacy of mandatory
training in culturally-empathic approaches to racial discrimination (see
Sue, Sue, Neville, & Smith, 2019) may be helpful in preventing and
addressing the negative effects of racial discrimination in schools.
Strengths and limitations
The strengths of the present study include that we utilized intensive
daily measurement of a broad set of racial discrimination experiences
and pursued an empirical test of microagressions theory, among other
theories. Also, to our knowledge, this is the first study to include positive racial experiences alongside racial discrimination experiences as
a way of counterbalancing the valence of racial discrimination items
and protecting against acquiescence bias.
These strengths, however, must be considered in light of the study
limitations. First, the sample for this research was geographicallybound to predominantly Black and lower-resourced neighborhoods in
Washington D.C. and, thus, may reflect geographically-specific racial
discrimination experiences. For example, our results likely reflect the
types of racial discrimination that are most frequent in these contexts,
like discrimination from adults like police officers and teachers (e.g.,
Rosenbloom & Way, 2004). Indeed, the present results showed that
these types of discrimination were relatively frequent within our racial
discrimination subscales. In addition, although we used a valid randomization administration method in the present study, the estimated
daily frequency of racial discrimination may not be representative of
daily experiences since we administered only 12 of 88 total racial discrimination items on any given day. Future research should look to
replicate our findings on a larger sample and with repeated measurements of the individual subscales identified in this study. In addition,
the participant sample decreased 30% from the beginning of the study
to the end of the study largely due to participant drop-out associated
with participants not attending the final week of school. Although our
analyses showed no differences between the adolescents retained in the
sample and those who stopped participating, there may have been other
unmeasured factors affecting this trend. Also, we only measured depressive symptoms at two time points over a period of two weeks,
which may have masked short-term variations in affective outcomes
associated with racial discrimination. Future research will benefit from
including daily affective outcome measurement along with daily racial
discrimination measurement to assess short-term variations in these
constructs (see Seaton & Iida, 2019).
Although the frequencies in this study were high relative to other
racial discrimination studies with Black adolescents, it is possible that
our scale showed a ceiling effect given 8% of responses indicated “four
or more” experiences. Therefore, we are unable to know how many
more experiences participants had than four for that item that day.
Regarding the scale content, given the length limitations within the
planned missingness EMA design, and our focus on assessing daily individual microaggressions, many of the discrimination items focused on
individual general microaggressions, while comparatively less assessed
vicarious, teasing, and online experiences. As a result, the scales were
not parallel and are difficult to compare. It is possible, for instance, that
if we had more vicarious items that paralleled the individual items, that
the results might have shown that the former are actually more impactful. This limitation notwithstanding, the present study represents,
to our knowledge, the most extensive EMA assessment of vicarious,
teasing, and online racial discrimination experiences among Black
youth to date (Benner et al., 2018). Future research could consider
expanding the content of our subscales and applying the microaggressions framework to online, vicarious, and teasing subscales as we did
with individual general discrimination in this study.
Considering reflexivity and researcher effects, one important consideration in the present study was that the first author, as a White man
and one of the two primary administrators of the study, spent time with
student participants before and during data collection which may have
influenced participant responses to racial discrimination items. The
interactions between participants and him were varied, with some
students appearing to have positive interactions (e.g., students asking
him for advice about their career or social life) and others appearing to
have negative interactions (e.g., students asking him why he was gentrifying their neighborhood). For those participants who had positive
interactions with the author, it is possible that reports of racial discrimination items may show social desirability bias (i.e., downplaying
discriminatory experiences), as found in past studies with White researchers (Krysan & Couper, 2003). Alternatively, it is possible that the
students who had negative interactions may have experienced more
racial discrimination. Future studies should assess researcher effects
such as how White researchers who do not experience racial discrimination in the U.S. (Rothenberg, 2004) affect the racial discrimination research process (e.g., research questions, effects on participants).
Future directions
In addition to those future directions already noted, the present
study must be administered to and validated with a larger, diverse, and
geographically representative sample of Black adolescents. This area of
research may also benefit from additional examination of racial teasing
since, although it is largely conceptualized as a negative experience in
this study, it likely has both positive and negative manifestations and
effects (Kuiper & McHale, 2009). Additionally, although we did not find
many associations between racial discrimination and age, additional
participants in future studies will allow for more nuanced multi-group
analyses to examine how developmental processes may affect racial
discrimination exposure. Moreover, although we used the Online Victimization Scale (OVS; Tynes et al., 2010) to measure individual and
vicarious online racial discrimination, future research could expand the
content of online measures to assess across teasing and general experiences as we did with the offline scales in the present study. Future
studies assessing vicarious online racial discrimination must also incorporate items assessing the effects of viewing videos and/or reading
about Black individuals being harmed and/or killed by police officers
given the high frequency with which these videos are now posted online (Heard-Garris et al., 2018; McLaughlin, 2015). Finally, future research can also expand upon the subscales in the present study to incorporate intersectional forms of discrimination that target and affect
adolescents differently across gender and sexual identities, socioeconomic status, language, and immigration, among other social positionalities (e.g., Bowleg et al., 2016; Bradford, Reisner, Honnold, &
Xavier, 2013).
Conclusion
Contemporary Black adolescents live in an unequivocally racialized
world characterized by racial inequities in income (Chetty, Hendren,
Jones, & Porter, 2018), videos depicting police-perpetrated racial abuse
toward Black people (e.g., McLaughlin, 2015), and treatment based on
generationally-intractable stereotypes associated with Black skin
(Feagin, 2014). The present study highlights the urgent, continual, and
multidimensional nature of racial discrimination for contemporary
Black adolescents and highlights its ostensible role in persistent racial
health inequities. We believe the high frequency and impact of racial
discrimination shown in our results necessitates concomitant policy and
practice that fights to institutionally prevent and treat the negative
effects of racial discrimination for Black youth.
D. English, et al. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 66 (2020) 101068
10
Acknowledgement
First and most of all, we would like to thank the participants who
gave their time and energy to support this project. We hope that this
manuscript does justice by your contributions and faithfully represents
your experiences. Thank you to Dr. Danielle Busby, Dr. Jessica Henry,
Dr. Farzana Saleem, and Aubrey Harrison for your contributions to item
development, study design, and study administration. Thank you also to
Dr. Mia Smith Bynum, Dr. Alison Phillips, and Dr. James Jones for your
invaluable feedback during the development of the racial discrimination and positive experiences items. We would also like to thank Dr.
George Howe for his analytic assistance at several points in the development of this project. This project was supported by research grants
from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, United States of America
(F31-DA036288, PI: English) and the National Institute of Mental
Health, United States of America (K01-MH118091, PI: English). The
content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2019.101068.
References
Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B.. Bayesian analysis using Mplus: Technical implementation.
(2010). Retrieved from https://www.statmodel.com/download/Bayes3.pdf (January
15, 2018).
Benner, A. D., Wang, Y., Shen, Y., Boyle, A. E., Polk, R., & Cheng, Y. P. (2018). Racial/
ethnic discrimination and well-being during adolescence: A meta-analytic review.
American Psychologist, 73(7), 855–883. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000204.
Berkel, C., Murry, V. M., Hurt, T. R., Chen, Y., Brody, G. H., Simons, R. L., & Gibbons, F. X.
(2009). It takes a village: Protecting rural African American youth in the context of
racism. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10964-008-9346-z.
Bolton, R. N., Parasuraman, A., Hoefnagels, A., Migchels, N., Kabadayi, S., Gruber, T., &
Solnet, D. (2013). Understanding generation Y and their use of social media: A review
and research agenda. Journal of Service Management, 24(3), 245–267.
Bowleg, L., English, D., del Rio-Gonzalez, A. M., Burkholder, G. J., Teti, M., & Tschann, J.
M. (2016). Measuring the pros and cons of what it means to be a black man:
Development and validation of the black Men’s experiences scale (BMES). Psychology
of Men & Masculinity, 17(2), 177–199. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000026.
Bradburn, N. M., Rips, L. J., & Shevell, S. K. (1987). Answering autobiographical questions: The impact of memory and inference on surveys. Science, 236(4798), 157–161.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3563494.
Bradford, J., Reisner, S. L., Honnold, J. A., & Xavier, J. (2013). Experiences of transgender-related discrimination and implications for health: Results from the virginia
transgender health initiative study. Journal of Public Health, 103(10), 1820–1829.
Brody, G. H., Chen, Y., Murry, V. M., Ge, X., Simons, R. L., Gibbons, F. X., & Cutrona, C. E.
(2006). Perceived discrimination and the adjustment of African American youths: A
five-year longitudinal analysis with contextual moderation effects. Child Development,
77, 1170–1189. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00927.x.
Brody, G. H., Lei, M. K., Chae, D. H., Yu, T., Kogan, S. M., & Beach, S. R. (2014). Perceived
discrimination among African American adolescents and allostatic load: A longitudinal analysis with buffering effects. Child Development, 85(3), 989–1002.
Brody, G. H., Yu, T., Miller, G. E., & Chen, E. (2015). Discrimination, racial identity, and
cytokine levels among African-American adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health,
56(5), 496–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.01.017.
Brown, C. S., & Bigler, R. S. (2005). Children’s perceptions of discrimination: A developmental model. Child Development, 76, 533–553. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8624.2005.00862.x.
Chavous, T. M., Rivas-Drake, D., Smalls, C., Griffin, T., & Cogburn, C. (2008). Gender
matters, too: The influences of school racial discrimination and racial identity on
academic engagement outcomes among African American adolescents. Developmental
Psychology, 44(3), 637–654. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.44.3.637.
Chetty, R., Hendren, N. N., Jones, N. M. R., & Porter, S. R. (2018, March). Race and
economic opportunity in the United States: An intergenerational perspective.
Retrieved from http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/assets/documents/race_
paper.pdf.
Clark, R., Coleman, A. P., & Novak, J. D. (2004). Brief report: Initial psychometric
properties of the everyday discrimination scale in black adolescents. Journal of
Adolescence, 27, 363–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2003.09.004.
Clark, R., & Gochett, P. (2006). Interactive effects of perceived racism and coping responses predict a school-based assessment of blood pressure in black youth. Annals of
Behavioral Medicine, 32, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324796abm3201_1.
Clogg, C. C., Petkova, E., & Haritou, A. (1995). Statistical methods for comparing regression coefficients between models. American Journal of Sociology, 100(5),
1261–1293.
Cooper, S. M., Brown, C., Metzger, I., Clinton, Y., & Guthrie, B. (2013). Racial discrimination and African American adolescents’ adjustment: Gender variation in family and community social support, promotive and protective factors. Journal of Child
and Family Studies, 22(1), 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-012-9608-y.
Douglass, S. (2013). Capacity and perspective in racial/ethnic teasing: A daily diary study
examining personal and interpersonal experiences among adolescents and emerging adults.
Doctoral dissertationFordham University.
Douglass, S., Mirpuri, S., English, D., & Yip, T. (2016). “They were just making jokes”:
Ethnic/racial teasing and discrimination among adolescents. Cultural Diversity and
Ethnic Minority Psychology, 22(1), 69–82. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000041.
Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (1998). On the nature of contemporary prejudice: The
causes, consequences, and challenges of aversive racism. In J. L. Eberhardt, S. T.
Fiske, J. L. Eberhardt, & S. T. Fiske (Eds.). Confronting racism: The problem and the
response (pp. 3–32). Thousand Oaks, CA US: Sage Publications, Inc.
Emdin, C. (2016). For white folks who teach in the hood… And the rest of y’all too: Reality
pedagogy and urban education. Beacon press.
English, D., Lambert, S. F., & Ialongo, N. S. (2014). Longitudinal associations between
experienced racial discrimination and depressive symptoms in African American
adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 50(4), 1190–1196. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0034703.
English, D., Lambert, S. F., & Ialongo, N. S. (2016). Adding to the education debt:
Depressive symptoms mediate the association between racial discrimination and
academic performance in African American adolescents. Journal of School Psychology,
57, 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2016.05.007.
English, D. (2017). Keep it REAL: Measuring common racial experiences among African
American adolescents. The George Washington University: Doctoral dissertation.
Essed, P. (1991). Understanding everyday racism: An interdisciplinary theory. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage Publications.
Feagin, J. R. (2014). Racist America: Roots, current realities, and future reparations.
Routledge.
Federal Bureau of Investigation (2018). 2017 hate crime statistics. Retrieved from
https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2017/topic-pages/victims.
Fisher, C. B., Wallace, S. A., & Fenton, R. E. (2000). Discrimination distress during adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29, 679–695. https://doi.org/10.1023/
A:1026455906512.
García Coll, C. T., Lamberty, G., Jenkins, R., McAdoo, H. P., Crnic, K., Wasik, B. H., &
García, H. V. (1996). An integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in minority children. Child Development, 67, 1891–1914. https://doi.org/10.
2307/1131600.
Gibbons, F. X., Gerrard, M., Cleveland, M. J., Wills, T. A., & Brody, G. (2004). Perceived
discrimination and substance use in African American parents and their children: A
panel study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 517–529. https://doi.
org/10.1037/00223514.86.4.517.
Greene, M. L., Way, N., & Pahl, K. (2006). Trajectories of perceived adult and peer discrimination among Black, Latino, and Asian American adolescents: Patterns and
psychological correlates. Developmental Psychology, 42(2), 218–236. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0012-1649.42.2.218.
Harrell, S. P. (1997). The racism and life experiences scales (RaLES-revised). (Unpublished
manuscript, Culver City, CA).
Heard-Garris, N. J., Cale, M., Camaj, L., Hamati, M. C., & Dominguez, T. P. (2018).
Transmitting trauma: A systematic review of vicarious racism and child health. Social
Science & Medicine, 199, 230–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.04.
018.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling:
A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10705519909540118.
Keltner, D., Capps, L., Kring, A. M., Young, R. C., & Heerey, E. A. (2001). Just teasing: A
conceptual analysis and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 229–248.
Keum, B. T., & Miller, M. J. (2018). Racism on the internet: Conceptualization and recommendations for research. Psychology of Violence, 8(6), 782–791. https://doi.org/
10.1037/vio0000201.
Kimmel, M., & Ferber, A. (Eds.). (2016). Privilege: A Reader. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Krysan, M., & Couper, M. P. (2003). Race in the live and the virtual interview: Racial
deference, social desirability, and activation effects in attitude surveys. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 364–383.
Kuiper, N. A., & McHale, N. (2009). Humor styles as mediators between self-evaluative
standards and psychological well-being. The Journal of Psychology, 143(4), 359–376.
https://doi.org/10.3200/JRLP.143.4.359-376.
Landrine, H., & Klonoff, E. A. (1996). The schedule of racist events: A measure of racial
discrimination and a study of its negative physical and mental health consequences.
Journal of Black Psychology, 22, 144–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/
00957984960222002.
Laurent, H. K., Gilliam, K. S., Wright, D. B., & Fisher, P. A. (2015). Child anxiety symptoms related to longitudinal cortisol trajectories and acute stress responses: Evidence
of developmental stress sensitization. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 124(1), 68–79.
https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000009.
Ledley, D. R., Storch, E. A., Coles, M. E., Heimberg, R. G., Moser, J., & Bravata, E. A.
(2006). The relationship between childhood teasing and later interpersonal functioning. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 28(1), 33–40.
Lenhart, A., & Page, D. (2015). Teens, social media & technology overview 2015. Pew
Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/09/teenssocial-media-technology-2015.
Lilienfeld, S. O. (2017). Microaggressions: Strong claims, inadequate evidence.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(1), 138–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/
D. English, et al. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 66 (2020) 101068
11
1745691616659391.
Matthews, K. A., Salomon, K., Kenyon, K., & Zhou, F. (2005). Unfair treatment, discrimination, and ambulatory blood pressure in Black and White adolescents. Health
Psychology, 24(3), 258–265. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.24.3.258.
McCabe, R. E., Miller, J. L., Laugesen, N., Antony, M. M., & Young, L. (2010). The relationship between anxiety disorders in adults and recalled childhood teasing. Journal
of Anxiety Disorders, 24(2), 238–243.
McLaughlin, E. C. (2015). We’re not seeing more police shootings, just more news coverage.
Vol. 2015New York Times Published April 21.
Medina, S. P., Lewis, V., & Pati, S. (2010). The relationship between parental educational
attainment and perceived racial discrimination among African- female adolescents.
Penn McNair Research Journal, 2(1), 7.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2017). Mplus User’s Guide (8th ed.). Los Angeles,
CA: Muthén & Muthén.
National Urban League (2018). Powering the digital revolution: State of Black America. vol.
2018. Retrieved at: http://soba.iamempowered.com/2018-equality-index.
Neblett, E. W., Jr., Philip, C. L., Cogburn, C. D., & Sellers, R. M. (2006). African American
adolescents’ discrimination experiences and academic achievement: Racial socialization as a cultural compensatory and protective factor. Journal of Black Psychology,
32, 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798406287072.
Nyborg, V. M., & Curry, J. F. (2003). The impact of perceived racism: Psychological
symptoms among black boys. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology,
32(2), 258–266. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15374424JCCP3202_11.
Ong, A. D., & Burrow, A. L. (2017). Microaggressions and daily experience: Depicting life
as it is lived. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(1), 173–175. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1745691616664505.
Pachter, L. M., Bernstein, B. A., Szalacha, L. A., & García Coll, C. T. (2010). Perceived
racism and discrimination in children and youths: An exploratory study. Health &
Social Work, 35(1), 61–69.
Pierce, C. (1970). Offensive mechanisms. In F. Barbour (Ed.). The black seventies (pp. 265–
282). Boston: Porter Sargent.
Pittman, L. D., & Chase-Lansdale, P. L. (2001). African American adolescent girls in impoverished communities: Parenting style and adolescent outcomes. Journal of
Research on Adolescence, 11(2), 199–224.
Priest, N., Paradies, Y., Trenerry, B., Truong, M., Karlsen, S., & Kelly, Y. (2013). A systematic review of studies examining the relationship between reported racism and
health and wellbeing for children and young people. Social Science & Medicine, 95,
115–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.11.031.
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the
general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1(3), 385–401.
Reardon, S. F., & Owens, A. (2014). 60 years after brown: Trends and consequences of
school segregation. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 199–218.
Rideout, V., Lauricella, A., & Wartella, E. (2011). Children, media, and race: Media use
among white, black, Hispanic, and Asian American children. Evanston, IL: Center on
Media and Human Development, School of Communication, Northwestern
University.
Rosenbloom, S. R., & Way, N. (2004). Experiences of discrimination among African
American, Asian , and Latino adolescents in an urban high school. Youth & Society, 35,
420–451. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X03261479.
Rothenberg, P. S. (2004). White privilege: Essential readings on the other side of racism.
Macmillan.
Satorra, A. (2001). Scaled and adjusted restricted tests in multi-sample analysis of moment structures. Innovations in multivariate statistical analysis (pp. 233–247). Boston,
MA: Springer.
Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art.
Psychological Methods, 7(2), 147–177. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.2.147.
Schaeffer, N. C., & Presser, S. (2003). The science of asking questions. Annual Review of
Sociology, 65–88.
Schlomer, G. L., Bauman, S., & Card, N. A. (2010). Best practices for missing data management in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57(1), 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018082.
Schmitt, T. A. (2011). Current methodological considerations in exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29(4), 304–321.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282911406653.
Seaton, E. K., Caldwell, C. H., Sellers, R. M., & Jackson, J. S. (2008). The prevalence of
perceived discrimination among African American and Caribbean black youth.
Developmental Psychology, 44(5), 1288–1297.
Seaton, E. K., Gee, G. C., Neblett, E., & Spanierman, L. (2018). New directions for racial
discrimination research as inspired by the integrative model. American Psychologist,
73(6), 768–780. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000315.
Seaton, E. K., & Iida, M. (2019). Racial discrimination and racial identity: Daily moderation among black youth. American Psychologist, 74(1), 117–127. https://doi.org/
10.1037/amp0000367.
Sellers, R. M., Copeland-Linder, N., Martin, P. P., & Lewis, R. L. (2006). Racial identity
matters: The relationship between racial discrimination and psychological functioning in black adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16, 187–216. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2006.00128.x.
Silvia, P. J., Kwapil, T. R., Walsh, M. A., & Myin-Germeys, I. (2014). Planned missing-data
designs in experience-sampling research: Monte Carlo simulations of efficient designs
for assessing within-person constructs. Behavior Research Methods, 46(1), 41–54.
Smith-Bynum, M. A., Lambert, S. F., English, D., & Ialongo, N. S. (2014). Associations
between trajectories of perceived racial discrimination and psychological symptoms
among African American adolescents. Development and PBresychopathology, 26(4pt1),
1049–1065.
Snyder, T. D., & Dillow, S. A. (2015). Digest of education statistics 2013. NCES 2015-011.
National Center for Education Statistics.
Stone, A. A., & Shiffman, S. (2002). Capturing momentary, self-report data: A proposal for
reporting guidelines. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 24(3), 236–243. https://doi.org/
10.1207/S15324796ABM2403_09.
Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., & Holder, A. (2008). Racial microaggressions in the life
experience of black Americans. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 39(3),
329–336.
Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., Holder, A., Nadal, K. L., &
Esquilin, M. (2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical
practice. American Psychologist, 62(4), 271–286. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-
066X.62.4.271.
Sue, D. W., Nadal, K. L., Capodilupo, C. M., Lin, A. I., Torino, G. C., & Rivera, D. P. (2008).
Racial microaggressions against black Americans: Implications for counseling.
Journal of Counseling & Development, 86(3), 330–338.
Sue, D. W., Sue, D., Neville, H. A., & Smith, L. (2019). Counseling the culturally diverse:
Theory and practice. John Wiley & Sons.
Quintana, S. M., & McKown, C. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of race, racism, and the developing
child. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.Hoboken.
Taylor, D. M., Wright, S. C., Moghaddam, F. M., & Lalonde, R. N. (1990). The personal/
group discrimination discrepancy: Perceiving my group, but not myself, to be a target
for discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 254–262. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0146167290162006.
Tourangeau, R. (2000). The psychology of survey response. Cambridge University Press.
Tynes, B. M., Rose, C. A., & Markoe, S. L. (2013). Extending campus life to the Internet:
Social media, discrimination, and perceptions of racial climate. Journal of Diversity in
Higher Education, 6(2), 102–114. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033267.
Tynes, B., Reynolds, L., & Greenfield, P. M. (2004). Adolescence, race, and ethnicity on
the internet: A comparison of discourse in monitored vs. unmonitored chat rooms.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 25, 667–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
appdev.2004.09.003.
Tynes, B. M., Del Toro, J., & Lozada, F. T. (2015). An unwelcomed digital visitor in the
classroom: The longitudinal impact of online racial discrimination on academic
motivation. School Psychology Review, 44(4), 407–424.
Tynes, B. M., Giang, M. T., Williams, D. R., & Thompson, G. N. (2008). Online racial
discrimination and psychological adjustment among adolescents. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 43, 565–569.
Tynes, B. M., Rose, C. A., & Williams, D. R. (2010). The development and validation of the
online victimization scale for adolescents. Cyberpsychology, 4(2), 1–16.
Umaña-Taylor, A. J., Quintana, S. M., Lee, R. M., Cross, W. E., Jr., Rivas-Drake, D.,
Schwartz, S. J., & Ethnic and Racial Identity in the 21st Century Study Group (2014).
Ethnic and racial identity during adolescence and into young adulthood: An integrated conceptualization. Child Development, 85(1), 21–39.
Wong, C. A., Eccles, J. S., & Sameroff, A. (2003). The influence of ethnic discrimination
and ethnic identification on Black adolescents’ school and socioemotional adjustment. Journal of Personality, 71, 1197–1232.
Wood, J., Matthews, G. J., Pellowski, J., & Harel, O. (2018). Comparing different planned
missingness designs in longitudinal studies. Sankhya B, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s13571-018-0170-5.
Yip, T., Cheon, Y. M., Wang, Y., Cham, H., Tryon, W., & El-Sheikh, M. (2019). Racial
disparities in sleep: Associations with discrimination among ethnic/racial minority
adolescents. Child0 Development. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13234 No pagination
specified.
D. English, et al. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 66 (2020) 101068
12