Colorblind Racial Ideology,Sense of Belonging,and Racism-Related Stress in Asian Indian International Students

Abstract

International students are an essential part of higher education institutions in the U.S.A., bringing diversity to the educational environment and enhancing the economy. Asian Indian students comprise around 17.3% of all international students, and this population faces a range of unique stressors, with racial and ethnic discrimination being one that is understudied. In the present study, 192 Asian Indian international students completed a survey to understand how colorblind racial ideology and sense of belonging impacted their racism-related stress. We also examined this relationship based on gender and level of education. Our results suggest that colorblind racial ideology, sense of belonging, gender, and level of education significantly explained 32.3% of the variance in racism-related stress. In general, students who identified as women and undergraduate students (versus graduate students) reported higher levels of racism-related stress. Our findings suggests that in addition to the acculturation barriers international students face, Asian Indian international students deal with barriers related to racism. These findings have implications for educators and counselors in higher education institutions that Asian Indian international students have multifaceted identities that impact how they interpret racism.

Keywords

Discrimination Indian international students colorblind racial ideology

Introduction

International students are integral to higher education in the U.S.A. with their contribution to the economy as well as their diverse perspectives in the U.S.A education system. Sixty percent of all international students pay full tuition through personal or family funding thereby contributing to university resources (Zong & Batalova, 2018). In 2016–2017 academic year, international students contributed 37 billion to the U.S.A. economy and created or supported close to 450,000 jobs (Zong & Batalova, 2018). Furthermore, these students also play a large role in increasing student diversity and broadening the worldviews of all students. However, international students face a range of social and mental health problems, such as depression, anxiety and other psychological health concerns (Glass & Westmont, 2014; Sherry et al., 2009; Sümer et al., 2008). These problems are predicted by stressors like language barriers, being in a new educational environment, different sociocultural norms, difficulties in making local friends, work restrictions, a lack of pop culture knowledge, and low social support (Chavajay, 2013; Sherry et al., 2009; Sullivan & Kashubeck-West, 2015; Zhang & Goodson, 2011).

Overall, international students make up 5.5% of higher education institutions, making them a minority relative to their surroundings (“Number of International Students,” 2019). Due to their differences in ethnicity and race, culture, language skills, and more, international students often face myriad negative interactions as minority on college campuses (Yao et al., 2020). Asian Indian students comprise 17.3% of the international student population, making this subset even more marginalized (Niazi, 2017). For the first time in a decade, the year 2017 saw a 7% decrease in all international student enrollment in the U.S.A. (Craig, 2018). In the 2016–2017 academic year, the number of Asian Indian international students enrolled in computer science and engineering graduate programs declined by 21%, or 18,590 fewer students (Anderson, 2018). Recent social and political events (e.g., the 2016 presidential election) may have caused increased negative sentiments towards international students of color, and more specifically, towards Asian Indians, which may explain the decrease. Given this decrease and additional stressors connected to the current socio-political environment, it is important for us to examine how racism-related factors may be impacting Asian Indian international students.

Racial and ethnic discrimination toward international students

As international students go through a number of transitions and experience challenges such as acculturation, language issues, they may also experience racial and ethnic discrimination. Lee and Rice (2007) interviewed 24 international students from 15 countries who attended a large research university in the Southwest of the USA. Their results showed that a range of problems faced by international students could be caused by “neo-racism” (Lee & Rice, 2007); while traditional racism is oppression based on perceived biological differences, neo-racism is the oppression of people of color based on their culture (Spears, 1999). These two types of racism are rationalized in different ways, yet both lead to a social hierarchy based on racial or ethnic identity.

Lee and Rice (2007) found a clear status divide in their study within international students based on whether their exclusion was caused by being a foreigner or because of racial and ethnic discrimination. For example, international students from countries such as New Zealand, Canada, and Europe who self-identify as “White” and speak English fluently mostly reported positive experiences. Conversely, a number of international students of color from places such as India and the Middle East expressed feelings of inferiority due to negative media portrayals of their culture, direct insults, or lack of English fluency. In particular, an Indian woman described that it was harder for her to get funding, letters of recommendation, and research assistance as compared to white domestic students and white international students. Similarly, in a study with 439 students, Poyrazli and Lopez (2007) identified international students as being at greater risk for perceiving or experiencing discrimination due to their non-American status, their accent while speaking English, or their membership in a racial or ethnic minority group. We can see this difference in experience between White international students and international students of color mirrored in the current socio-political rhetoric. President Trump has called for more immigrants from countries like Norway, rather than from “shithole” countries in Africa and he asked lawmakers, “Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?” (Kirby, 2018).

One way to conceptualize discrimination against international students of color is through racism-related stress. Racism-related stress is based on the psychological stress theory (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), where the relationship between a person and their environment is appraised as harmful. Specific to racism-related stress, the harmful environment is the discriminatory experiences students endure. Therefore, the construct of racism-related stress measures the presence of an event of discrimination, as well as the cognitive appraisal of the event in terms of how much stress it causes (Liang et al., 2007). Though experiences of discrimination are usually used as a predictor/independent variable in research, the concept of racism-related stress allows for the “psychological stress that arises from experiences with racism” to be measured as an outcome/dependent variable (Liang et al., 2004, p. 104).

Racial identity development models

There are numerous models of racial identity development, such as Helms’s (2014) White racial identity model, Sue and Sue’s (2012) racial identity model and Cross’s (2002) Black racial identity model. Regardless of whether an international student of color comes from a racialized society or not, the student may still face racism-related stress and may go through their racial identity development, because of how they are perceived by others in their new context. The most relevant model for international students of color is the Racial/Cultural Identity Development model by Sue and Sue (2012) because this model is developed for individuals across racial categories. There is only one racial identity model specific to Asian Americans (Kim, 2011) and this model is specific to Asian Americans who are born and raised in the U.S.A., which may not align with the experiences of Asian Indian international students who move to the U.S.A. much later in life.

To better understand racial identity development for international students of color, research that specifically centers the experiences of these students allows for insight. Using qualitative interviews with 15 international students, Fries-Britt et al. (2014) proposed a framework for the racial identity development of international students of color with four categories (i.e., unawareness of racial identity, uncomfortable racial/ethnic encounters, examination of racial identity in U.S.A. context, integrative awareness). In the first category, students are unaware of their racial identity. Many international students come from countries such as India or China where they may not be perceived as a racial minority. In such countries, discussions about racism are not as prevalent as in the U.S.A. Therefore, coming to the U.S.A., students might feel disconnected from the discourse on race. Hence, whenever they are faced with discrimination, they may not readily identify it as such. In the second category of this framework, students go through uncomfortable experiences that serve as a catalyst for them to start thinking about race. Examples range from classroom interactions to comments on clothing. Some students from the study reported ignoring such incidents because they felt they were distractions from their academics.

Eventually, ignoring discrimination becomes difficult, which leads students into the third category, in which they examine their own racial identity in relation to U.S.A. culture (Fries-Britt et al., 2014). Students begin to realize that they see themselves differently from how local residents see them. The last category, integrative awareness, is similar to Sue and Sue (2012) integrative awareness stage, and encompasses students who have a positive and motivational understanding of race. This framework allows for students to remain stagnant in categories, meaning that students do not necessarily move from stage to stage in a given amount of time. Students could spend their whole academic careers believing that race does not affect them because they are not American, hence remaining in the first category. Other students could internalize racism, become isolated, and never reach the last category of integrative awareness.

Colorblind racial ideology

Colorblind racial ideology is defined as “a set of beliefs that deny, minimize, and distort the existence of racism in its many forms (e.g., individual, interpersonal, cultural, and institutional) and the role of race in people’s lives” (Neville et al., 2014, p. 179). Neville et al. (2013) further define color-blind racial ideology (CBRI) using two interrelated dimensions – color-evasion and power-evasion. Color-evasion denies potential racial differences by emphasizing sameness or not seeing race; whereas, power-evasion denies it by emphasizing the availability of equal opportunities. The former may explain denial of the concept of race, and the latter may explain the denial of institutional and systemic oppression. Individuals with CBRI believe that people are just people and that any negative individual outcome is the fault of the person themselves. People of color who endorse CBRI tend to internalize racism and oppression, which in turn leads to negative psychological outcomes (Speight, 2007). In the framework proposed by Fries-Britt et al. (2014), the first category is unawareness of racial identity, which can be compared to color-blind racial ideology.

Lee et al. (2016) examined the effect of CBRI as a moderator with discrimination and feelings of anger and anxiety in a sample of Asian Americans students. She found that CBRI had a palliative function in that participants with higher CBRI had less intense feelings of anger and anxiety. However, we do not know if and how this result applies to international students, and more specifically if it applies to Asian Indian international students. Given that international students have spent less time in the U.S.A., and had less time to internalize racism in the way, we argue it is more likely that the results of the present study will match that of Lee et al. (2016). That is, it is more likely that colorblind racial ideology will negatively predict racism-related stress for Asian Indian international students.

Experiences of Asian Indians

Asian Indians form a large percentage of the international students of color studying in the U.S.A. While Asian Indians have the benefit of fitting into the model minority myth narrative (Gupta et al., 2011), major events have caused increased negative sentiments towards this population. Ever since 9/11, South Asians have been targeted because of their appearance and growing anti-Muslim sentiments (\Gupta, 2004), and there have been multiple reports of Indian men being killed by white residents in the U.S.A. (Maizland, 2017; Stevens, 2017). In a mixed methods study with 102 participants, Tummala-Narra et al. (2011) investigated the important question of why and when race and ethnicity became salient for their sample of Asian Indians. They found that for first generation Asian Indians, experiencing discrimination made race prominent. In a study with first generation Asian Indians, Inman et al. (2015) investigated and identified factors that influenced their perception and experience of racism. For example, participants said their physical appearance (e.g., having brown skin) led to repercussions. Participants also were clearly aware of racism on individual, cultural, and institutional levels. Both studies support the second category of the proposed framework of racial identity development theorized for international students, where discrimination led to race becoming salient (Fries-Britt et al., 2014). The question remains if the same level of awareness exists in Asian Indian international students.

Sense of belonging

Sense of belonging is concerned with how much international students feel like they belong on a college campus, and are accepted in the community. Factors that lead to a decreased sense of belonging for international students include acculturative stress, low social support, low academic success, and low advisor support (Curtin et al., 2013; Slaten et al., 2016). The association between sense of belonging and discrimination is well supported in research for domestic students from marginalized populations (Fincher et al., 2014; Levin et al., 2006). This trend has also been found in international students, who have shown a decrease in sense of belongingness because of discriminatory experiences which in turn negatively impacted academic performance (Glass & Westmont, 2014). International students are new to the U.S.A., and sense of belonging can work as a powerful predictor for educational outcomes and well-being. Chung et al. (2011) found that in her sample of Asian American undergraduates, a higher sense of belonging led to higher self-efficacy, and better academic performance. A higher sense of belonging also increases intercultural communication between international and domestic students (Glass & Westmont, 2014). The present study examines if sense of belonging predicts racism-related stress.

Present study

We aimed to examine how colorblind ideology, and sense of belonging impacted racism-related stress in Asian Indian international students. We framed the current study in two ways. First, international students may have a limited understanding of the historical context of the U.S.A. as a racialized society (Fries-Britt et al., 2014). This limited understanding may therefore lead to colorblindness, or not seeing race as important. Therefore, we need to further understand the impact of colorblindness among international students and develop informed interventions. Second, there is very limited literature on racial identity development for international students, and thus this study also built on a pathway of racial identity development for Asian Indian international students. The results of this study can inform future models of racial identity development.

Methods

Participants

A total of 192 Asian Indian international students, aged 18 to 36 (M = 23.23, SD = 3.68), participated in the study. Per inclusion criteria, all the participants self-identified their ethnicity as Asian Indian. The top country of origin for these participants was India (n = 170, 88.5%), followed by United Arab Emirates (n = 4, 2.1%), and China (n = 4, 2.1%). Other countries of origin included Afghanistan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Canada, Germany, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nepal, New Zealand, Pakistan, and Singapore. The participants had been living in the U.S.A. between one month and 96 months (M = 30.68, SD = 24.13). Though most participants were undecided on where they planned to live in the future (n = 126, 66.1%), some participants planned to live in the U.S.A. permanently (n = 26, 13.5%), and some did not plan to live in the U.S.A. at all (n = 39, 20.3%). The participants rated their English proficiency as follows: poor (n = 1, 0.5%), average (n = 10, 5.2%), good (n = 57, 29.7%), and very good (n = 124, 64.6%).

In terms of gender identity, participants reported they were men (n = 123, 64.1%), women (n = 67, 34.9%), genderfluid (n = 1, 0.5%), and gender nonbinary (n = 1, 0.5%). Participants also reported the highest levels of education they were pursuing: bachelor’s degree (n = 78, 40.6%), master’s degree (n = 51, 26.6%), and doctoral or professional degree (n = 63, 32.8%). Most participants were from a public university (n = 150, 78.1%), followed by liberal arts college (n = 30, 15.6%), private non-profit university (n = 8, 4.2%), and for profit university (n = 4, 2.1%). With regards to parents’ income, 32.3% (n = 62) reported an income of less than $25,000, 28.1% (n = 54) reported an income between $25,000 to $49,999, 14.6% (n = 28) reported an income between $50,000 to $74,999 and 24.5% (n = 47) reported an income of more than $75,000. A majority of the participants were from Midwestern states such as Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio (n = 171, 89.1%); followed by Northeastern states (n = 14, 7.3%) such as Massachusetts, Maryland, Washington D.C, and New York; Western states such as California, Washington, and Oregon (n = 4, 2.1%); and Southeastern states such as Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas (n = 3, 1.6%). Participants’ most common majors were engineering (n = 94, 49%), science (n = 39, 20.3%), management (n = 16, 8.3%), and technology (n = 13, 6.8%). Other categories for majors included agriculture, education, health and human sciences, liberal arts, pharmacy, veterinary medicine, and undeclared.

Measures

Demographic background

The demographic questionnaire in this study included items on age, student status, identity as Asian Indian, gender identity, country of origin, number of years in the U.S.A., family income, region of residence, institution type, major, and English proficiency.

Asian American Race Related Stress Inventory

Liang et al. (2004) developed the Asian American Race Related Stress Inventory (AARSI) to measure racism-related stress in Asian Americans. Participants indicated their responses to 32 statements on a five-point scale: 1 = This event has never happened to me or someone I know; 2 = This event happened but did not bother me; 3 = This event happened and I was slightly bothered; 4 = This event happened and I was upset; 5 = This event happened and I was extremely upset. The events (e.g. being asked for help with math or science, being complimented on English proficiency) described in the Asian American Racism-Related Stress Inventory may be categorized as microaggressions (Sue et al., 2007). For the present study, we used a modified version of the AARSI that is specific to Asian Indians (Tummala-Narra et al., 2011). There were three subscales: Socio-Historical Subscale (e.g., “You hear about the racially motivated murder of an Asian Indian person”), General Stereotype Subscale (e.g., “Someone tells you that Indian food tastes or smells bad”), and Perpetual Foreigner Subscale (e.g., “Someone asks you if all your friends are Asian Indian”). The model that used the total score as an indicator of racism-related stress was a better fit than the model using the subscales. Therefore, the total score was used for this study. Liang et al. (2004) validated this scale with a sample of Asian Americans and reported an estimated internal consistency of α = .90. For concurrent validity, the AARSI was found to be positively correlated with the Schedule of Racist Events scale (r = .53), Minority Status Stress scale (r = .47), and the Perceived Racism scale (r = .39). In their sample of Asian Indians, Tummala-Narra et al. (2011) reported an estimated internal consistency of .93. The reliability for the present study was .90.

Color-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale

The Color-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale (CoBRAS) was developed to measure color-blind racial ideology (Neville et al., 2000). Participants indicated their response for 20 items on a six-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree). A higher score indicates a higher endorsement of color-blind attitudes. CoBRAS has three subscales the first of which is Racial Privilege, which refers to blindness to the existence of White Privilege (e.g., “White people in the U.S. have certain advantages because of the color of their skin”). The second subscale is called Institutional Discrimination and reflects unawareness of institutional forms of oppression (e.g., “Social policies, such as affirmative action, discriminate unfairly against white people”). The final subscale, Blatant Racial Issues, is about the lack of awareness of general racial discrimination (e.g., “Social problems in the U.S. are rare, isolated situations”). The alpha coefficients for the three subscales and the total score were α = .83, .81, .76, and .91, respectively (Neville et al., 2000). The test-retest reliability was reported as .68. For concurrent validity, CoBRAS was significantly, positively related to the Multidimensional Belief in a Just World Scale (r = .68). The CoBRAS has been found to have good reliability in samples of Asian Americans (Chen et al., 2006; Cheng, 2015; Lee et al., 2016). The estimated internal consistency for the three subscales in this study are as follows: Racial Privilege (α = .82), Institutional Discrimination (α = .56), and Blatant Racial Issues (α = .69).

Sense of Belonging Scale

The Sense of Belonging Scale is adapted from a larger Perceived Cohesion scale developed by Bollen and Hoyle (1990). Bollen and Hoyle (1990) tested the scale with a number of populations including college students, city residents, and members of several nations. In the initial paper, Bollen and Hoyle (1990) provide no concrete validity data. Instead, they make a case for how their scale is conceptually different from all other measures of cohesion. France et al. (2010) used the perceived cohesion scale with over 600 students in Virginia, and it had an alpha coefficient of α = .95. Hurtado and Carter (1997) used the sense of belonging scale with Latino college students and reported an alpha of α = .94 for reliability. The adapted scale has also been used with Asian American undergraduate students (Chung et al., 2011), first year undergraduates from different racial or ethnic groups (Johnson et al., 2007), and Filipino Americans (Museus & Maramba, 2010). The estimated internal consistency for this sample was .95.

Attention Checks

Three attention check questions were interspersed throughout the study survey. Each asked participants to select a specific point on the corresponding Likert scale of the measure within which the question was embedded (e.g. Please select 4 for this question.)

Procedure

We recruited participants through the registrar of a large Midwestern university, which contacted all international students with an opportunity to participate. A recruitment call was also sent to the international student offices of over 100 universities and colleges in hopes of being distributed. In addition, by using snowballing technique (e.g. Facebook groups), personal and professional networks focusing on Asian Indian international students were utilized. The explanation of the study reminded participants of the inclusion criteria (e.g. over 18, identified as a current student, identified as an international student and Asian Indian) and gave a brief overview of what the study was about. Participants were encouraged to share the study with friends who they believed to be eligible.

Results

Data screening

Out of the 538 participants that opened the survey, we deleted nine because they did not provide consent. An additional 143 provided consent but did not meet the inclusion criteria and were deleted. We deleted another 64 participants because they only provided consent and no other information. Further, we deleted 51 participants because they only provided demographic information but no data on scales. Finally, we deleted 63 participants because they answered three attention check questions incorrectly. Using Iglewicz and Hoaglin’s (1993) approach, we identified six outliers and removed them. For data analysis, we used a final number of 192 participants.

The mean and standard deviation for colorblind-racial ideology (CBRI) subscales were as follows: Racial Privilege (M = 22.92; SD = 6.89); Institutional Privilege (M = 21.83; SD = 4.81); Blatant racial issues (M = 14.59; SD = 4.55). Mean differences in CBRI yielded significant results with respect to age, gender, level of education, institution type, region, major, and English proficiency. However, none of these differences yielded significant interactions as related to the dependent variable of racism-related stress.

Preliminary analyses

The preliminary analyses involved testing the statistical assumptions for regression. All variables had appropriate levels of univariate normality based on Weston and Gore (2006), with skewness values ranging from -0.02 to 0.70 and kurtosis values ranging from -0.20 to 0.60. We inserted all variables into scatterplots, and on visual inspection, no evidence of nonlinear relations were found. We also examined the variance inflation factor (VIF) for each factor regressed onto the other study variables. All VIFs were close to one, providing no evidence for issues with multicollinearity (Menard, 1995).

To assess for patterns of missing data, we created a dummy code variable representing those with and without missing data and correlated it with each item on the survey. The dummy code was not related to any study or demographic variable. There were 96.5% participants with no missing data. Because the dummy code was not related to any variable, the data was missing completed at random, and the seven cases with missing data were deleted. Table 1 displays the correlations among the study variables.

Table 1.

Correlations for study variables.

Variable	COBRAS racial privilege	COBRAS institutional discrimination	COBRAS blatant racial issues	Asian American race related inventory	Sense of belonging scale
COBRAS Racial Privilege	–
COBRAS Institutional Discrimination	.43***	–
COBRAS Blatant Racial Issues	.61***	.48***	–
Asian American Race Related Inventory	−.48***	−.31***	−.41***	–
Sense of Belonging Scale	.10	.11	.02	−.20**	–

*p < .05. **p < .01.***p < .001.

Mean differences

Before conducting a regression, we analyzed if there were any group differences in our data. Demographic variables of age, country of origin, number of years in the U.S.A., family income, region of residence, institution type, major, and English proficiency did not yield statistically significant differences as related to racism-related stress. Significant differences were found for racism-related stress based on gender and level of education. Women (M = 2.31, SD = .60, N = 67) experienced significantly more racism-related stress than men (M = 1.95, SD = .53, N = 123) ; t(188) = 4.28, p < .001, d = .64. There were two participants that self-identified outside the gender binary and experienced higher racism-related stress than both men and women (M = 2.56, SD = .66), but due to lack of numbers, they were not included for further analysis. In terms of level of education, bachelor’s students (M = 2.28, SD = .57, N = 78) experienced significantly more racism-related stress than both master’s students (M = 1.97, SD = .56, N = 51) and Ph.D. or professional degree students (M = 1.92, SD = .54, N = 63) [F(2, 189) = 8.39, p <.05]. There were no significant differences between master’s, and Ph.D. or professional degree students. Therefore, master’s and Ph.D. or professional degree were collapsed into one group as graduate students. Using this new level of education variable, undergraduate students experiences more racism-related stress (M = 2.28, SD = .57, N = 78) than graduate students (M = 1.95, SD = .55, N = 114); t (190) = 4.10, p < 0.001, d = .59. This new level of education variable was used in the regression analysis.

Primary analyses

In order to conduct a regression, we normalized the variables by converting them to z-scores. A two-stage hierarchical multiple regression was conducted with racism-related stress as the dependent variable. Gender and level of education were entered in step one, and the three subscales of colorblind ideology and sense of belonging were entered in step two. The hierarchical multiple regression revealed that at step one, gender and level of education were significant [R²=.135, F(2, 189)=13.8, p < .001], and explained 13.5% of the variance in racism-related stress. Introducing the three subscales of colorblind racial ideology and sense of belonging explained an additional 19.7% of the variance in racism related stress [R² = .32, R² change =.21, F(4, 185) = 16.03, p < .001.] In other words, colorblind racial ideology, sense of belonging, gender, and level of education predicted 32.3% of the variance in racism-related stress. Two of the three subscales of colorblind racial ideology (Racial Privilege β = -.30, Blatant Racial Issues β = -.15) had significant unique contributions to racism-related stress, however the Institutional Discrimination subscale did not impact racism-related stress (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Regression analysis for racism-related stress.

Variable	B	SE B	β	R	R²	ΔR²	F
Step 1				.36	.13	.13	13.8
Gender	−.46	.13	−.24***
Level of Education	−.30	.08	−.26**
Step 2				.59	.34	.32	15.1
Gender	−.35	.12	−.18**
Level of Education	−.19	.07	−.16**
COBRAS Racial Privilege	−.30	.08	−.30***
COBRAS Institutional Discrimination	−.04	.07	−.04
COBRAS Blatant Racial Issues	−.15	.08	−.15*
Sense of Belonging	−.16	.06	−.16*

* p < .05. ** p < .01. ***p < .001.

Discussion

The goals of the present study were to evaluate how colorblind racial ideology and sense of belonging relate to racism-related stress for Asian Indian international students. Both colorblind racial ideology and sense of belonging significantly explained racism-related stress. A lower sense of belonging and lower colorblind racial ideology were associated with higher racism-related stress. These findings indicate that Asian Indian students have significant racism-related stress. Researchers, educators, and higher education administrators should have a more holistic understanding of the experiences of Asian Indian international students through their understanding of the factors in the present study.

Our findings suggested that women experienced more racism-related stress than men. Although the regression analysis did not include the two participants that identified outside the gender binary, preliminary data indicated these two participants scored higher on racism-related stress than both women and men. In trying to explain this finding, the theory of intersectionality might help (Crenshaw, 2005). Intersectionality posits that individuals have a number of intersecting identities, some privileged and some marginalized. Women and non-binary people of color, in particular, face marginalization and oppression both due to their identity as gender minorities, and as people of color. They are more likely to recognize forms of oppression and are therefore more at risk of developing racism-related stress. In a sample of 3,706 college students, attitudes about sexism and racism were highly correlated (Sidanius, 1993). This implies that the more aware one is of sexism, the more aware they would be of racism. In this sample, gender minorities were clearly more at risk for sexism than men, and therefore may have been more aware of both sexism and racism. Only a couple of studies have specifically looked at the intersection of race and gender in South Asian women, and both have found it to be impactful (Mehrotra et al., 2012; Tariq & Syed, 2017). However, there is no research specifically exploring individuals who identify outside of the gender binary in Asian Indian and South Asian communities.

A surprising finding was that level of education also explained racism-related stress, such that undergraduate students experienced more racism-related stress than graduate students. This was unexpected because we assumed graduate students to be engaged in critical analysis more than undergraduates. However, one study found that graduate students had a moderate understanding of women’s and minority issues (Hansman et al., 1999). Our findings may be explained by the fact that most of the graduate students in the current sample were from an engineering, management, or technology background, where discourse on race may be limited. In contrast, even though most undergraduate students were from STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) fields, there were students with more varied majors than the graduate students. Additionally, it is likely that graduate students are usually less immersed in campus culture than undergraduate students and have smaller peer groups, therefore creating less opportunity to interact with a discriminatory environment.

Sense of belonging was a significant predictor for racism-related stress. The more sense of belonging a student felt, the less racism-related stress they experienced. Like many researchers have argued, integrating international students into campus environments is essential (Glass & Westmont, 2014). Decades of research on acculturation suggest that the more positively acculturated a student is to their new environment, the less negative psychological outcomes they experience (Yoon et al., 2013). Having a sense of belonging to one’s campus indicates that there is some level of integration, and this integration may have a positive effect on psychological outcomes. However, if there is a lower sense of belonging, this may put students at a higher risk for negative outcomes, as found in the present study in relation to racism-related stress.

Even after controlling for gender and level of education, two of three subscales of colorblind racial ideology were significant predictors for racism-related stress. For this sample, students with lower colorblind racial ideology reported higher racism-related stress. This suggests that the more students had awareness around racism in individual, interpersonal, and cultural forms, the more they appraised racism-related experiences as upsetting. Such appraisals may be a result of being reminded of systems of oppression and White supremacy that colorblind racial ideology obscures. Sue et al. (2007) describe microaggressions as “brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, and environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial slights and insults to the target person,” often resulting in anger, mistrust, loss of self-esteem, and feeling disrespected (p. 273). In this sample, students low in colorblind racial ideology may have experienced similar processes to victims of microaggressions.

On the other hand, students with higher colorblind racial ideology reported lower racism-related stress. Similar to Lee et al. (2016), colorblind racial ideology was a protective factor against experiences of discrimination. This implies that the less aware a student is of systemic and individual racism, the less likely they are to appraise experiences as racist and harmful. Unawareness may even be helpful and easier for students in their transition. However, this same protective factor may be a risk factor for internalized racism (Neville et al., 2005; Speight, 2007). Internalized racism is the process in which minorities accept and adopt the oppressive beliefs to which they have been exposed, leading to outcomes like colonial mentality, idealization of White supremacy, within-group discrimination, self-hatred, and reinforcing racial hierarchies (Choi et al., 2017). This raises the question of whether the protective effects of colorblind racial ideology are worth the negative outcomes. Operating from a social justice lens, we believe that while a lower colorblind racial ideology may protect students from discriminatory experiences, the negative outcomes work against the liberation of all those that are oppressed. As Audre Lorde (1981) said: “I am not free as long as one person of Color remains chained” (p. 10).

In terms of the racial identity development framework developed for international students including four categories (i.e., unawareness of race, awareness of race, examination of race, and integrative awareness; Fries-Britt et al., 2014), the present study found some exploratory evidence. The less colorblind racial ideology a student had, the more likely they were to have experienced racism-related stress. This fits with the first two categories in the framework, where students move from an unawareness of race (colorblindness) to becoming aware of race when faced with discrimination. It is possible that the students with lower colorblind racial ideology and higher racism-related stress were moving from the first category to the second. There were no scales that tested the other categories in the above framework, and therefore we cannot know for certain if participants have actually moved to a different category because of racism. In addition, contrary to our expectations, the amount of time an international student has been in the U.S.A. had no relation to colorblind racial ideology, racism-related stress, or sense of belonging. It may be possible that length of stay is more connected to the experience of racism (Fries-Britt et al., 2014).

Implications for higher education

The present study clarifies that Asian Indian international students are also prone to the effects of racism-related stress as domestic minority populations are. Mental health professionals and administrators at institutions of higher education should keep this in mind when working with Asian Indian international students. It is not just the students’ non-American status that is at play, but also their racial and ethnic identity. International students must not be reduced to simply having stressors caused by acculturation and language barriers. There are over one million international students that come to the U.S.A. in hopes of furthering their education. These students provide financial gain to the institutions they enroll at and also expose domestic students to global multiculturalism. These students need to be cared for, especially because higher rates of depression are found repeatedly.

In terms of sense of belonging, universities must make a larger effort to acculturate and integrate students into communities. Perhaps one way of doing this is having an orientation or a workshop introduction to racial and ethnic identity in the U.S.A. for incoming international students. Though such a workshop may negatively impact the protective factor of unawareness in the short term, it may prevent internalized racism as students continue to be exposed to White supremacy in the United States of America. Another way universities can increase sense of belonging and reduce racism-related stress is by creating and constantly endorsing a multicultural environment. Although the study results suggest that colorblind racial ideology is a protective factor, Speight (2007) has found colorblind ideology led to internalized racism. While we may be able to say that colorblind racial ideology mitigates the effects of racism, we do not know what other systems of oppression it may be perpetuating. A workshop like the one mentioned before might work as a preventative measure for international students.

Limitations and future directions

One of the main drawbacks of this study is that the scale used to measure colorblind racial ideology had low reliability for two of the subscales for this sample. The estimated internal consistency for the subscales of Institutional Discrimination and Blatant Racial Issues were both significantly below .80. It is possible that the scale developed by Neville et al. (2013) is not a good fit for international populations. The scale was developed and normed with populations in the U.S.A., and to assume it would fit for international students that have not been in the country for long might be untenable. It is also possible that the issue is not the scale, but instead that unawareness of race in international students may not be the same as to colorblind racial ideology. The framework proposed by Fries-Britt et al. (2014) is fairly new and there are no direct measures relating to the categories. Future research may extend the framework by conducting more interviews and designing a scale that is specific to racial identity development for international students.

Another limitation is around the representativeness of the sample. Firstly, this sample comprised participants belonging to Asian Indian ethnicity, and extrapolating results to other international student populations may not be appropriate. Even in terms of within-group representativeness, most participants belonged to public universities, as opposed to contexts like liberal arts colleges. Additionally, about 11% of the participants rated their English proficiency as average or poor and most of the participants in this sample rated their English proficiency as good or very good. Therefore, it is possible that the lower English proficiency students of the Asian Indian international population were missing and their experience was not captured. In the future, it may be helpful to have translated versions of the scales. This gives a participant the option to answer in the language that is most comfortable, and will also provide researchers with a fuller picture of the population of interest.

Future research should aim to replicate the relations between racism-related stress and negative mental health outcomes in other international ethnic minority student populations. In particular, research may focus on both racism-related stress and internalized racism to capture the nuance of international student racial experiences. Additionally, further support for the racial identity framework developed by Fries-Britt et al. (2014) is needed. There are established racial identity models for all domestic minority racial groups in the U.S.A., and continued research on international students of color will benefit college student development.

Racial and ethnic identity and discrimination is understudied with international student populations. The present study provides evidence about Asian Indian international students experiences related to their race, and that these experiences are related to constructs such as colorblind racial ideology. As the U.S.A. continues to enroll international students, it is imperative that the focus is not just on recruitment, but also on the holistic well-being for this population including a critical analysis of racial and ethnic identity.

Footnotes

Article Notes

ORCID iD

Aashna Aggarwal

References

Anderson

(2018). Guess who’s not coming to America? International students. Forbes, July 23, 2018. https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2018/03/02/guess-whos-not-coming-to-america-international-students/

Bollen

K. A.

Hoyle

R. H.

(1990). Perceived cohesion: A conceptual and empirical examination. Social Forces, 69(2), 479–504. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/69.2.479

Chavajay

(2013). Perceived social support among international students at a U.S. University. Psychological Reports, 112(2), 667–677. https://doi.org/10.2466/17.21.PR0.112.2.667-677

Chen

G. A.

LePhuoc

Guzmán

M. R.

Rude

S. S.

Dodd

B. G.

(2006). Exploring Asian American racial identity. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 12(3), 461–476. https://doi.org/10.1037/1099-9809.12.3.461

Cheng

Neville

Chang

H. H.

Pak

Rounds

(2015). Psychometric examination of the color-blind racial attitudes scale for use among Asian Americans [ProQuest Dissertations and Theses]. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Choi

A. Y.

Israel

Maeda

(2017). Development and evaluation of the internalized racism in Asian Americans scale (IRAAS). Journal of Counseling Psychology, 64(1), 52–64. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000183

Chung

Clark

Cole

(2011). The relationship of ethnicity, gender, acculturation, intergenerational relations, and sense of belonging in the institution to academic success among Asian American undergraduates [ProQuest Dissertations and Theses]. University of Southern California.

Craig

(2018). International students are key to continued American economic leadership. Forbes, July 23, 2018. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ryancraig/2018/06/28/international-students-are-key-to-continued-american-economic-leadership/

Crenshaw

(2005). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color (1994). In Bergen

R. K.

Edleson

J. L.

Renzetti

C. M.

(Eds.), Violence against women: Classic papers (pp. 282–313). Pearson Education New Zealand.

10.

Curtin

Stewart

A. J.

Ostrove

J. M.

(2013). Fostering academic self-concept: Advisor support and sense of belonging among international and domestic graduate students. American Educational Research Journal, 50(1), 108–137. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831212446662

11.

Fincher

Park

J. J.

Espino

Griffin

O’Meara

K. A.

Turner

(2014). Powerful pathways across race: Sense of belonging in discriminatory collegiate environments [ProQuest Dissertations and Theses]. University of Maryland.

12.

France

M. K.

Finney

S. J.

Swerdzewski

(2010). Students’ group and member attachment to their university: A construct validity study of the university attachment scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70(3), 440–458. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164409344510

13.

Fries-Britt

George Mwangi

C. A.

Peralta

A. M.

(2014). Learning race in a U.S. Context: An emergent framework on the perceptions of race among foreign-born students of color. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 7(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035636

14.

Glass

C. R.

Westmont

C. M.

(2014). Comparative effects of belongingness on the academic success and cross-cultural interactions of domestic and international students. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 38, 106–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.04.004

15.

Gupta

Szymanski

D. M.

Leong

F. T. L.

(2011). The “model minority myth”: Internalized racialism of positive stereotypes as correlates of psychological distress, and attitudes toward help-seeking. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 2(2), 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024183

16.

Gupta

M. D.

(2004). A view of post‐9/11 justice from below. Peace Review, 16(2), 141–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/1040265042000237671

17.

Hansman

C. A.

Jackson

M. H.

Grant

D. F.

Spencer

L. E.

(1999). Assessing graduate students’ sensitivity to gender, race, equality and diversity: Implications for curriculum development. College Student Journal, 33(2), 261–268.

18.

Hurtado

Carter

D. F.

(1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions of the campus racial climate on Latino college students’ sense of belonging. Sociology of Education, 70(4), 324–345. https://doi.org/10.2307/2673270

19.

Iglewicz

Hoaglin

D. C.

(1993). How to detect and handle outliers. ASQC Quality Press.

20.

Inman

A. G.

Tummala-Narra

Kaduvettoor-Davidson

Alvarez

A. N.

Yeh

C. J.

(2015). Perceptions of race-based discrimination among first-generation Asian Indians in the United States. The Counseling Psychologist, 43(2), 217–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000014566992

21.

Johnson

D. R.

Soldner

Leonard

J. B.

Alvarez

Inkelas

K. K.

Rowan-Kenyon

H. T.

Longerbeam

S. D.

(2007). Examining sense of belonging among first-year undergraduates from different racial/ethnic groups. Journal of College Student Development, 48(5), 525–542. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2007.0054

22.

Kim

(2011). Asian American racial identity development theory. In Wijeyesinghe

Jackson

B. W.

(Eds.), New perspectives on racial identity development: Integrating emerging frameworks (2nd ed.). New York University Press.

23.

Kirby

(2018, January 11). Trump wants fewer immigrants from “shithole countries” and more from places like Norway. https://www.vox.com/2018/1/11/16880750/trump-immigrants-shithole-countries-norway

24.

Lazarus

Folkman

(1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer.

25.

Lee

R. M.

Federico

Swartz

Syed

(2016). Coping with racial/ethnic discrimination: The role of color-blind racial ideology among Asian Americans [ProQuest Dissertations and Theses]. University of Minnesota.

26.

Lee

Rice

(2007). Welcome to America? International student perceptions of discrimination. Higher Education, 53(3), 381–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-005-4508-3

27.

Levin

Van Laar

Foote

(2006). Ethnic segregation and perceived discrimination in college: Mutual influences and effects on social and academic life. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(6), 1471–1501. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00068.x

28.

Liang

C. T. H.

Alvarez

A. N.

Juang

L. P.

Liang

M. X.

(2007). The role of coping in the relationship between perceived racism and racism-related stress for Asian Americans: Gender differences. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54(2), 132–141. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.54.2.132

29.

Liang

C. T. H.

L. C.

Kim

B. S. K.

(2004). The Asian American racism-related stress inventory: Development, factor analysis, reliability, and validity. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51(1), 103–114. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.51.1.103

30.

Lorde

(1981). The uses of anger. Women’s Studies Quarterly, 9(3), 7. https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.lib.purdue.edu/docview/1292044836?accountid=13360

31.

Maizland

(2017, March 6). There have been 3 violent attacks against Indians in the US in the past 13 days. https://www.vox.com/latest-news/2017/3/6/14831620/violent-attacks-indians-us-anti-immigrant-trump

32.

Mehrotra

Walters Karina Kemp

Swarr

(2012). Diasporic intersectionalities: Exploring South Asian women’s narratives of race, ethnicity, and gender through a community-based performance project [ProQuest Dissertations and Theses]. University of Washington.

33.

Menard

S. W.

(1995). Applied logistic regression analysis. SAGE Publications.

34.

Museus

S. D.

Maramba

D. C.

(2010). The impact of culture on Filipino American students’ sense of belonging. The Review of Higher Education, 34(2), 231–258. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2010.0022

35.

Neville

H. A.

Awad

G. H.

Brooks

J. E.

Flores

M. P.

Bluemel

(2013). Color-blind racial ideology: Theory, training, and measurement implications in psychology. The American Psychologist, 68(6), 455–466. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033282

36.

Neville

H. A.

Coleman

M. N.

Falconer

J. W.

Holmes

(2005). Color-Blind racial ideology and psychological false consciousness among African Americans. Journal of Black Psychology, 31(1), 27–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798404268287

37.

Neville

H. A.

Lilly

R. L.

Duran

Lee

R. M.

Browne

(2000). Construction and initial validation of the Color-Blind racial attitudes scale (CoBRAS). Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47(1), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.47.1.59

38.

Neville

H. A.

Poteat

V. P.

Lewis

J. A.

Spanierman

L. B.

(2014). Changes in white college students’ color-blind racial ideology over 4 years: Do diversity experiences make a difference? Journal of Counseling Psychology, 61(2), 179–190. https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.purdue.edu/10.1037/a0035168

39.

Niazi

(2017, November). Over 186,000 Indian students in US, but growth rate drops. http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20171118065438530

40.

Number of International Students in the United States Hits All-Time High. (n.d). Institute of International Education. https://www.iie.org:443/en/Why-IIE/Announcements/2019/11/Number-of-International-Students-in-the-United-States-Hits-All-Time-High

41.

Over 186,000 Indian students in US, but growth rate drops. (n.d). University World News . http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20171118065438530

42.

Poyrazli

Lopez

M. D.

(2007). An exploratory study of perceived discrimination and homesickness: A comparison of international students and American students. The Journal of Psychology, 141(3), 263–280. https://doi.org/10.3200/JRLP.141.3.263-280

43.

Sherry

Thomas

Chui

W. H.

(2009). International students: A vulnerable student population. Higher Education, 60(1), 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9284-z

44.

Sidanius

(1993). The interface between racism and sexism. The Journal of Psychology, 127(3), 311–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1993.9915565

45.

Slaten

C. D.

Elison

Z. M.

Lee

J.-Y.

Yough

Scalise

(2016). Belonging on campus: A qualitative inquiry of Asian international students. The Counseling Psychologist, 44(3), 383–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000016633506

46.

Spears

A. K.

(1999). Race and ideology: Language, symbolism, and popular culture. Wayne State University Press.

47.

Speight

S. L.

(2007). Internalized racism: One more piece of the puzzle. The Counseling Psychologist, 35(1), 126–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006295119

48.

Stevens

(2017, June 9). Kansas man indicted on hate crime charges in shooting of Indian immigrants. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/09/us/indian-immigrants-kansas-hate-crime.html

49.

Sue

D. W.

Capodilupo

C. M.

Torino

G. C.

Bucceri

J. M.

Holder

A. M. B.

Nadal

K. L.

Esquilin

(2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life. The American Psychologist, 62(4), 271–286. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.4.271

50.

Sue

D. W.

Sue

(2012). Counseling the culturally diverse: Theory and practice. John Wiley & Sons.

51.

Sullivan

Kashubeck-West

(2015). The interplay of international students’ acculturative stress, social support, and acculturation modes. Journal of International Students, 5(1), 1–11.

52.

Sümer

Poyrazli

Grahame

(2008). Predictors of depression and anxiety among international students. Journal of Counseling & Development, 86(4), 429–437. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2008.tb00531.x

53.

Tariq

Syed

(2017). Intersectionality at work: South Asian Muslim women’s experiences of employment and leadership in the United Kingdom. Sex Roles, 77(7–8), 510–522. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0741-3

54.

Tummala-Narra

Inman

A. G.

Ettigi

S. P.

(2011). Asian Indians’ responses to discrimination: A mixed-method examination of identity, coping, and self-esteem. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 2(3), 205–218. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025555

55.

Weston

R., P. A.

Gore

(2006). A brief guide to structural equation modeling. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(5), 719–751. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006286345

56.

Yao

C. W.

Briscoe

K. L.

Rutt

J. N.

(2020). In the aftermath of a racialized incident: Exploring international students of color’s perceptions of campus racial climate. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000179

57.

Yoon

Chang

C.-T.

Kim

Clawson

Cleary

S. E.

Hansen

Bruner

J. P.

Chan

T. K.

Gomes

A. M.

(2013). A Meta-analysis of acculturation/enculturation and mental health. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60(1), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030652

58.

Zhang

Goodson

(2011). Predictors of international students’ psychosocial adjustment to life in the United States: A systematic review. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(2), 139–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.11.011

59.

Zong

Batalova

(2018, May 8). International students in the United States. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/international-students-united-states