Measurement of Intersectional Microaggressions: Conceptual Barriers and Recommendations

Abstract

Since Crenshaw coined the term “intersectionality” in 1989, researchers of bias have struggled with how to capture the complexity and intricacies of intersectional identities and microaggressions experienced by individuals holding these identities within the quantitative framework that dominates psychology. Although scholarship has grown in the exploration of experiences such as racialized sexual harassment, or sexual racism within queer and trans communities, there is no strong consensus on how this might be measured systematically in ways that allow for inferences regarding the experiences of populations of interest. With an emphasis on the experiences of queer and trans people of color, this article explores intersectional identities through three main points: First, we define what is meant by intersectionality and the real-world experiences that are important for advancing an understanding of microaggressions; second, we review the existing measures and their ability to capture the breadth and depth of the lived experience of those with intersectional identities; and third, we propose a framework for the development of a more accurate and comprehensive measure of microaggressions.

Keywords

intersectionality microaggressions measurement psychometrics intersectional microaggressions

There is no thing as a single-issue struggle because we do not live single-issue lives.

—Lorde (1984, p. 183)

Coined by Crenshaw (1989), the term “intersectionality” refers to the connectedness and overlap of different social identities (e.g., race, gender, sexual orientation) related to an individual or group and related to systems of oppression. The theory of intersectionality allows for a broader, contextualized, and more nuanced understanding of individuals’ experiences based on their interconnected identities. A related field that also allows for a more nuanced understanding of minority experiences is microaggression research. Microaggressions are brief, common, and felt experiences that communicate discrimination toward a group of people (Sue et al., 2007). As our understanding of microaggressions has increased, there has been an increase in tools to attempt to measure these experiences. However, very few measures exist examining microaggressions for people who hold more than one marginalized identity.

The science of clinical psychology has historically centered the development and validation of empirically supported therapeutic approaches in the service of improving the mental health and well-being of people who benefit from some level of societal privilege, including (but not limited to) people who are White, cisgender, straight, middle class, or affluent (Sue, 2006). Psychology also has a long legacy of marginalizing and pathologizing behaviors of people who belong to ethnic- or racial-minority groups and gender and sexual minorities and people from other historically marginalized or underrepresented groups (e.g., Bobo & Fox, 2003; Guthrie, 2004; Hubbard & Griffiths, 2019). There is a need for more empirical research and critical understanding of intersectionality, including microaggressions specific to intersecting identities, to remedy racism and bias within both society and to amend misdirected courses of inquiry within clinical psychological science. In this article, we describe the connection between intersectionality and microaggression experiences and provide real-world examples of multifaceted and complex identities. We also review and critique existing measures of microaggressions toward intersectional identities. Finally, we provide recommendations for improving the measurement of intersectional microaggressions. We use the experiences of queer and trans people of color as illustrative examples throughout this article. Given the paucity of attention to the area of intersectional microaggressions experienced by queer and trans people of color, this article reviews these experiences as an example, discusses measurements related to the experiences of queer and trans people of color, and provides guidance on how to better understand and measure intersectional microaggression experiences of queer and trans people of color. We argue that guidance for measuring intersectional microaggressions for queer and trans people of color can provide a model for measuring the experiences of others who also hold intersecting marginalized identities.

Intersectionality

Intersectionality orients us to our inability to view the different marginalized identities a person holds as separate; we also cannot view the experiences associated with the identities individually. Intersectionality challenges the idea of universal, fixed categories of identity (such as paying attention only to a Black gay man’s experiences of Blackness, or studying the experiences of Blackness and gayness separately) and instead focuses on the ways in which race, gender, and sexuality, as well as several other identities, interact with one another. The concept of intersectionality was brought to light through the lived experiences of Black women in the United States and coined by Black feminist activists and academics to counter White feminism, which purported to present a universal experience of women. Black feminist activists and academics argued that examining or analyzing a single axis of gender, race, or sexuality leaves the experiences of groups such as Black women and queer or trans people of color erased and decontextualized (Battle & Ashley, 2008; Crenshaw, 1989; Grillo, 1995; Moore, 2012).

Black feminist scholars have continued to expand on intersectionality. One critical expansion is the move to view intersectionality as a paradigm (Collins, 2002; Hancock, 2007); that is, to view it not as a content-based specialization but as an encompassing theory and body of empirical research. Viewing intersectionality as a paradigm includes examining all pertinent categories of difference at the individual and institutional factors and being mindful of within-group and intergroup differences. Further, this viewpoint requires a broader level of analysis that both accounts for these variations and examines concrete, specific examples of intersectionality (Hancock, 2007). This framework has continued to expand and be applied to multiple disciplines, including psychology.

Criticisms of intersectionality include that it does not adequately address within-group experiences (Burman, 2003) and that, in practice, it focuses only on building coalitions between White women and non-White women, which lumps all women of color together (Velez, 2019) and does not center identities within structural contexts (e.g., identities in relation to systems of power; Moradi, 2017). Intersectional theorists respond to these critiques by stating that intersectionality includes actively considering the social context as multidimensional, lived identities that are intertwined within systems of oppression and decentering Whiteness in feminism (Lykke, 2020; May, 2014). Intersectionality emphasizes understanding the social location and lived experiences of those who are typically marginalized and contextualizes those experiences in relation to institutional practices and oppressive systems, such as capitalism (Bohrer, 2019; May, 2014). Further, intersectionality attends to within-group differences simultaneously, even if conflicting, by acknowledging social positions and relations between people who exist within the same group (May, 2014; Tomlinson, 2013).

Intersectionality provides a more textured understanding of the lived experience of various groups of people and calls on researchers and practitioners to understand different perspectives. If we assume that the purpose of psychological science is to reduce human suffering and improve living conditions for all beings, we argue that by using intersectionality as a paradigm, we can add a sharper means to this end. Intersectionality allows us to more fully capture people’s experiences of discrimination and oppression and identify ways to empower and uplift them. It can empirically inform research and applied work such that we fully understand both the differences and similarities between diverse human sociocultural and sociopolitical identities (Cole, 2009).

Given that the intersectionality paradigm refers to both theory and underlying empirical research, there is a need to more accurately measure intersectionality and associated constructs. Bowleg (2008) outlined existing challenges to qualitative and quantitative measurements of intersectionality with particular clarity. These challenges include how to contextualize intersectional data that are more implicit than explicit, for example, participants responding to the questions that they are asked explicitly, which then may limit how they respond (Bowleg, 2008). This means that they are explicitly being asked to provide an answer to a specific question (e.g., “Tell me about your experience of being a woman”), but this may miss the implicit piece: For this participant, it may be impossible to separate gender identity as a woman from identity as a Black woman. The participant may or may not speak to this in the interview if they are only asked about their identity as a woman (Bowleg, 2008).

A second challenge is the additive assumption that is implicit in both qualitative and quantitative analytic strategies, whereby researchers typically code or ask participants questions specific to each identity instead of asking participants about their identity overall (Bowleg, 2008). Bowleg (2008) noted that intersectionality is not an additive process, and, thus, it may not be appropriate to ask someone separately about their experiences of each identity (e.g., Black, lesbian, woman); rather, examining the combined processes (e.g., Black lesbian woman) would be more valid. In addition, few measurement tools for examining discrimination at an intersectional level exist, and most focus on the additive approach, which does not accurately contextualize or represent the lived experiences of intersectional identities.

Microaggressions

People with intersectional identities may experience diverse forms of discrimination, including microaggressions, especially if their identities include social-group membership in groups with marginalized statuses. Microaggressions are brief and commonplace verbal, behavioral, or environmental interactions that communicate negative viewpoints toward a particular group experienced and felt by someone who belongs to that group (Sue, 2010; Sue et al., 2007). Microaggressions occur in three forms: microassaults, microinsults, and microinvalidations (Sue, 2010; Sue et al., 2007). A comprehensive review of the microaggression literature by M. T. Williams (2020) clearly revealed that this body of literature is well established, robust, and linked to poor mental health outcomes (e.g., Banks et al., 2006; Huynh, 2012; Nadal et al., 2014; Owen et al., 2014).

As our understanding of the marginalization of different groups has increased, a number of measures have been developed to capture the experience of microaggressions faced by these groups. The Racial Microaggression Scale (Torres-Harding et al., 2012), Racial and Ethnic Microaggression Scale (Nadal, 2011), and Ethnic Microaggressions Scale (Huynh, 2012) measure racial and ethnic microaggressions experienced by people of color across more multiple racial and ethnic groups. Some scales focus on only one racial/ethnic group, including the Inventory of Microaggressions Against Black Individuals (Mercer et al., 2011), Subtle and Blatant Racism Scale for Asian Americans (Yoo et al., 2010), and the Asian American Racial Microaggressions Scale (Lin, 2011).

Scales have also been developed that measure microaggressions experienced by other marginalized groups, such as individuals with disabilities (Ableist Microaggressions Scale; Conover et al., 2017); lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals (LGBQ Microaggressions on Campus Scale; Woodford et al., 2015); transgender individuals (Trans Discrimination Scale; Watson et al., 2018); women (Undergraduate Gender Microaggressions Scale; Gartner, 2019); individuals living with HIV (HIV Microaggressions Scale, Eaton et al., 2020); nonreligious individuals (Microaggressions Against Non-Religious Individuals Scale; Cheng et al., 2018) and religious individuals (Microaggressions Against Religious Individuals Scale; Cheng et al., 2019).

It should be noted that these intracategorical scales that develop unidimensionally (or are based only on the experiences of one identity) typically do so because research on discrimination is still relatively new and unfolding. The measures that are developed are often the first of their kind to attempt to measure the experiences of discrimination for a particular group (e.g., Mercer et al., 2011; D. R. Williams et al., 1997). These measures are often explicitly intended by authors as a first step in measurement and come with instructions that further exploration of how these measures apply on the basis of other identities is necessary. For example, Yoo et al. (2010) stated that it is important to examine the link between racism and sexism given that Asian American men are often “demasculinzed,” whereas Asian American women are “hypersexualized,” and suggested this area specifically for future study.

Measuring Intersectional Microaggressions

Few measures exist to capture the experiences of individuals who hold more than one marginalized identity. We know that holding multiple marginalized identities is a different lived experience, but it is unclear whether experiencing microaggressions based on intersecting identities contribute to multiplicative negative consequences or whether these experiences are comparable with microaggressions experienced by those holding a single marginalized identity. For example, how are microaggressions faced by Black women different from those faced by White women? Or those faced by Black trans women? Further, it is unclear how these experiences are different when one strongly identifies with a group but experiences discrimination within that group. For example, what is the felt experience of identifying as Asian and gay and being subjected to antigay slurs within the Asian community? Or the experience of being someone who is Black and bisexual and being subjected to biphobia within Black queer communities? Thus, it is unknown whether experiencing microaggressions on the basis of one marginalized identity within another marginalized group (e.g., gay slur used by racial/ethnic minority person’s in-group) is the same as experiencing a microaggression on the basis of multiple identities from an out-group member (e.g., derogatory comment about being Black and gay from an Asian woman). Answering these questions empirically requires the use of psychological instruments that measure microaggressions experienced by individuals holding intersecting marginalized identities. Many researchers (e.g., Nadal et al., 2015; Sterzing et al., 2017) have noted the need to assess such experiences, but only a few instruments to measure intersectional microaggressions are currently available. Furthermore, only two specific published scales have been developed to specifically examine microaggressions experienced by queer and trans people of color.

Current standards of measurement of microaggressions

Intracategorical approaches

When examining existing measures of intersectional microaggressions experiences, Scheim and Bauer (2019) noted that such scales and research tend to fall into two types. First, intracategorical studies and scales assess and describe the unique experiences of specific intersections. This approach assumes that individuals with a unique set of intersectional identities (e.g., gay Asian men) will experience discrimination and microaggressions that will not be applicable or relevant to other intersectional groups that have a different set of intersectional identities. An intracategorical approach does not require that respondents disentangle their microaggression experience into separate identities. In other words, they may report that their mistreatment is due to their unique blended identity, and they are not required to judge the degree to which their sexual identity or racial identity contributed to the mistreatment, which may be impossible for respondents to determine. Several measures have been developed using intracategorical approaches.

LGBT People of Color Microaggressions Scale

The LGBT People of Color Microaggressions Scale (Balsam et al., 2011) is an 18-item instrument designed to measure the unique experiences of queer people of color. The authors developed the scale through a three-phase, mixed-methods approach: (a) focus groups to develop items, (b) web-based survey administration to refine items using exploratory factor analysis (EFA), (c) another web-based survey administration, (d) a second EFA, and (e) confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs). They found three factors—LGBT racism (e.g., “having to educate White LGBT people about racism”), people-of-color heterosexism (e.g., “difficulty finding friends who are LGBT and from your racial/ethnic background”), and LGBT relationship racism (e.g., “being rejected by potential dating or sexual partners because of your race/ethnicity”). Responders indicate both the microaggression frequency and the extent to which the microaggression bothered them. This scale is intended to be used with individuals of various racial/ethnic identities, sexual orientation, and gender identities.

Bisexual Microaggression and Microaffirmation Scales for Women

Flanders et al. (2019) created the Bisexual Microaggression and Microaffirmation Scales for Women (BMMS-W) to measure phobic attitudes as they pertained to bisexual women. This scale measures microaggressions and microaffirmations, which the authors defined as small, subtle public or private acts that may be unconscious but that effectively convey that people wish to help others succeed. To develop the scale, they conducted focus groups to generate items regarding positive and negative experiences around bisexual women’s identity. The authors generated an item pool of 129 microaggressions and 52 microaffirmations. They then conducted an EFA, tested the factor analytic structure developed using EFA within a second sample, and conducted reliability and validity testing. The final version of the BMMS-W comprises 38 items that assess the frequency of five different microaggression experiences for bisexual women: dismissal (not seeing bisexual identity as a stable or legitimate identity), mistrust (of bisexual women), sexualization (hypersexualization of bisexual women, excessive sexual questions and sexual advances), social exclusion (exclusion and dismissal from heterosexual and LGBTQ communities), and denial of complexity (assumes that a bisexual woman’s other identities precludes her ability to be bisexual or is incompatible with bisexuality). These scales measure how frequently the individual reported such experiences.

Experienced Sexual Racism Scale for Men of Color Who Have Sex With Men

The Experienced Sexual Racism Scale for Men of Color Who Have Sex With Men (ExSR-MCSM; Bhambhani, Kellum, Bentley, & Wilson, in press) is a 42-item scale, currently unpublished, that broadly measures experiences of discrimination of men of color who have sex with men. The authors used an expert panel to create items and refined items through EFAs and CFAs and construct validation. The scale includes eight factors: in-person rejection from White men, online rejection from White men, White supremacy in intimate contexts, stress from race- or ethnicity-based rejection, abuse and denigration on the basis of race/ethnicity, intimacy-related hopelessness, rejection from other men of color, and sexual fetishization. The scale measures agreement with various statements, some of which indicate microaggressions, such as “I have been turned down for sex by men of color online and I suspected it was because of my ethnicity/race,” or “I have been turned down for dates by White men in person and I suspect it was because of my race/ethnicity.”

To date, the three scales mentioned above are the only existing microaggression scales found in the literature specific to queer and trans people of color. Additional examples of intracategorical scales include the Gendered Racial Microaggressions Scale for Black Women (Lewis & Neville, 2015), the Black Men’s Experiences Scale (Bowleg et al., 2016), and the Gendered Racial Microaggressions in Asian American Women (Keum et al., 2018). The Gendered Racial Microaggressions Scale for Black Women is a 25-item scale that measures frequency and stress associated with microaggressions experienced by Black women (Lewis & Neville, 2015). The Black Men’s Experiences Scale is a 12-item scale that assesses Black men’s racial experiences, including overt discrimination, microaggressions, and their own positive evaluations of being a Black man (Bowleg et al., 2016). The Gendered Racial Microaggressions in Asian American Women is a 22-item scale of frequency and stress appraisal specific to the experiences of Asian American Women. It includes four subscales: ascription of submissiveness, assumption of universal appearance, Asian fetishism, and media invalidation (Keum et al., 2018).

Intracategorical intersectional scales: strengths and limitations

Intracategorical scales seem to possess a number of strengths. First, intracategorical scales might be more consistent with individuals’ experiences of themselves as complex people with multiple, overlapping and/or blended identities. Human identities are complex, and people inhabit intersections of various privileged and oppressed identities. Individuals inhabiting these intersections can have vastly different experiences by the virtue of the combination of identities they hold because intersectionality is not simply the combination of experiences of two oppressed identities (e.g., Black and lesbian) but the unique experience of existing at the intersection of two oppressed identities, for example, what it means to be a Black lesbian woman (Crenshaw, 1990). This can be especially helpful given the nuance of experience by queer and trans people of color, including experiences of sexual racism (e.g., Bhambhani, Flynn, Kellum, & Wilson, 2020) and identity concealment (e.g., Adams & Neville, 2020).

It might be useful to develop and test measures that capture different intersectional-identity combinations and the microaggressions individuals holding that identity experience; this approach will allow for the emergence of the unique experiences and impacts that may be obscured or minimized in approaches that seek to measure common experiences among just one dimension of identity. These scales build on the lived experience of people and thus validate and provide content specific to these lived experiences. It is important to note that all of the measures used previously published qualitative studies and/or qualitative methodologies (Delphi method, focus groups, thematic analysis, content analyses) to develop scale items that were further refined and tested using quantitative methodologies. This approach may help contribute to the face validity of these items in describing the types of microaggressions that people face.

Although this approach holds much promise for the uniqueness of intersecting identities, developing separate measures for varying combinations of different social positions is a daunting proposition. Even taking two-level combinations of identities, such as simply focusing on race or sexual orientation, could result in an infinite number of scales given the various evolving language of sexual orientation (e.g., gay, lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, asexual, demisexual) and the major U.S. categories of race. Some scales also have limitations that may reduce their generalizability, even to people that possess a specific intersectional identity. For example, the LGBT People of Color Microaggressions Scale (Balsam et al., 2011) was developed with mostly cisgender individuals, so it is not clear whether this scale would generalize to all queer and trans people of color, specifically to those who may identify as transgender or gender-diverse. Finally, it is important to note that individuals who happen to fall into a specific intersectional combination (e.g., Latinx woman) may not view their own identities as a Latinx woman as the most salient or important set of identities. Other social-group identities, such as immigration status or sexual orientation, might be most important or relevant to their lived experiences, in their particular community or social context, or at the time that they may complete a measure of intersectional microaggressions. The salience of people’s intersecting identities might change over time in response to both their own developmental trajectories (i.e., assuming or changing family roles over the life span) and the social or political climates in which one of their identities is experiencing increased or lessened hostility and marginalization.

In response to the practical and logistic challenges of developing intracategorical scales, some researchers have opted to develop intersectional scales that can be used with a broad range of combinations of intersectional identities.

Intercategorical intersectional approaches

Intersectional microaggression scales have been developed to assess and describe discrimination and its impacts across a broad range of intersectional identities (Scheim & Bauer, 2019). Scheim and Bauer (2019) termed this approach intercategorical. Scales that have used this approach include the Multidimensional Scale of Discrimination (Molero et al., 2012), the Everyday Discrimination Scale (D. R. Williams et al., 1997), and the Intersectional Discrimination Index (Scheim & Bauer, 2019). Scheim and Bauer (2019) also noted that these measures generally are phrased so that respondents will respond “because of who [they] are” in a more general sense and encourage respondents to consider their own multiple possible identity categories. The three scales described below focus on discrimination experiences that include both overt or blatant forms of discrimination (e.g., being denied a job or housing because of one’s identities), as well as more subtle daily forms of racism-related experiences (e.g., having to endure attributions of racial jokes, offensive or insulting behavior, perceiving disapproval, social rejection, or inappropriate attributions of intelligence of personality by others because of one’s or identities or social-group membership). It is important to note that these scales were not developed to solely measure microaggression experiences per se but are more broadly focused on a range of discrimination experiences using an intersectional approach. However, all of these measures include items or separate subscales pertaining to experiences that could be described or defined as microaggressions.

Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Discrimination

Molero and colleagues (2012) developed the 20-item Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Discrimination to assess perceived discrimination by diverse stigmatized groups. They sought to distinguish between group-level and individual-level discrimination and between direct and “subtle” discrimination. This scale was tested with several samples, including people who identified as gay and lesbian, people who identified as HIV+, Russian immigrants to Spain, and Latinx American immigrants to Spain. Using CFA, Molero and colleagues found evidence for the validity of four factors: blatant group discrimination, subtle group discrimination, blatant individual discrimination, and subtle individual discrimination. The two “subtle” discrimination subscales overlap with microaggression constructs. Examples of subtle group-discrimination items included “Spanish society mistrusts . . .” and “Even when people seem to accept . . . I think that, deep down, they have some misgivings”; examples of subtle individual-discrimination items included “Even though there is no express rejection, people treat me differently when they see I am. . . .”

Everyday Discrimination Scale

D. R. Williams and colleagues (1997) developed the Everyday Discrimination Scale to measure unfair treatment and more chronic, routine, and minor experiences of discrimination that would be applicable across a range of identities. This unidimensional scale included nine items assessing experiences that are consistent with microaggression experiences, including having others treat them in a discourteous or disrespectful manner, being insulted, having others assume that one is dishonest, having others appear to be afraid of them, receiving poorer service in restaurants and stores, and being treated as if one is less intelligent. This scale also measures whether one has been threatened or harassed, which would fit with the idea of microassaults (Sue et al., 2007). For each item, respondents are asked to answer the following question: “In your day-to-day life, how often do any of the following things happen to you?” No specific time frame is indicated. The respondent then indicates which identity/group membership is responsible for their discrimination experiences, and respondents can check multiple identity categories, including ancestry or national origins, gender, race, age, religion, height, weight, another aspect of one’s physical appearance, sexual orientation, education or income level, physical disability, shade of skin color, tribe, and (an)other identity.

Intersectional Discrimination Index

Scheim and Bauer (2019) developed the Intersectional Discrimination Index to measure actual and anticipated discrimination on the basis of one’s intersectional identities. The scale items were developed in consultation with research and human rights experts in North America and Australia. Data were collected from Canadians and Americans and included Asian, Black, Indigenous, Latin American, Middle Eastern, and White individuals in each country, and gender and sexual minorities were oversampled. Three major subscales were found to exhibit good construct validity: (a) The Anticipated Discrimination subscale measured whether a person anticipated that they might encounter hassles, discrimination, harassment, or physical threats of violence in different settings; (b) the Major Discrimination subscale assessed major discrimination experiences during the past year and throughout one’s lifetime, including housing discrimination, job discrimination, verbal or physical police harassment, and financial discrimination; and (c) the Lifetime Day-to-Day Discrimination subscale included items that are examples of microaggressions, including day-to-day instances of mistreatment, insults, discomfort, rudeness, social exclusion, and assumptions of being incapable or dysfunctional. These instances included others assuming that one is rude, unhelpful, or unfriendly; being made to feel as if one did not belong; having others be afraid of one; having others make jokes about people from one’s group memberships; being treated as if one is not intelligent or as if one is incapable; and being subjected to rude, inappropriate, or invasive questions because of one’s identities or backgrounds.

Intercategorical scales: strengths and limitations

In reviewing the existing intercategorical intersectional discrimination scales, a major strength is the ability to use these scales with multiple groups with diverse intersectional identities. This addresses the practical challenge of using intrasectional scales, which involves developing multiple separate scales for multiple combinations of intersectional identities. Intercategorical scales also allow users to orient themselves to whatever their main intersecting identities are, which also makes this approach applicable to a broad range of individuals. This can be specifically helpful for queer and trans people of color whose main identity can shift on the basis of the context of the situation and which community in which they are currently engaging. In addition, although these scales were not specifically designed to measure microaggressions, there are multiple items in the everyday or subtle discrimination realm that fit well with microaggression theory and are examples of microaggression experiences as described by Sue et al. (2007) and others.

However, although an intercategorical intersectional approach provides flexibility, this framework might avoid or neglect experiences that are unique and relevant to one set of identities and not another (Scheim & Bauer, 2019). For example, experiences that may be unique to Black lesbian women would be distinct from experiences of Black gay men. Through social, legal, and interpersonal processes and contexts, the experiences of several individuals holding intersectional identities are qualitatively different from others and might not be captured by these scales. A second challenge is that, for all of the intercategorical scales reviewed above, respondents are oriented to respond to “who [they] are” or are asked what identities are relevant to their discrimination experiences. It might be helpful to have a clearer endorsement of their relevant identities. The endorsement of identity would be helpful, given that it may be unclear whether the identities involved in their discrimination experiences are relevant to their more salient identities or which identities might be more important or meaningful to their everyday experiences. If a person experiences discrimination with an identity that is more salient or meaningful regarding their sense of self, this might have important implications for their coping, emotional, or behavioral responses and the impact that these experiences might have on their health and well-being.

Third, the intercategorical scales described are either unidimensional or multidimensional: Unidimensional scales combine multiple discrimination experiences into one, whereas multidimensional scales distinguish between one microaggression factor or two general microaggression factors versus more blatant forms of discrimination (Molero et al., 2012; Scheim & Bauer, 2019). Some researchers (i.e., Torres-Harding et al., 2020) have found that different types of microaggression experiences have a differential impact on health and well-being, and some researchers have criticized the assumption that all microaggression experiences are equally harmful or uniformly lead to negative outcomes (although it has been well established that microaggressions are indeed harmful and are associated with negative mental health outcomes; M. T. Williams, 2020).

Given that most microaggression scales include multiple factors suggests that different types of microaggression experiences are distinct experiences, and it is not necessarily the case that experiencing one type of microaggression may make it more likely that one will experience another form of discrimination. For example, someone who identifies as a straight, Asian, trans man may experience microaggressions related to his identity as an Asian person but may not experience microaggressions related to his identities of being straight or a man. Further, the type of microaggression experienced might be particularly harmful if it is more salient or relevant to one’s central identities. For instance, being oversexualized or sexually stereotyped might be more harmful to sexual-minority people compared with other marginalized groups who have to contend with sexual stereotyping (e.g., disabled individuals) because for sexual-minority people their sexuality and sexual orientation might be the main axis of oppression.

Finally, it is unclear whether the types of discrimination experiences/items on each scale and/or subscale are broadly representative of the types of discrimination experiences reported across multiple groups. These scales can measure only some types of microaggressions, and there is inconsistency regarding what types of microaggressions themselves are being measured. These scales were developed to measure discrimination more broadly and were not meant to specifically measure microaggressions, so it is unsurprising that they do not map directly onto the types and categories described in the microaggression literature and to the range of experiences reported by queer and trans people of color. For example, as stated earlier, the Everyday Discrimination Scale (D. R. Williams et al., 1997) asks, “In your day-to-day life, how often do any of the following things happen to you?” with several options, including, “People act as if they think you are not smart,” which may not be as salient to someone with multiple intersecting marginalized identities or may not accurately capture the identity that the person experiences the most harmful microaggressions against.

This means that researchers who use these scales must interpret the results with caution and recognize these limitations when using these scales. There are currently no intercategorical intersectional scales available for measuring microaggressions specific to queer and trans people of color or to broadly measure microaggressions.

Recommendations for Measurement

In this section, we suggest specific recommendations for future scale development on the basis of the strengths and limitations of the existing scales reviewed above that measure intersectional microaggressions. We developed all recommendations on the basis of our review of the microaggression literature broadly (e.g., Sue et al., 2007, 2019; M. T. Williams, 2020) and after reviewing the intracategorical and intercategorical instruments that we outlined above. Further, these recommendations were discussed among all authors, all of whom have professional and personal expertise related to experiences of marginalized people and intersecting identities. All recommendations for measurement were ultimately included on the basis of a combination of literature review and our group consensus. It is noteworthy that these recommendations are tied to a larger overall purpose—creating equity and the conditions in which marginalized groups can thrive and developing the science of psychology to benefit all people.

Recommendations for intracategorical scales

Intracategorical scales offer unique advantages, such as the opportunity to measure a group of an individuals’’ lived experience that might differ substantially from other groups. Although it is impossible to create intracategorical scales for every intersectional identity, we do not need to create intracategorical scales for every intersectional identity. Doing so would suggest adopting a formist worldview of science (Ruiz & Roche, 2007), meaning that there is only a single, literal meaning to identity or what we consider to be truth. A formist worldview would disregard how separate identities are uniquely combined and converge within a person; instead, the focus would be on identifying each individualized, categorical aspect of identity.

We recommend adopting a densely pragmatic, functional contextualist philosophy of science. Proponents of functional contextualism focus on understanding events as they occur within the context of the environment and the function these events serve within this context. The main lens through which to measure truth from a functional contextual focus is workability—meaning that one can assess the utility of an attitude, belief, or causal inference on the basis of the extent to which it guides the individual to engage in actions consistent with life values and long-range goals (Ruiz & Roche, 2007). In adopting a functional contextualist philosophy, we can allow our work to be guided by goals or a purpose we select.

The concept of intersectionality was created to understand different axes of oppression and privilege for marginalized groups and to combat inequities shaping their lives (Rice et al., 2019). For psychological research, we suggest extending the goal to creating thriving and meaning in addition to reducing suffering for human beings. Thus, we can create intracategorical intersectional microaggression scales to be guided by current sociocultural and political situations (Rice et al., 2019) and by a needs assessment of where attention is needed. For example, queer and trans people of color face historic levels of oppression today (particularly Black trans women), and we can direct research to studying the difficulties faced by this population and how to create contexts in which this population can thrive. Noting the paucity of research and scales measuring microaggressions against queer and trans people of color, we believe that it will be important to create different measures that capture different groups’ experiences, such as for Black trans women, Black disabled queer people, Black gay men, caste-oppressed South Asian queer people, and so on.

We also recommend that this work be informed by qualitative work and critical theory to bring a nuanced and fuller understanding to issues faced by these groups Further, we acknowledge that research with marginalized populations often ends up being done “on” them as opposed to “with” them, and hence it might be essential to involve different individuals from marginalized populations in the creation of these scales at every stage, as is consistent with a critical-psychology and transformational-participatory approach (Teo, 2015).

Recommendations for intercategorical scales

Even within different marginalized identities (e.g., Black trans women, Black disabled queer people, Black gay people), there are core functional elements of commonalities that can be extracted (in this example, anti-Blackness). Creating scales on the basis of these domains can offer several advantages, particularly brevity and flexibility across different intersectional identities. However, existing intercategorical scales have not been tied to microaggression theory, and a dedicated intersectional microaggression scale has not been created. Creating a multidimensional intersectional microaggression scale may help clarify how different kinds of microaggressions affect a person’s health and can aid in creating targeted interventions against functional categories. Previous research has shown that there are several dimensions of discrimination (including microaggressions) that cut across different intersectional identities that can be used to create intercategorical scales. These dimensions are reviewed below.

Sexualization

Several groups of individuals have reported either being fetishized, sexually stereotyped, or objectified. Assumptions are also made about certain groups’ sexual functioning. For example, Asian men who have sex with men are often thought of as being submissive, docile, and desexualized (Han, 2007; Poon & Ho, 2008), Black gay men are assumed to be “down low,” to be sexually aggressive, and to have a large penis (Calabrese et al., 2019), all of which can lead to these men being exotified and reduced to a single aspect of their identity. Similar experiences of “othering” have been reported by other intersectional groups, such as Asian American women (Keum et al., 2018), Black women (Lewis & Neville, 2015), trans women of color (Mock, 2014), Arab gay men (Massad, 2008), and bisexual women (Molina et al., 2014). Questions can be developed tapping the common thread running through these experiences to assess the impact of microaggressions related to such sexualization and objectification on health.

Criminality/assumption of dangerousness

Black boys and men are often assumed to be dangerous or to be criminals, which can have disastrous consequences for their well-being and life. Microaggressions in this area have been documented (Bowleg et al., 2016), such as people clutching their belongings a little closer when a Black man walks by. Further, trans women, and especially trans women of color, are often assumed to be or treated as sex workers, especially by law enforcement (Graham, 2014; Marksamer, 2008). Additional examples include Black men being denied entry to clubs while wearing the same clothes that White patrons do (May & Goldsmith, 2018), queer and trans people of color being assumed to be have criminal backgrounds (Nadal et al., 2015; Weber et al., 2018), and Black gay men being assumed to be drug dealers and drug users (Quinn, 2019).

Othered as inferior/not the norm

Several studies have found that minority groups report experiences of microaggressions that portray them, their identities, and/or their culture as incompetent (e.g., “You speak such good English”), incapable, inferior (e.g., “You should name yourself something easier, like Bob”), pathological, or dysfunctional. These kinds of experiences have been reported across racial and ethnic groups (Nadal, 2011; Torres-Harding et al., 2012), gender identity (Gartner, 2019), the disability spectrum (Conover et al., 2017), and intersectional populations (Akachar, 2015; Conover & Israel, 2019).

Invisibility and social exclusion

This dimension measures microaggressions of being unseen or overlooked, even in public spaces (e.g., gay men of color in gay bars/clubs; Bhambhani, Flynn, Kellum, & Wilson, 2020; Han, 2007); being ignored; being disrespected or minimized; being silenced (e.g., many Black women; Lewis & Neville, 2015); or having one’s work be devalued. (For example, there are very few queer and trans faculty of color at academic institutions, and where they are hired, they take an inappropriately high share of education around “diversity” or appropriation; see Scharrón-Del Río, 2020). This domain was noted in all three intersectional scales reviewed above, and future research can tie this domain specifically to microaggressions.

Delegitimization of identity-related experiences

One common experience reported by nonintersectional populations is that they are faulted for being “too sensitive” or reading into things and making an issue out of their marginalized identity, when clear evidence of discrimination exists. Authors have documented this experience in racial and ethnic minorities (Huynh, 2012; Lin, 2011; Mercer et al., 2011; Nadal et al., 2015; Yoo et al., 2010), gender-and sexual-minority populations (Haines et al., 2018; Nadal, 2013; Wozolek, 2018), disabled individuals (Conover et al., 2017), sexual minorities (Conover & Israel, 2019), and trans people (Watson et al., 2018). The creation of intersectional microaggression measures that include this domain will lead to an understanding of how these experiences affect individuals’ mental and physical health.

Another consideration for organizing and measuring microaggressions might be to use the taxonomy of microaggression types from Sue et al. (2007): microinsults, microinvalidations, and microassaults. Previous research has suggested that these categories of microaggressions have a differential impact on health (Murphy-Shigematsu, 2010; Nadal et al., 2011; Torres et al., 2010). Further, for intercategorical scales, it might be helpful to ask respondents to identify the identities that are salient in their life and the identities they referenced while answering the measure. This can help with the administration of measures to differing populations and help researchers group individuals by unique identities.

Recommendations for the inclusion of people holding specific identities

Documentation and integration of lived experience

As noted previously, measurement specific to intersecting identities is sparse, and there is a need for additional work that accurately captures the experiences of these populations. Critical theory is applicable to intersectionality because the goal is to address, analyze, and critique the pace of change in society and culture, examine systemic power and privilege, and challenge existing power structures (Collins, 2019). Critical theorists argue that research should be contextualized and recognize the systemic, political, and historical oppression of groups and communities under study. An important aim of critical research is to meaningfully benefit and contribute to the lives, well-being, and liberation of marginalized people (Teo, 2015). Critical theory has been expanded to a number of social issues, including race, gender, sexual orientation, and ability. For example, critical race theorists posit that racism is normative in the society of the United States, which benefits majority groups (i.e., cisgender straight White men), and these benefits are typically maintained through institutions that claim to be objective, based on “merit,” and “color-blind” while ignoring the reality that these structures promote the privilege and self-interests of the majority group while excluding groups on the basis of race (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017). Collins (2019) suggested that viewing intersectionality through the lens of critical social theory can help accurately capture and fully reflect all of the people and identities that fall underneath the term “intersectionality,” aided by acknowledging all of the social and cultural structures in place that maintain power.

We also assert there is a need for qualitative work that explicitly uses a critical-theory lens has much potential to contribute to the literature related to the experiences, stressors, and manifestations of intersectional microaggressions. Transformational qualitative methodologies such as grounded theory (Tweed & Charmaz, 2012) that aim to develop theory “from the ground up” might be particularly useful methods of inquiry here. Existing research incorporating these transformational methodologies can serve as helpful guides for this work, such as qualitative studies examining Black transgender women’s experiences of community institutions (e.g., schools, criminal-justice systems, churches; Graham, 2014) or focus groups attempting to understand intersectional microaggressions on the basis of specific identities (Nadal et al., 2015). However, more work at this level is needed to attempt to fully capture the human experiences of people who hold typically marginalized intersecting identities. We strongly encourage researchers to examine existing scholarship and conduct additional qualitative inquiries to gather experiences relevant to the populations under study.

Assessing microaggression experiences within specific domains that affect health disparities might also be particularly beneficial for contextualizing such experiences. Kilbourne et al. (2006) identified three health-disparity domains in health-services research: patient–provider interactions (clinical encounter), patient and provider factors (recipients), and societal influences (e.g., sociopolitical forces, physical structures, and economies). Integrating these factors on the basis of focus groups, individual interviews, or town hall meetings with people who belong to the communities we are studying, as well as integrating relevant qualitative and quantitative literature for the populations we are attempting to measure, can help ensure that we are capturing a fuller, more complete picture of these populations.

Involvement of communities in research

The experiences of racism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, classism, and other forms of discrimination and exclusion in the ivory tower are not relatively new concepts (Henry & Glenn, 2009; Kattari, 2015; Siegel, 2019; Spaights et al., 1985). To this end, it should be noted that although often these measurement tools may be normalized using samples from the population of interests, they are often reviewed by experts in the field and not typical community members (e.g., Molero et al., 2012; D. R. Williams et al., 1997). A key way of amplifying the voices of people from communities of interest is the use of community-based participatory research (CPBR; Minkler & Wallerstein, 2003; Wallerstein & Duran, 2006). CBPR involves an active partnership between academic researchers and community stakeholders. The “community” in this approach can be defined by several different criteria related to sharing common values, interests, experiences, and emotional bonds; this can include people of varying identities of race, gender, sexual orientation, or other intersecting identities. CBPR requires that researchers collaborate with community members and organizations in a way that is transparent, ethical, culturally humble, and equitable, and this approach is especially needed given the history of academia’s abuse and exploitation of marginalized communities in the service of producing “scientific knowledge” that has overpathologized or stigmatized such groups. CBPR approaches have been used successfully with multiple marginalized community members, including sexual and gender minorities (Oaks et al., 2019). CBPR may be especially beneficial for engaging hard-to-reach populations, where even the act of participating in research might potentially put the research participant at risk because such participation might involve public recognition of marginalized identities (Torres-Harding et al., 2004).

In CBPR, the academic researchers and the community work collaboratively to solve research problems. People from affected communities are invited as “coresearchers” throughout the entire research process, which ultimately strengthens the interpretation and conclusions of the research study (Torres-Harding et al., 2004). Such approaches often lead to the empowerment of community members through skill development, shared decision-making, and meaningful contributions whereby community members are seen as experts in their own lives and as “cocreators” of psychological knowledge (Suaraz-Balcazar, 2020). This approach also helps ensure that the products of such research endeavors, such as development of the scale, will meaningfully capture the experiences and be viewed as valid and relevant by community members.

A CBPR approach also helps ensure that the products of such research endeavors provide real and meaningful benefits to the community and can include compensation and recognition of community-member contributions, which avoids communities feeling exploited by participating in research (Torres-Harding et al., 2004). Benefits to the community might include informing policy work, providing educational activities, providing training and workshops to community members and community-based organizations, and donating time and resources to benefit partner community organizations and grassroots organizations. Benefits also include shared knowledge from the academic scholars regarding the research process and the research results to inform individual and community health and well-being.

One example of a CBPR approach would be if researchers, when conducting a project focused on measuring intersectional microaggressions, partnered with organizations or community groups that focus on the health and well-being of the specific intersectional identities being measured. For instance, partnering with a group led by Black trans women specifically focused on issues surrounding this community might include having community group members be part of the research from the beginning of the project and throughout the duration of the project. A participatory approach would entail having community group members be active partners in preliminary data collection, item design, review of items, and the iterative process of refining the measure.

Another participatory approach would be to partner with scholars with the relevant intersectional identities. Walters and Simoni (2009) provided an example of both engaging communities and creating scholars from underrepresented communities by specifically encouraging research partners to embrace Indigenous worldviews and by encouraging aspiring American Indian and Alaska Native scholars to reject internalized colonial messages and use Indigenous frameworks in their work.

It is important to note that the principal investigator in most research endeavors is typically White and the most senior person in the lab. On the surface, this may not appear to be problematic, but the lack of Black, Indigenous, or people-of-color coauthors suggests that entire experiences may be missed. Some may note that there may be graduate students of color in these research areas; however, this fails to attend to the power differential between the graduate student and principal investigator in which the student may not feel comfortable sharing their own experience or challenging the thoughts of the principal investigator, thus limiting the potential integration of these experiences into the research in a meaningful way. We suggest inviting people of those identities to actively be a part of the projects to help ensure these voices and lived experiences are being heard. This can range from creating partnerships on projects to specifically hiring and recruiting people with the specific intersectional identities that are typically underrepresented in academia. The invited scholars should be compensated for their work, and authorship should be shared. This can help us not miss experiences and be inclusive of lived experience and scholarly expertise in our research.

Paying attention to language

Attention to language is important. Kendi (2019) suggested that perhaps it may be more beneficial to refer to microaggressions instead as “racial abuse.” Others have suggested terms such as racial battle fatigue (Smith et al., 2007) or race-based traumatic stress (Carter, 2007). Sue et al. (2019) reported evidence from a survey of 3,300 participants in which “an astoundingly high” number of Black/African American respondents reported daily microaggressions (75%), and Asian Americans, Latinx Americans, and Indigenous participants reported significantly greater experiences of discrimination than their White counterparts. Whether intentional or unintentional, these experiences are occurring at a regular rate for Black, Indigenous, and people of color as well as other people from marginalized backgrounds, and it may be beneficial to take an active antiracist lens and begin to specifically label these experiences racism.

Likewise, the language of sexualization of some queer and trans bodies is a further complex site of White centering and the denial of agency for people of color. For example, “brown” bodies, when described as such, may serve to preclude discussions of histories of anti-Black racism or the histories of sexual violence committed toward Black bodies (Pérez, 2015). Describing brown bodies undermines a clear or immediate awareness of culture, race, or colonial history in a manner that spares White spectators from confronting those histories. Thus, attention to language and how these experiences are labeled might be particularly helpful to be more consistent with how these experiences are perceived.

Conclusion

Although both intersectionality and microaggressions are well-defined and well-established fields (Cho et al., 2013; M. T. Williams, 2020), there is no strong consensus on how to systematically measure intersectional microaggressions using methods that accurately capture the experiences of the populations of interest. In addition, there is also a need to understand the fluidity, interconnectedness, and context of intersectional social identities.

In this article we reviewed several of the prominent measures of intersectional microaggressions and their commonalities and provided critiques. We reviewed intracategorical and intercategorical measures and provided recommendations for how to improve these measures. We also made suggestions for how to include people with specific intersectional identities in our research moving forward.

We believe strongly that more qualitative work overall is needed for scholars to truly understand the lived experiences of populations of interests. The people we are trying to engage are the experts of their own lives who provide us with their stories and their own lived experiences, and we as scholars need to do our best to honor and document these experiences. We encourage the inclusion, uplifting, and amplifying of people with intersecting identities in our research institutions. For example, we were careful to cite as many authors in this article who were queer, or trans, or people of color, or disabled, or women as a way to be intentional with our citations. Finally, we suggested ways of considering our impact and our language. Perhaps being more purposeful with our language (i.e., redefining microaggressions actually as racism, heterosexism, and transphobia) will allow us to continue to move forward toward the goals of creating equity and dismantling the systems of White supremacy in psychology.

Footnotes

Transparency

Action Editor: Monnica T. Williams

Editor: Laura A. King

Author Contributions

R. S. Singh and M. D. Skinta contributed the introduction. Y. Bhambhani and S. R. Torres-Harding contributed the review and summary of intracategorical and intercategorical measures. R. S. Singh and Y. Bhambhani contributed the section on recommendations. R. S. Singh searched for references, specifically highlighting typically underrepresented scholars in academia. All of the authors contributed to the conceptualization, writing, and critical editing of the article and approved the final manuscript for submission.

ORCID iD

R. Sonia Singh

References

Adams

Neville

(2020). Exploring talk about sexuality and living gay social lives among Chinese and South Asian gay and bisexual men in Auckland, New Zealand. Ethnicity & Health, 25(4), 508–524.

Akachar

(2015). Stuck between Islamophobia and homophobia: Applying intersectionality to understand the position of gay Muslim identities in the Netherlands. DiGeSt. Journal of Diversity and Gender Studies, 2(1–2), 173–187.

Balsam

K. F.

Molina

Beadnell

Simoni

Walters

(2011). Measuring multiple minority stress: The LGBT People of Color Microaggressions Scale. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17(2), 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023244

Banks

K. H.

Kohn-Wood

L. P.

Spencer

(2006). An examination of the African American experience of everyday discrimination and symptoms of psychological distress. Community Mental Health Journal, 42(6), 555–570.

Battle

Ashley

(2008). Intersectionality, heteronormativity, and Black lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) families. Black Women, Gender & Families, 2(1), 1–24.

Bhambhani

Flynn

M. K.

Kellum

K. K.

Wilson

K. G.

(2020). The role of psychological flexibility as a mediator between experienced sexual racism and psychological distress among men of color who have sex with men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 49(2), 711–720.

Bhambhani

Kellum

K. K.

Bentley

J. P.

Wilson

K. G.

(in press). Constructing a scale to measure sexual racism experienced by men of color who have sex with men. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity.

Bobo

L. D.

Fox

(2003). Race, racism, and discrimination: Bridging problems, methods, and theory in social psychological research. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66(4), 319–332.

Bohrer

A. J.

(2019). Response to Barbara Foley’s “Intersectionality: A Marxist Critique.” New Labor Forum, 28(3), 14–17.

10.

Bowleg

(2008). When Black + lesbian + woman ≠ Black lesbian woman: The methodological challenges of qualitative and quantitative intersectionality research. Sex Roles, 59(5–6), 312–325.

11.

Bowleg

English

del Rio-Gonzalez

A. M.

Burkholder

G. J.

Teti

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), 177–188. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000026

12.

Burman

(2003). From difference to intersectionality: Challenges and resources. European Journal of Psychotherapy & Counselling, 6(4), 293–308.

13.

Calabrese

S. K.

Tekeste

Mayer

K. H.

Magnus

Krakower

D. S.

Kershaw

T. S.

Betancourt

J. R.

(2019). Considering stigma in the provision of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis: Reflections from current prescribers. AIDS Patient Care and STDs, 33(2), 79–88.

14.

Carter

R. T.

(2007). Racism and psychological and emotional injury: Recognizing and assessing race-based traumatic stress. The Counseling Psychologist, 35(1), 13–105.

15.

Cheng

Z. H.

Pagano

L. A.

Shariff

A. F.

(2018). The development and validation of the Microaggressions Against Non-Religious Individuals Scale (MANRIS). Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 10(3), 254–262. https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000203

16.

Cheng

Z. H.

Pagano

L. A.

Shariff

A. F.

(2019). The development, validation, and clinical implications of the Microaggressions Against Religious Individuals Scale (MARIS). Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 11(4), 327–228. https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000126

17.

Cho

Crenshaw

K. W.

McCall

(2013). Toward a field of intersectionality studies: Theory, applications, and praxis. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 38(4), 785–810. https://doi.org/10.1086/669608

18.

Cole

E. R.

(2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. American Psychologist, 64(3), 170–180. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014564

19.

Collins

P. H.

(2002). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. Routledge.

20.

Collins

P. H.

(2019). Intersectionality as critical social theory. Duke University Press.

21.

Conover

K. J.

Israel

(2019). Microaggressions and social support among sexual minorities with physical disabilities. Rehabilitation Psychology, 64(2), 167-178. https://doi.org/10.1037/rep0000250

22.

Conover

K. J.

Israel

Nylund-Gibson

(2017). Development and validation of the Ableist Microaggressions Scale. The Counseling Psychologist, 45(4), 570–599.

23.

Crenshaw

(1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University Chicago Legal Forum, 139–167. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1052&context=uclf

24.

Crenshaw

(1990). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241–1299. https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/1229039

25.

Delgado

Stefancic

(2017). Critical race theory: An introduction (Vol. 20). New York University Press.

26.

Eaton

L. A.

Allen

Maksut

J. L.

Earnshaw

Watson

R. J.

Kalichman

S. C.

(2020). HIV microaggressions: A novel measure of stigma-related experiences among people living with HIV. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 43(1), 34–43.

27.

Flanders

C. E.

LeBreton

Robinson

(2019). Bisexual women’s experiences of microaggressions and microaffirmations: A community-based, mixed-methods scale development project. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 48, 143–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-1135-x

28.

Gartner

R. E.

(2019). From gender microaggressions to sexual assault: Measure development and preliminary trends among undergraduate women [Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley]. Escholarship. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4283396m

29.

Graham

L. F.

(2014). Navigating community institutions: Black transgender women’s experiences in schools, the criminal justice system, and churches. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 11(4), 274–287.

30.

Grillo

(1995). Anti-essentialism and intersectionality: Tools to dismantle the master’s house. Berkeley Women’s Law & Justice, 10, 1–16.

31.

Guthrie

R. V.

(2004). Even the rat was white: A historical view of psychology. Pearson Education.

32.

Haines

K. M.

Boyer

C. R.

Giovanazzi

Galupo

M. P.

(2018). “Not a real family”: Microaggressions directed toward LGBTQ families. Journal of Homosexuality, 65(9), 1138–1151.

33.

Han

C. S.

(2007). They don’t want to cruise your type: Gay men of color and the racial politics of exclusion. Social Identities, 13(1), 51–67.

34.

Hancock

A. M.

(2007). Intersectionality as a normative and empirical paradigm. Politics & Gender, 3(2), 248–254. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X07000062

35.

Henry

W. J.

Glenn

N. M.

(2009). Black women employed in the ivory tower: Connecting for success. Advancing Women in Leadership Journal, 29(1), https://awl-ojs-tamu.tdl.org/awl/index.php/awl/article/view/271

36.

Hubbard

K. A.

Griffiths

D. A.

(2019). Sexual offence, diagnosis, and activism: A British history of LGBTIQ psychology. American Psychologist, 74(8), 940–953. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/amp0000544

37.

Huynh

V. W.

(2012). Ethnic microaggressions and the depressive and somatic symptoms of Latino and Asian American adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescents, 31, 831–846. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9756-9

38.

Kattari

S. K.

(2015). Examining ableism in higher education through social dominance theory and social learning theory. Innovative Higher Education, 40(5), 375–386.

39.

Kendi

I. X.

(2019). How to be an antiracist. Random House.

40.

Keum

B. T.

Brady

J. L.

Sharma

Kim

Y. H.

Thai

C. J.

(2018). Gendered racial microaggressions scale for Asian American women: Development and initial validation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 65(5), 571–585. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000305

41.

Kilbourne

A. M.

Switzer

Hyman

Crowley-Matoka

Fine

M. J.

(2006). Advancing health disparities research within the health care system: A conceptual framework. American Journal of Public Health, 96(12), 2113–2121.

42.

Lewis

J. A.

Neville

H. A.

(2015). Construction and initial validation of the gendered racial microaggressions scale for black women. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 62(2), 289–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000062

43.

Lin

A. I.

(2011). Development and initial validation of the Asian American Racial Microaggressions Scale (AARMS): Exploring Asian American experience with racial microaggressions [Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University]. Columbia University Academic Commons. http://doi.org/10.7916/D8PV6SB4

44.

Lorde

(1984). Sister outsider: Speeches and essays. Penguin Classics.

45.

Lykke

(2020). Transversal dialogues on intersectionality, socialist feminism and epistemologies of ignorance. Nora-Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research, 28(3), 197–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/08038740.2019.1708786

46.

Marksamer

(2008). And by the way, do you know he thinks he’s a girl? The failures of law, policy and legal representation for transgender youth in juvenile delinquency courts. Sexuality Research & Social Policy, 5(1), 72–92. https://doi.org/10.1525/srsp.2008.5.1.72

47.

Massad

J. A.

(2008). Desiring Arabs. University of Chicago Press.

48.

May

R. A. B.

Goldsmith

P. R.

(2018). Dress codes and racial discrimination in urban nightclubs. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, 4(4), 555–566.

49.

May

V. M.

(2014). “Speaking into the void”? Intersectionality critiques and epistemic backlash. Hypatia, 29(1), 94–112.

50.

Mercer

S. H.

Zeigler-Hill

Wallace

Hayes

D. M.

(2011). Development and initial validation of the inventory of microaggressions against Black individuals. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58(4), 457–469. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024937

51.

Minkler

Wallerstein

(2003). Part one: Introduction to community-based participatory research. In Minkler

Wallerstein

(Eds.) Community-based participatory research for health (pp. 5–24). Jossey-Bass.

52.

Mock

(2014). Redefining realness: My path to womanhood, identity, love & so much more. Simon and Schuster.

53.

Molero

Recio

Garcia-Ael

Fuster

M. J.

Sanjuan

(2012). Dimensions of perceived discrimination and well-being. Social Indicator Research, 109, 901–914. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11205-012-0179-5

54.

Molina

Lehavot

Beadnell

Simoni

(2014). Racial disparities in health behaviors and conditions among lesbian and bisexual women: The role of internalized stigma. LGBT Health, 1(2), 131–139.

55.

Moore

M. R.

(2012). Intersectionality and the study of black, sexual minority women. Gender & Society, 26(1), 33–39.

56.

Moradi

(2017). (Re)focusing intersectionality: From social identities back to systems of oppression and privilege. In DeBord

K. A.

Fischer

A. R.

Bieschke

K. J.

Perez

R. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of sexual orientation and gender diversity in counseling and psychotherapy (pp. 105–127). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/15959-005

57.

Murphy-Shigematsu

(2010). Microaggressions by supervisors of color. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 4(1), 16–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017472

58.

Nadal

K. L.

(2011). The Racial and Ethnic Microaggressions Scale (REMS): Construction, reliability, and validity. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58(4), 470–480. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025193

59.

Nadal

K. L.

(2013). That’s so gay! Microaggressions and the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community. American Psychological Association.

60.

Nadal

K. L.

Davidoff

K. C.

Davis

L. S.

Wong

Marshall

McKenzie

(2015). A qualitative approach to intersectional microaggressions: Understanding influences of race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, and religion. Qualitative Psychology, 2(2), 147–163. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000026

61.

Nadal

K. L.

Griffin

K. E.

Wong

Hamit

Rasmus

(2014). The impact of racial microaggressions on mental health: Counseling implications for clients of color. Journal of Counseling & Development, 92(1), 57–66.

62.

Nadal

K. L.

Issa

M. A.

Leon

Meterko

Wideman

Wong

(2011). Sexual orientation microaggressions: “Death by a thousand cuts” for lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. Journal of LGBT Youth, 8(3), 234–259.

63.

Oaks

Israel

Conover

K. J.

Cogger

Aveliar

T. R.

(2019). Community-based participatory research with invisible, geographically-dispersed communities: Partnering with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer communities on the California central coast. Journal for Social Action in Counseling & Psychology, 11, 14–32.

64.

Owen

Tao

K. W.

Imel

Z. E.

Wampold

B. E.

Rodolfa

(2014). Addressing racial and ethnic microaggressions in therapy. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 45(4), 283–290. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037420

65.

Pérez

(2015). A taste for brown bodies: Gay modernity and cosmopolitan desire. New York University Press.

66.

Poon

M. K. L.

P. T. T.

(2008). Negotiating social stigma among gay Asian men. Sexualities, 11(1–2), 245–268.

67.

Quinn

K. G.

(2019). Applying an intersectional framework to understand syndemic conditions among young black gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men. Social Science & Medicine, Article 112779. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112779

68.

Rice

Harrison

Friedman

(2019). Doing justice to intersectionality in research. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 19(6), 409–420.

69.

Ruiz

M. R.

Roche

(2007). Values and the scientific culture of behavior analysis. The Behavior Analyst, 30(1), 1–16.

70.

Scharrón-Del Río

M. R.

(2020). Intersectionality is not a choice: Reflections of a queer scholar of color on teaching, writing, and belonging in LGBTQ studies and academia. Journal of Homosexuality, 67(3), 294–304.

71.

Scheim

A. I.

Bauer

G. R.

(2019). The intersectional discrimination index: Development and validation of measures of self-reported enacted and anticipated discrimination for intercategorical analysis. Social Science & Medicine, 226, 225–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.12.016

72.

Siegel

D. P.

(2019). Transgender experiences and transphobia in higher education. Sociology Compass, 13(10), Article e12734. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12734

73.

Smith

W. A.

Allen

W. R.

Danley

L. L.

(2007). “Assume the position . . . you fit the description” psychosocial experiences and racial battle fatigue among African American male college students. American Behavioral Scientist, 51(4), 551–578.

74.

Spaights

Dixon

H. E.

Nickolai

(1985). Racism in higher education. College Student Journal, 19(1), 17–22.

75.

Sterzing

P. R.

Gartner

R. E.

Woodford

M. R.

Fisher

C. M.

(2017). Sexual orientation, gender, and gender identity microaggressions: Toward an intersectional framework for social work research. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 26(1–2), 81–94.

76.

Suaraz-Balcazar

(2020). Meaningful engagement in research: Community residents as co-creators of knowledge. American Journal of Community Psychology, 65(3-4), 261-271. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12414

77.

Sue

D. W.

(2006). The invisible whiteness of being: Whiteness, white supremacy, white privilege, and racism. In Constantine

M. G.

Sue

D. W.

(Eds.), Addressing racism: Facilitating cultural competence in mental health and educational settings (pp. 15–30). John Wiley.

78.

Sue

D. W.

(2010). Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender, and sexual orientation. John Wiley.

79.

Sue

D. W.

Alsaidi

Awad

M. N.

Glaeser

Calle

C. Z.

Mendez

(2019). Disarming racial microaggressions: Microintervention strategies for targets, White allies, and bystanders. American Psychologist, 74(1), 128–142. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000296

80.

Sue

D. W.

Capodilupo

C. M.

Torino

G. C.

Bucceri

J. M.

Holder

Nadal

K. L.

Esquilin

(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

81.

Teo

(2015). Critical psychology: A geography of intellectual engagement and resistance. American Psychologist, 70(3), 243–254. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038727

82.

Tomlinson

(2013). To tell the truth and not get trapped: Desire, distance, and intersectionality at the scene of argument. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 38(4), 993–1017.

83.

Torres

Driscoll

M. W.

Burrow

A. L.

(2010). Racial microaggressions and psychological functioning among highly achieving African-Americans: A mixed-methods approach. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 29(10), 1074–1099.

84.

Torres-Harding

S. R.

Andrade

A. L.

Romero Diaz

C. E.

(2012). The Racial Microaggressions Scale (RMAS): A new scale to measure experiences of racial microaggressions in people of color. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 18(2), 153–164. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027658

85.

Torres-Harding

S. R.

Herrell

Howard

(2004). Epidemiologic research: Science and community participation. In Jason

L. A.

Keys

C. B.

Suarez-Balcazar

Taylor

R. R.

Davis

M. I.

Durlak

J. A.

Holtz Isenberg

(Eds.), Participatory community research: Theories and methods in action (pp. 53–69). American Psychological Association.

86.

Torres-Harding

S. R.

Torres

Yeo

(2020). Depression and perceived stress as mediators between microaggressions and somatic symptoms in college students of color. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 90(1), 25–135. https://doi.org/10.1037/ort0000408

87.

Tweed

Charmaz

(2012). Grounded theory methods for mental health practitioners. In Harper

A. R.

Thompson

(Eds), Grounded theory methods for mental health practitioners (pp. 131–146). John Wiley.

88.

Velez

E. D.

(2019). Decolonial feminism at the intersection: A critical reflection on the relationship between decolonial feminism and intersectionality. The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 33(3), 390–406.

89.

Wallerstein

N. B.

Duran

(2006). Using community-based participatory research to address health disparities. Health Promotion Practice, 7(3), 312–323.

90.

Walters

K. L.

Simoni

J. M.

(2009). Decolonizing strategies for mentoring American Indians and Alaska Natives in HIV and mental health research. American Journal of Public Health, 99(S1), S71–S76.

91.

Watson

L. B.

Allen

L. R.

Flores

M. J.

Serpe

Farrell

(2018). The development and psychometric evaluation of the Trans Discrimination Scale: TDS-21. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 66(1), 14–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000301

92.

Weber

Collins

S. A.

Robinson-Wood

Zeko-Underwood

Poindexter

(2018). Subtle and severe: Microaggressions among racially diverse sexual minorities. Journal of Homosexuality, 65(4), 540–559.

93.

Williams

D. R.

Jackson

J. S.

Anderson

N. B.

(1997). Racial differences in physical and mental health: Socioeconomic status, stress, and discrimination. Journal of Health Psychology, 2, 335–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910539700200305

94.

Williams

M. T.

(2020). Microaggressions: Clarification, evidence, and impact. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(1), 3–26.

95.

Woodford

M. R.

Chonody

J. M.

Kulick

Brennan

D. J.

Renn

(2015). The LGBQ Microaggressions on Campus Scale: A scale development and validation study. Journal of Homosexuality, 62(12), 1660–1687. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2015.1078205

96.

Wozolek

(2018). Gaslighting queerness: Schooling as a place of violent assemblages. Journal of LGBT Youth, 15(4), 319–338.

97.

Yoo

H. C.

Steger

M. F.

Lee

R. M.

(2010). Validation of the subtle and blatant racism scale for Asian American college students (SABR-A²). Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16(3), 323–334. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018674