Racial and Ethnic Differences in Perceptions of Everyday Discrimination

Abstract

This study examines differences in perceptions of discrimination across multiple racial and ethnic minority groups. We focus on structural factors such as race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status (SES) and psychosocial factors such as racial/ethnic identities as predictors of perceived everyday discrimination. Data come from the Collaborative Psychiatric Epidemiology Surveys (CPES), and analyses reveal several important patterns. First, perceived everyday discrimination is highly prevalent among racial/ethnic minorities in the United States and these perceptions largely reflect existing racial/ethnic hierarchies: African Americans and Afro-Caribbeans report the highest level of discrimination, whereas most Asian and Latino groups report less. Second, education, income, and immigration-related factors such as duration of residence and English language proficiency are positively associated with perceived discrimination. Third, the effects of racial/ethnic identity on perceived discrimination vary across ethnic groups, showing stronger associations among Afro-Caribbeans than among other racial and ethnic minorities. Findings from this study help to advance our theoretical understanding and empirical knowledge of racial/ethnic stratification and perceived discrimination in the United States.

Keywords

race/ethnicity perceived discrimination everyday discrimination racial hierarchy racial/ethnic identity

Discrimination, while more covert and subtle than before, still occurs in contemporary American society at various levels (e.g., interpersonal and institutional), in multiple domains (e.g., workplaces and schools), and across diverse social groups (e.g., race/ethnicity and gender) (Kessler, Mickelson, and Williams 1999; Krieger 1999, 2012; Pager and Shepherd 2008; Quillian 2006). As a result, discrimination continues to produce and perpetuate inequalities in education, income, health, politics, and other realms of life (Anderson and Foster 1964; Krieger 1999; Pager and Shepherd 2008). In particular, racial and ethnic minorities in the United States constitute a major target of prejudice and discrimination. Scholarly work has indicated that racial/ethnic discrimination may be the most prevalent form of discrimination in America, especially among minority groups (Kessler et al. 1999). Crime statistics also demonstrate that racial prejudice and discrimination are among the top motivators of violent behavior, accounting for more than half of all the recent hate crimes in the United States (Federal Bureau of Investigation 2015). Discrimination experienced by racial/ethnic minorities can lead to considerable disparities in educational performance (Steele 1997), labor market outcomes (Frank, Akresh, and Lu 2010), political behaviors (Schildkraut 2005), and physical and mental health impairments (Pascoe and Smart Richman 2009; Williams, Neighbors, and Jackson 2003).

Despite the likely consequences of discrimination among racial/ethnic minorities, previous studies have focused on the psychosocial predictors of perceived discrimination without fully exploring how individuals’ structural locations and their group identities shape perceptions of discrimination. This project is among the first few efforts to examine how perceived discrimination is affected by both social-structural factors (e.g., race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status) and psychosocial factors (e.g., racial/ethnic identities) among multiple racial/ethnic minority groups.

Discrimination exists in different forms (Krieger 1999). In this study, we focus on people’s perceptions of discrimination, which may reflect real experiences or an elevated reaction to certain situations that are not necessarily real discriminatory incidences (Pager and Shepherd 2008). Perceived discrimination is an important outcome to study. On one hand, perceptions may be a true reflection of factual experiences. On the other hand, even when perceptions are not based on actual experience, they might still lead to psychological consequences; as articulated in the Thomas theorem, “[I]f men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences” (Thomas and Thomas 1928:571–72).¹ Instead of using event-based acute discrimination (e.g., fired from a job or denied a scholarship) as the outcome, we focus on perceived chronic or “everyday” discrimination, which is measured by self-report of being treated with less courtesy, called names, or insulted. Prior research has suggested that subtle and chronic forms of discrimination are more prevalent in contemporary societies and have more severe consequences than acute discrimination, especially in regard to health (H. Lee and Turney 2012; Sue 2010; Williams et al. 2003).

Specifically, we address the following research questions in this paper: (1) How do various racial/ethnic groups differ in their perceptions of everyday discrimination? (2) How do individuals’ structural locations apart from race/ethnicity, such as socioeconomic status (SES) and immigration-related factors, influence their perceptions of discrimination? (3) What role does one’s racial/ethnic identity play in perceptions of discrimination? and (4) How does racial/ethnic identity interact with race/ethnicity in impacting perceived discrimination?

Drawing on theoretical and empirical works in several subfields of sociology, we identify three sets of variables to explain racial/ethnic differences in perceived discrimination. At the macro-structural level, racial/ethnic stratification in the United States may affect perceptions of discrimination so that those at the top of the racial hierarchy may experience and perceive less discrimination than those at the bottom. In this case, perceptions are simply reflections of reality. In addition, SES and immigration-related factors such as duration of residence and language proficiency may also represent one’s structural positions in society. These social positions may shape how one processes information and interprets experiences, which may in turn lead to variations in perceived discrimination. In this case, perceptions may or may not correctly reflect reality, and discrimination is therefore in the eye of the beholder. From a micro-perspective, one’s identification with race or ethnicity may also be associated with perceived discrimination. In this case, perceptions of discrimination are influenced by group identification. To address our research questions, we examine multiple minority groups using data from the Collaborative Psychiatric Epidemiology Studies (CPES), which contains a comprehensive list of racial/ethnic groups in the United States.

Racial Stratification

A multitude of factors pertaining to social positions can shape one’s experiences and perceptions of discrimination. Although social class and immigrant status are all important variables, race/ethnicity deserves separate and considerable attention given its marked effects on discrimination and the complexity of racial and ethnic relations in the United States. Bonilla-Silva (2004, 2010) contends that the racial stratification system in the United States is undergoing a transformation from a biracial (white vs. non-white) to a triracial order. He delineates a racial stratification system primarily based on skin tones as well as ethnicities. According to this system, at the top are non-Hispanic whites and a few assimilated Asian and Latino groups. At the bottom of the hierarchy are “collective blacks,” comprised of blacks, Afro-Caribbeans, African immigrants, and some dark-skinned Asians, such as Vietnamese, and Latinos, such as Puerto Ricans and Mexicans. In the middle are “honorary whites,” such as light-skinned Asians, Latinos, and most multiracials. Empirical studies have provided some support for the triracial order thesis based on sociodemographic factors such as income and education, attitudinal factors such as racial attitudes and self-classification, and social interaction factors such as residential segregation (for a review, see Bonilla-Silva 2004). To date, however, few scholars have entertained the possibility that the shifting racial hierarchies would affect one’s perceptions of discrimination.

If the triracial stratification thesis holds, we would expect that people in the “whites” category are treated most favorably by others and thus experience the least amount of discrimination, “honorary whites” would encounter a moderate amount of discrimination, and “collective blacks” would be treated least favorably and have the greatest exposure to discrimination. Contrary to this expectation, we may not find a distinct three-tier hierarchy in the perceptions of discrimination. Groups may be positioned in a hierarchy on multiple dimensions (Kim 1999; J. C. Lee and Kye 2016). Accordingly, we may find patterns of perceived discrimination but not in a clear three-part hierarchy.

The Differential Status Thesis

In addition to race and ethnicity, other factors related to one’s social structural positions may be important. In this study, we propose a differential status thesis, contending that in a profoundly racialized and ethnicized society like the United States, SES and immigration-related factors can affect one’s experiences and understanding of social situations that might involve discrimination.

Prior scholarship demonstrates that education is positively related to perceived discrimination (D. J. Perez, Fortuna, and Alegria 2008; Portes, Parker, and Cobas 1980). There are several possible explanations for these findings. First, well-educated individuals usually have an enhanced awareness about racial and ethnic discrimination and are thereby more likely to identify and report such discrimination. Second, because of institutional racism and the glass ceiling effect, individuals with a high level of education might not experience the same financial and professional advantages as their white counterparts, thus creating a strong sense of victimization (Zeng and Xie 2004). In general, individuals with higher SES, regardless of their experiences of discrimination, might develop a more sophisticated and critical view of their society and become more sensitive to racial/ethnic stereotypes, prejudicial attitudes, and discriminatory behaviors. Their heightened sensitivity to racism and discrimination may result in a higher likelihood of perceiving discrimination.

Immigration-related factors such as language proficiency and duration of residence may also be associated with perceptions of discrimination. For example, immigrants with high English proficiency may be more sensitive to cultural cues and nuances about discrimination and are therefore more likely to perceive discrimination (Portes et al. 1980). In sum, differences in SES along with immigration-related factors could lead to differences in perceived discrimination.

Past research provides some support for the differential status thesis. A few studies find that common indicators of SES (education, income, and/or employment status) are positively correlated with perceived discrimination among major Hispanic groups (D. J. Perez et al. 2008; Portes et al. 1980; Sizemore and Milner 2004). Other analyses suggest that different measures of SES, such as education and income, might affect separate but overlapping domains (day-to-day vs. lifetime discrimination) of perceived discrimination (Gallegos 2010; Kessler et al. 1999). Overall, empirical findings have shown strong evidence for an association between different SES measures and perceptions of different types of discrimination.

While exploring the effects of immigration-related factors, some studies report that higher levels of language proficiency are associated with reporting more frequent discrimination among Mexican immigrants (Finch, Kolody, and Vega 2000) and U.S.-born Latinos (D. J. Perez et al. 2008). Moreover, those arriving in the United States at a younger age are more likely to perceive discrimination than those who arrive at an older age (D. J. Perez et al. 2008). Built on the differential status thesis and past empirical results, we expect that an individual’s SES and immigration-related factors are positively associated with perceptions of discrimination.

Racial/Ethnic Identity Theory

Thus far, we have mainly discussed how macro-structural factors such as race/ethnicity, SES, and immigration-related factors are associated with discrimination. Scant attention has been paid to micro-structural mechanisms, such as examining how one’s identities may shape perceptions of discrimination. Identity theory premises that social structures affect one’s identities and self-concept, which may in turn lead to different cognitive processes and interpretations of experiences (Burke et al. 2003; Stryker 1987). Discrimination is one fine example. When people are exposed to the same unfair treatment, some may perceive it as a discriminatory act; others may ignore it or not feel anything negative. Such differences may be caused by both individuals’ social positions and their identities (Thoits 1991).

Racial/ethnic identity is a key facet of identity that plays a significant role in perceiving discrimination. Racial/ethnic identity refers to a sense of group or collective identity based on the perception that a person shares similar physical traits (e.g., skin color) and/or a common heritage and culture with a particular racial/ethnic group (Helms 1990; Yinger 1976). Prior theoretical discussions about the relationship between racial/ethnic identity and perceived discrimination have suggested that individuals with a salient racial/ethnic identity, compared to those who have a weak sense of such identity, might be more sensitive to intergroup inequalities and more likely to consider themselves targets of prejudice and stigma. Consequently, these individuals attribute negative incidents to discrimination (Sellers and Shelton 2003).

Empirical findings, however, have been mixed. One body of work shows that individuals, particularly blacks, behave according to racial/ethnic identity theory (Crocker and Major 1989; Hall and Carter 2006; Seaton 2009; Sellers and Shelton 2003). Limited research on Asians and Latinos, in contrast, has documented negative associations between racial/ethnic identity and perceived discrimination (D. J. Perez et al. 2008). These seemingly contradictory patterns may be attributable to different social psychological processes (Hunt et al. 2000) and distinct ethnicized/racialized experiences among different racial/ethnic groups (Omi and Winant 2014). Consequently, racial/ethnic identity may not have ubiquitous effects on perceptions of discrimination across minority groups. For instance, because of the history of slavery and racial subjugation among African Americans, a strong sense of racial/ethnic identity might suggest an allegiance to the black community and increased vigilance against race-based biases. Among Afro-Caribbeans, the association between racial identity and perceived discrimination could be even stronger, resulting from their initial unawareness of historical and existing discrimination against African Americans in the United States. Such speculation is well in line with social psychological research on how identity conflict and denial are associated with an elevated level of perceived discrimination (Cheryan and Monin 2005; Kang and Bodenhausen 2015).

Given that scholarly research largely remains speculative and empirical findings are mixed, we hypothesize that racial/ethnic identity is closely linked to structural locations and its effects on perception of discrimination may vary across different racial/ethnic groups. We are, however, less sure about the magnitude or directions of such relationships. Therefore, based on limited studies, we hypothesize that for blacks, racial identity may be positively associated with perceived discrimination, whereas for some Asian and Latino ethnic groups, racial/ethnic identity may be negatively associated with self-reports of everyday discrimination.

This study combines racial and ethnic identity for two reasons. First, the affinity to one’s own ethnicity may suggest a close connection to both ethnic and racial background. Although each has its own scope of connotation, there is considerable overlap between the two, and ethnicity could be included in race geo-culturally (Collins 2004). Racial and ethnic identities therefore are not mutually exclusive (Alba 1999; Barth 1969; A. D. Perez and Hirschman 2009). Second, because our study examines a wide array of both traditionally defined racial (e.g., blacks and Asians) and ethnic groups (e.g., Hispanics and Afro-Caribbeans), it is technically challenging to disentangle one from another without having elaborate survey designs.

Methods

Data

Data for this study come from the Collaborative Psychiatric Epidemiology Surveys (CPES), which were collected between 2002 and 2003 by multidisciplinary researchers to provide information on the distributions and correlates of mental disorders among the general population, with a special emphasis on minority groups (Pennell et al. 2004). The CPES includes three data sources, the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R), the National Study of American Life (NSAL), and the National Latino and Asian American Study (NLAAS). The NCS-R mainly surveyed whites, the NSAL mainly surveyed African and Caribbean Americans, and the NLAAS mainly surveyed multiple Asian and Latino groups (Pennell et al. 2004).²

The CPES employed a multistage, stratified national probability sampling design. Trained interviewers administered face-to-face interviews of noninstitutionalized adults aged 18 years or older living in the United States between 2002 and 2003. Detailed descriptions of the sample designs and sampling methods are available elsewhere (Heeringa et al. 2004). Due to sampling issues, the white sample was excluded from our study.³ Our final analyses included 9,247 cases, with 7 percent missing on variables used in our analyses using listwise deletion.

Measures

We assessed everyday discrimination using a widely adopted nine-item scale developed in the Detroit Area Study (Williams et al. 1997). This scale has methodological advantages over a single-item measurement of discrimination as it ascertains chronic experiences of daily unfair treatment (Kessler et al. 1999; Mossakowski 2003). Respondents were asked how often they (1) are treated with less courtesy than other people, (2) are treated with less respect than other people, (3) receive poorer service than other people at restaurants or stores, (4) encounter people acting as if they think the respondent is not smart, (5) encounter people acting as if they are afraid of the respondent, (6) encounter people acting as if they think the respondent is dishonest, (7) encounter people acting as if they think the respondent is not as good as they are, (8) are called names or insulted, and (9) are threatened or harassed. The response categories for each item range from 1 to 6, with 1 denoting never and 6 for every day. The scale has high reliability, with a Cronbach’s alpha of .91. We dichotomized the scale with 1 denoting a respondent reporting any unfair treatment and 0 meaning that a respondent reported no discrimination at all.⁴

Race/ethnicity was measured by a set of dummy variables corresponding to Vietnamese, Filipino, Chinese, other Asian, Cuban, Puerto Rican, Mexican, other Hispanic, and Afro-Caribbean, with African American being the reference group. Socioeconomic indicators included educational level and income. Education was assessed by years of schooling collapsed into four categories: less than high school (reference group), high school graduates, some college, and college graduates or beyond. Annual household income was also recoded into four categories, including less than $15,000 (reference group), $15,000 to $34,999, $35,000 to $74,999, and higher than $75,000. We used two common indicators to examine the effects of immigration-related factors. The first one is years living in the United States measured by five categories, including less than 5 years, 5 to 10 years, 11 to 20 years, and more than 20 years of residence, with the U.S.-born individuals as the reference group. The second is self-reported English language proficiency, which was coded as 1 when respondents’ ability to speak English was reported as excellent or very good and 0 when reported as fair or poor.

Following conventional wisdom, racial/ethnic identity was measured by a single item that used the same wording in both NSAL and NLAAS (D. J. Perez et al. 2008; Yip, Gee, and Takeuchi 2008). This item taps into the idea that closeness to one’s racial/ethnic group is central to one’s identity (Sellers and Shelton 2003). This variable was coded as 1 if respondents felt very or fairly close in their ideas and feelings about things to people of their own racial and ethnic group, whereas it was coded as 0 if respondents felt not very or not at all close and thus had a weak sense of racial/ethnic identity (D. J. Perez et al. 2008).

Finally, control variables included age (coded in years), gender (male, with female as the reference group), marital status (married/cohabiting, divorced, separated and widowed, with never married as the reference category), and region (northeast, midwest, and west, with south as the reference category).

Analytic Strategies

We conducted weighted analyses using the “svy” suite of commands in Stata 14.0 to adjust for the multistage survey design that included strata, clusters, and unequal weights (Stata Corporation 2015). We first show weighted descriptive statistics of all variables. Then we presented percentages of respondents who reported discrimination by race/ethnicity and strong racial/ethnic identity. We estimated a series of logistic regression models to predict perceived everyday discrimination. Model 1 includes just race/ethnicity variables; Models 2 through 6 add commonly used controls, socioeconomic indicators, measures on immigration-related factors, racial/ethnic identity, and interaction terms between racial/ethnic identity and ethnic variables, respectively.⁵ Based on these models, we calculated the predicted probabilities of reporting everyday discrimination by ethnicity and the interacting effects of racial/ethnic identity and ethnicity. Results of these predicted probabilities are presented in graphs.

Results

Table 1 shows weighted descriptive statistics of all variables. The vast majority, 80 percent, of the respondents reported experiencing everyday discrimination from “at least less than once a year” to “almost every day.” In this sample, the average age was 40 years old, 48 percent were males, and 57 percent were married. Those who had less than high school degrees, high school degrees, some college, and college degrees and beyond comprised 32 percent, 29 percent, 23 percent, and 17 percent of the sample, respectively. Twenty-four percent of sample respondents belonged to the lowest household income category (<$15,000), whereas 17 percent belonged to the highest (>$75,000). Most of the respondents lived in the south and the west, followed by the northeast and the midwest. About 60 percent of the sample was born in the United States. Among immigrants, 7 percent had recently arrived and lived less than 5 years, 6 percent had resided in the United States between 5 to 10 years, 13 percent between 11 to 20 years, and 13 percent longer than 20 years. The majority of the sample had good or excellent English language proficiency and a strong sense of racial/ethnic identity.

Table 1.

Weighted Descriptive Statistics: National Latino and Asian American Study (NLAAS) and National Study of American Life (NSAL) (N = 9,247).

Variable	Mean or Percentage
Report of any everyday discrimination	79.6
Race/ethnicity
African American (reference)	37.6
Vietnamese	2.1
Filipino	3.5
Chinese	4.7
Other Asian	5.9
Cuban	2.1
Puerto Rican	3.8
Mexican	28.3
Other Latino	9.9
Caribbean American	2.0
Socioeconomic status
High school graduate (reference)	28.5
Some college	22.5
College graduate or beyond	16.8
Less than high school (reference)	32.2
Less than $15,000 (reference)	24.6
$15,000–$34,999	27.4
$35,000–$74,999	28.0
Greater than $75,000	17.3
Immigration-related factors
U.S.-born (reference)	60.4
Length of residence in U.S. <5 years	7.1
Length of residence in U.S. 5–10 years	6.2
Length of residence in U.S. 11–20 years	12.8
Length of residence in U.S. >20 years	13.5
Good English Proficiency	72.6
Controls
Mean age (range, 18–97)	39.94
Male	48.4
Never married (reference)	25.4
Married/cohabiting	56.6
Divorced/separated/widowed	18.0
South region (reference)	35.9
Northeast region	16.5
Midwest region	11.9
West region	34.7
Racial/ethnic identity
Strong racial/ethnic identity	87.5

Table 2 lists the weighted percentage distributions of respondents who had reported everyday discrimination and strong racial/ethnic identity by racial/ethnic groups. About 90 percent of African American and Afro-Caribbeans reported discrimination, followed by 82 percent for Filipinos, 79 percent for Puerto Ricans, 77 percent for Chinese, 72 percent for Mexicans, 52 percent for Vietnamese, and 49 percent for Cubans. On average, 76 percent of Asians and 71 percent of Latinos reported discrimination, with both having considerable within-group ethnic variations. The chi-square tests indicate that there were significant variations in the level of perceived discrimination across different ethnic groups within Asian and Latino communities, respectively, but there was no significant difference between African Americans and Afro-Caribbeans. Regarding racial/ethnic identity, the proportion of reporting strong racial/ethnic identity was high (over 80 percent) in almost all groups, with Vietnamese, Cubans, and African Americans having the highest proportions. All within-group differences were significant.

Table 2.

Weighted Percentages of Report of Any Everyday Discrimination and Strong Racial/Ethnic Identity by Race/Ethnicity: National Latino and Asian American Study (NLAAS) and National Study of American Life (NSAL) (N = 9,247).

Race/Ethnicity	Percentage Report Any Everyday Discrimination	Percentage Report Strong Racial/Ethnic Identity
Total	79.7	88.6
Asians total	76.1	86.7
Filipino	81.7	82.2
Chinese	76.8	81.8
Vietnamese	52.4	92.0
Other Asian	80.5	84.6
Chi-square test	***	***
Latinos total	71.2	87.7
Puerto Rican	78.9	88.4
Mexican	71.7	85.2
Cuban	49.0	92.4
Other Latino	71.3	84.8
Chi-square test	***	***
Blacks total	90.3	90.0
Afro-Caribbean	90.8	84.0
African American	90.2	91.2
Chi-square test	ns	***

***

p < .001.

Table 3 presents results from a series of logistic regression models to predict self-perceived day-to-day discrimination. Model 1 includes nine ethnic groups with African Americans as the reference category. Results from this model show that without any demographic controls, all Asian and Latino ethnic groups were significantly less likely to report everyday discrimination than African Americans (p values are all less than .001). Only Afro-Caribbean Americans were not statistically different from African Americans in their likelihood of reporting daily discrimination. The coefficients of the control variables added in Model 2 reveal that older and married individuals were less likely to report exposure to discrimination than those who were younger and never married. Men had slightly higher likelihood of reporting discrimination than women (b = .19, p < .05). With these controls, the patterns for the associations between race/ethnicity and perceived everyday discrimination remained the same.

Table 3.

Logistic Regression Models Predicting Report of Any Everyday Discrimination: National Latino and Asian American Study (NLAAS) and National Study of American Life (NSAL) (N = 9,247).

	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)
Race/ethnicity
Vietnamese	−2.13***	−2.21***	−2.24***	−1.60***	−1.60***	−1.44**
	(.17)	(.20)	(.20)	(.25)	(.25)	(.52)
Filipino	−.73***	−.82***	−1.05***	−.60*	−.61*	−.87
	(.17)	(.20)	(.21)	(.26)	(.26)	(.57)
Chinese	−1.02***	−1.11***	−1.26***	−.68**	−.70**	−1.04**
	(.15)	(.17)	(.18)	(.22)	(.22)	(.36)
Other Asian	−.80***	−1.04***	−1.30***	−.87**	−.88**	−.33
	(.21)	(.23)	(.24)	(.28)	(.28)	(.68)
Cuban	−2.26***	−2.08***	−2.21***	−1.69***	−1.69***	−1.59***
	(.16)	(.18)	(.19)	(.22)	(.22)	(.37)
Puerto Rican	−.91***	−.86***	−.87***	−.62**	−.63**	−.57
	(.20)	(.19)	(.19)	(.21)	(.21)	(.55)
Mexican	−1.29***	−1.63***	−1.43***	−1.04***	−1.05***	−1.29**
	(.14)	(.17)	(.19)	(.22)	(.22)	(.45)
Other Latino	−1.31***	−1.44***	−1.43***	−1.05***	−1.06***	−1.44***
	(.17)	(.17)	(.18)	(.20)	(.20)	(.37)
Caribbean American	.06	.21	.15	.44*	.43*	−1.24*
	(.21)	(.18)	(.18)	(.21)	(.20)	(.48)
Controls
Age		−.03***	−.03***	−.03***	−.03***	−.03***
		(.00)	(.00)	(.00)	(.00)	(.00)
Male		.19*	.15	.15	.15	.14
		(.09)	(.09)	(.10)	(.10)	(.09)
Married/cohabiting		−.31*	−.40**	−.28	−.28	−.27
		(.14)	(.14)	(.15)	(.15)	(.15)
Divorced/separated/ widowed		−.07	−.06	−.00	−.00	−.01
		(.16)	(.17)	(.17)	(.17)	(.17)
Northeast region		−.19	−.21	−.09	−.10	−.10
		(.14)	(.15)	(.14)	(.14)	(.14)
Midwest region		.29	.19	.20	.19	.19
		(.30)	(.30)	(.27)	(.27)	(.27)
West region		.28	.18	.19	.19	.18
		(.15)	(.15)	(.14)	(.14)	(.14)
Socioeconomic status
High school graduate			.34**	.19	.19	.20
			(.11)	(.12)	(.12)	(.12)
Some college			.51***	.33**	.33**	.33**
			(.11)	(.12)	(.12)	(.12)
College graduate or beyond			.56***	.40**	.40**	.41**
			(.14)	(.15)	(.15)	(.15)
$15,000–$34,999			−.11	−.12	−.12	−.12
			(.12)	(.11)	(.11)	(.11)
$35,000–$74,999			.23	.16	.17	.16
			(.15)	(.15)	(.15)	(.15)
Greater than $75,000			.48**	.35*	.35*	.35*
			(.15)	(.15)	(.15)	(.15)
Immigration-related factors
Length of residence in U.S. <5 years				−.42	−.42	−.41
Length of residence in U.S. <5 years				(.22)	(.22)	(.22)
Length of residence in U.S. 5–10 years				−.47*	−.47*	−.47*
Length of residence in U.S. 5–10 years				(.18)	(.18)	(.18)
Length of residence in U.S. 11–20 years				−.58**	−.58**	−.58**
Length of residence in U.S. 11–20 years				(.20)	(.21)	(.21)
Length of residence in U.S. >20 years				−.29	−.29	−.30
Length of residence in U.S. >20 years				(.16)	(.16)	(.16)
Good English proficiency				.30*	.30*	.30*
				(.15)	(.15)	(.15)
Racial/ethnic identity
Strong identity					−.13	−.36
					(.12)	(.26)
Interaction: Identity × ethnicity
Identity × Vietnamese						−.17
						(.45)
Identity × Filipino						.29
						(.58)
Identity × Chinese						.38
						(.39)
Identity × Other Asian						−.62
						(.66)
Identity × Cuban						−.11
						(.38)
Identity × Puerto Rican						−.07
						(.53)
Identity × Mexican						.27
						(.37)
Identity × Other Latino						.44
						(.34)
Identity × Caribbean						2.28***
						(.62)
Constant		2.22***	3.63***	3.36***	3.15***	3.26***
		(.10)	(.18)	(.21)	(.24)	(.27)

Note: Standard errors in parentheses.

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

Model 3 in Table 3 introduces socioeconomic measures, including educational level and household income. Individuals with high school degrees and beyond all had higher likelihood of reporting everyday discrimination than those with less than high school education. As for income, only the highest income category was positively associated with perceived everyday discrimination (b = .48, p < .01). The significant effect of gender in predicting perceived discrimination disappears in Model 3 after SES variables are controlled for, whereas the coefficients for race/ethnicity variables in Model 3 do not vary much, suggesting that education and income do not change the relationships between race/ethnicity and perceived discrimination.

In Model 4, we further added immigration-related variables. Results indicate that duration and language proficiency were associated with reports of discrimination. Specifically, compared with U.S.-born individuals, immigrants who lived in the United States between 5 and 20 years were significantly less likely to perceive everyday discrimination. In addition, having higher English proficiency increased the likelihood of reporting daily discrimination (b = .30, p < .05). With these new immigration-related variables added in Model 4, some of the race/ethnicity coefficients become less significant (i.e., Filipinos and Chinese), whereas one group becomes more significant (i.e., Afro-Caribbeans), suggesting that immigration-related factors change the effects of race/ethnicity on perceived discrimination.

To test our hypothesis of racial/ethnic identity, we included the racial/ethnic identity variable in Model 5 and interaction terms between race/ethnicity and identity in Model 6. The interaction terms were used to parcel out how racial/ethnic identity might work differently among various ethnic groups, particularly compared to African Americans. Results from Model 5 suggest that strong racial identity was not associated with self-perceived discrimination in a statistically significant way. A more nuanced analysis in the interaction model (Model 6), however, uncovers that strong racial/ethnic identity was more important in predicting perceived discrimination among Afro-Caribbeans than among African Americans (b = 2.28, p < .001), as well as all other racial/ethnic minority groups based on additional statistical testing. There was no statistically significant difference in the effects of racial/ethnic identity on perceived discrimination between African Americans and other racial/ethnic minorities (excluding Afro-Caribbeans).

Based on models in Table 3, we further calculated predicted probabilities of reporting everyday discrimination. Figure 1 presents predicted probabilities by race/ethnicity based on Model 5 in Table 3, holding all other variables constant at their means. It shows that Cubans had the lowest predicted probability (about .60) whereas Afro-Caribbeans had the highest (about .93). These probabilities generally indicated that blacks were most likely to report discrimination, followed by most Asian groups (except Vietnamese), and then Latinos.

Figure 1.

Predicted probabilities of reporting everyday discrimination by race/ethnicity: National Latino and Asian American Study (NLAAS) and National Study of American Life (NSAL) (N = 9,247).

Figure 2 illustrates the interaction effects between racial/ethnic identity and race/ethnicity on discrimination. These predictions were calculated based on Model 6 in Table 3 by holding all other variables at their means. The figure shows that for Vietnamese, Cubans, Puerto Ricans, or African Americans with average characteristics for all other variables but a weak sense of racial/ethnic identity, they are more likely to report everyday discrimination, whereas if otherwise similar Afro-Caribbeans have a strong sense of racial/ethnic identity, they are more likely to report discrimination. For some ethnic members (e.g., Mexicans, Filipinos, or Chinese), their racial/ethnic identity does not seem to affect their perceptions of everyday discrimination. The differences (i.e., the bottom bars) between Vietnamese and Afro-Caribbeans and between Cubans and Afro-Caribbeans were statistically significant (p < .05).

Figure 2.

Predicted probabilities of perceiving any everyday discrimination by race/ethnicity interacting with racial/ethnic identity: National Latino and Asian American Study (NLAAS) and National Study of American Life (NSAL) (N = 9,247).

Discussion

It has been well documented that perceived discrimination is a significant psychosocial stressor with compelling educational, economic, political, and health ramifications. For example, empirical evidence has shown that racial/ethnic differentials in the exposure and reaction to discrimination serve as two of the many pathways leading to racial/ethnic disparities in health (Williams and Mohammed 2009). Yet, scholarship on the effects of social structures and identities on perceived discrimination remains less established. In this study, we address such research gaps by drawing on racial/ethnic hierarchy theories, the differential status thesis, and identity theory. Our study is among the first few to synthesize key insights from various bodies of literature and empirically examine predictors of perceived discrimination among a comprehensive list of racial/ethnic minority groups. Main findings from our study can advance the research on discrimination in several important ways.

First, we find that self-perceived chronic discrimination is prevalent among all racial/ethnic minorities; for almost all groups, the majority of the members reported that they had experienced day-to-day discrimination in their lives, suggesting that race and ethnicity, as key dimensions of structural positions, play a critical role in shaping people’s perceptions of discrimination.

Prior studies using national or community samples have indicated non-Hispanic whites were much less likely to report discrimination compared to racial and ethnic minorities (Kessler et al. 1999; Williams et al. 1997). Some suggest that about 40 percent (Williams et al. 1997) or 50 percent of whites had not perceived any discrimination (Kessler et al. 1999). Building on prior scholarship, our study has further contributed to this literature by revealing a considerable amount of racial/ethnic variations among minorities in the reporting of perceived discrimination, with partial support for the triracial hierarchy theory (Bonilla-Silva 2004). Specifically, results from our study show that minority members who have on average the darkest skin colors such as African Americans and Afro-Caribbeans are found at the bottom of the racial order, with the highest prevalence of perceived discrimination (about 90 percent).

The two ethnic groups with the lowest prevalence of perceived discrimination are Cubans and Vietnamese (about 50 percent). Prior scholarship has indicated that Cubans are significantly more likely to identify themselves as whites than other Latinos (Frank et al. 2010). Moreover, Cubans often have a better infrastructure (e.g., private bilingual schools) than other Latino groups that facilitates transition into the United States (Rumbaut 1994). In addition, there is a strong presence of well-established enclaves for Cuban immigrants to survive and flourish (D. J. Perez et al. 2008). All of these factors may contribute to the low level of perceived everyday discrimination among Cubans.

One unexpected finding, however, is that there is a relatively low prevalence of perceived discrimination among Vietnamese, who belong to the “collective black” based on Bonilla-Silva’s (2004) triracial categorization. We could surmise some possibilities. First, many Vietnamese Americans may be political refugees (or children of refugees) who fled their home country from a communist regime and are among the most well received and assimilated (sociopolitically but not geospatially) minority groups (Bankston and Zhou 1997). So it is possible that Vietnamese Americans compare their current sociopolitical and economic opportunities with those during the Vietnam or Cold War retrospectively and thereby may subconsciously suppress their experiences of discrimination. Or simply, appreciation of opportunities may outweigh apprehension of discrimination. Second, many Vietnamese live in ethnic enclaves such as Little Saigons, where they have limited exposure to mainstream societies and the predominant white Protestant culture in particular (Mazumdar et al. 2000; Walton 2015; Zhou and Bankston 1998). If the latter is true, an absence of interracial interactions may result in less exposure to potential discriminatory encounters and a low likelihood of perceived discrimination. The case of Vietnamese Americans cautions us to consider the unique sociocultural, political, and historical contexts of every racial/ethnic group in order to fully understand racial/ethnic stratification and discrimination.

A person’s location in the racial hierarchy is not the only factor associated with perceived discrimination. Results from our analyses also partially support the differential status thesis, suggesting that discrimination could be in the eye of the beholder. Even after controlling for race/ethnicity, we find that structural factors such as socioeconomic and immigration-related variables are important predictors of perceived discrimination as well. Specifically, individuals with at least some college education, being economically advantaged, and having a higher degree of English proficiency are more likely to report chronic discrimination. Despite the direct effects of education and income on perceived discrimination, these SES variables do not seem to mediate the relationship between race/ethnicity and perceived discrimination. U.S.-born individuals are more likely to perceive discrimination than immigrants who live in the United States between 5 and 10 years but not significantly different from the most recent immigrants (with less than 5 years of residence) and those with longer duration (greater than 20 years). Our results also imply that immigration-related variables may mediate between race/ethnicity and perceived discrimination. For example, after controlling for immigration-related variables, Filipinos and Chinese become less likely to perceive discrimination compared with African Americans, whereas Afro-Caribbeans become more so.

There may be several possible explanations for the findings regarding SES and immigration-related factors. First, people with higher SES or better English language proficiency may have more interracial/interethnic interactions, which possibly in turn expose them to more instances of unfair treatment. Or, the better educated and those with higher language ability may have developed a more refined and critical understanding of the cultural values and societal norms of the host society and thus acquired a heightened awareness of racist or discriminatory behaviors. Therefore, they may be more likely to perceive discrimination in daily life (Portes et al. 1980).

With respect to duration of residence, when immigrants newly migrate to the United States (with less than 5 years of residence), their feelings of acculturative stress may lead them to experience and/or report discrimination at a level not significantly differently from that of the U.S.-born individuals. Moreover, those new immigrants might be more likely to experience other forms of discrimination, such as segregation or event-based instances (e.g., being denied a job or bank loan), which cannot be fully captured by our outcome variable (i.e., the scale of everyday discrimination). The mediating effects of immigration-related factors between race/ethnicity and perceived discrimination may well result from the fact that some groups are comprised of an overwhelming majority of native-borns with high English proficiency, whereas other groups are comprised of a sizable proportion of recent immigrants. Such differences might further lead to racial/ethnic disparities in encountering, understanding, and perceiving discrimination.

In addition to structural factors, we also examine correlates of perceived discrimination from a micro perspective by focusing on racial/ethnic identity. While scholarly work has analyzed the role of racial/ethnic identity in buffering or reinforcing the association between perceived discrimination and health outcomes (Mossakowski 2003; Yip et al. 2008), little is known about how racial/ethnic identity is related to perceived discrimination. Our interaction model suggests that the effects of racial/ethnic identity on perceived discrimination vary across ethnic groups. Having a more salient racial/ethnic identity is more important in predicting perceived discrimination among Afro-Caribbeans than among African Americans. Additional analyses (not shown here) indicate that the effect of racial/ethnic identity on perceived discrimination is stronger for Afro-Caribbeans than for all other racial/ethnic groups.

The racial/ethnic identity of Afro-Caribbeans warrants some additional consideration. On one hand, many Afro-Caribbeans may perceive themselves as a group distinct from African Americans due to their different ethnic backgrounds. When racial stereotypes usually attached to African Americans are also applied to Afro-Caribbeans, the latter may unexpectedly experience discrimination. Therefore, those who possess a strong sense of racial or ethnic identity may become even more sensitive and more likely to perceive discrimination (Hall and Carter 2006). Another possibility is that assimilation processes may be different for domestic minorities and international immigrants. Most African Americans belong to the former whereas many Afro-Caribbeans belong to the latter. Our results indicate that even after controlling for immigration-related variables, Afro-Caribbeans with strong racial/ethnic identity are more likely to perceive discrimination than African Americans, suggesting that there is something unique about the racial/ethnic identity of Afro-Caribbeans. Such findings further suggest that differential psychosocial processes may exist among people from various racial/ethnic backgrounds given their diverse sociocultural, economic, political, and historical contexts (Hunt et al. 2000).

This study has several caveats that need to be addressed by future research. First, following the original racial hierarchy typology (Bonilla-Silva 2004), we use ethnicity as a proxy measure to test the triracial stratification hypothesis. Future studies could include explicit objective and/or subjective measures of skin tones to directly test the colorism hypothesis. Even though previous studies have indicated that whites tend to report a significantly lower level of perceived discrimination than racial/ethnic minorities do (Kessler et al. 1999; Williams et al. 1997), it would be informative to include a white sample as a reference group. Furthermore, incorporating whites would allow researchers to explore other hypotheses such as those grounded in the literature on the color line (Hollinger 2005; J. C. Lee and Bean 2010; Lopez 1996) or racial triangulation theory (Kim 1999).

With more nuanced data, we would be able to consider, in addition to centrality, other facets of racial/ethnic identity, such as ideology (i.e., one’s feelings of similarities and differences between races/ethnicities), public regard (i.e., one’s feelings of how other groups view his or own race/ethnicity), and private regard (i.e., one’s own positive feelings toward his or her race/ethnicity) (Sellers and Shelton 2003). Albeit challenging due to much overlap between the constructs of race and ethnicity, future data collection could consider incorporating more precise measurements to better distinguish between racial and ethnic identity.

As the main outcome variable of this study, perceptions of everyday discrimination are important insofar as they may very well be true reflections of actual discriminatory encounters; even when unreal, they do lead to psychological consequences. Future research could extend this line of work to examine event-based, microaggressive acts or other factual experiences of discrimination. Investigating multiple types of discrimination outcomes and those beyond perceptions should shed more light on how various racial/ethnic groups are treated differentially (not merely how they perceive discrimination differently) and where they are located in a multidimensional racial hierarchy (Kim 1999; Xu and Lee 2013).

Although we have explored several major sets of structural and psychosocial variables as well as interactions between racial/ethnic membership and identities, it would be fruitful to explore the intersectionality among race/ethnicity, SES, and gender. For example, an interesting finding from the study is that men tend to perceive more everyday discrimination than women. Given the gendered stereotypes of racial/ethnic minorities in the media (Golash-Boza 2016) and gendered beliefs (e.g., black misandry) prevalent in society (Smith, Yosso, and Solórzano 2007), more sophisticated investigations on gender disparities in discrimination across racial/ethnic groups could elucidate the racial-gender dynamics and advance our understanding of intersectionality (Golash-Boza 2016).

Despite the caveats aforementioned, this study is among the first few to synergize various theoretical thrusts, including racial hierarchies, differential statuses, and racial/ethnic identities, to study perceived discrimination. It examines racial/ethnic differences in perceptions of day-to-day discrimination among a comprehensive list of minority groups. Key findings from our study have significantly enhanced our theoretical and empirical understanding of discrimination by highlighting the effects of both macro-structural factors and micro-level identities as well as their interactions.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the editors, anonymous reviewers, Rachel Kraus, Richard Petts, and Roger Wojktiewtz for their helpful comments and suggestions.

Notes

Author Biographies

Fang Gong, PhD, is an associate professor of sociology at Ball State University. Her research interests include medical sociology, mental health, race and ethnicity, and aging and the life course. Her work has appeared in journals such as American Journal of Public Health, Journal of Health and Social Behavior, and Social Science and Medicine.

Jun Xu, PhD, is an associate professor of sociology at Ball State University. His primary research interests include Asia and Asian America, comparative sociology, health, and statistical modeling and programming. His work has been published in journals such as Social Forces, Social Science & Medicine, Sociological Methods & Research, Social Science Research, and The Stata Journal. He is also a co-author (with Andrew S. Fullerton) of a statistical monograph, titled Ordered Regression Models: Parallel, Partial, and Non-parallel Alternatives.

David T. Takeuchi, PhD, is Professor and Dorothy Book Scholar in the School of Social Work and in the Department of Sociology at Boston College. He is a sociologist, an alumnus of the ASA Minority Fellowship Program, with a focus on the social, structural, and cultural contexts that are associated with different health outcomes, especially among racial and ethnic minorities. He is an elected member of the Sociological Research Association and the American Academy of Social Work and Social Welfare. He currently serves as the Secretary of the American Sociological Association.

References

Alba

Richard

. 1999. “Immigration and the American Realities of Assimilation and Multiculturalism.” Sociological Forum 14:3–25.

Anderson

Arnold

Foster

Philip J.

1964. “Discrimination and Inequality in Education.” Sociological of Education 38:1–18.

Bankston

Carl L.

III Zhou

Min

. 1997. “The Social Adjustment of Vietnamese American Adolescents: Evidence for a Segmented-assimilation Approach.” Social Science Quarterly 78:508–23.

Barth

Fredrik

. 1969. Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company.

Bonilla-Silva

Eduardo

. 2004. “From Bi-racial to Tri-racial: Towards a New System of Racial Stratification in the USA.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 27:931–50.

Bonilla-Silva

Eduardo

. 2010. Racism without Racists. New York: Bowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Burke

Peter

Burke

Jan Stets

Burke

Peter J.

Owens

Timothy J.

Serpe

Richard T.

Thoits

Peggy A.

2003. Advances in Identity Theory and Research. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

Cheryan

Sapna

Monin

Bonoit

. 2005. “Where Are You Really from? Asian Americans and Identity Denial.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89:717–30.

Collins

Francis S.

2004. “What We Do and Don’t Know about ‘Race’, ‘Ethnicity’, Genetics and Health at the Dawn of the Genome Era.” Nature Genetics Supplement 36:S13–15.

10.

Crocker

Jennifer

Major

Brenda

. 1989. “Social Stigma and Self-esteem: The Self-protective Properties of Stigma.” Psychological Review 96:608–30.

11.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2015. “17-Year comparison of Hate Crime Statistics, 1991–2007.” Retrieved November 7, 2016 (http://www.civilrights.org/hatecrimes/fbi/2007/2007-fbi-hate-crimes-stats-17-year-comparison.pdf).

12.

Finch

Brian K.

Kolody

Bohdan

Vega

William A.

2000. “Perceived Discrimination and Depression among Mexican-origin Adults in California.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 41:295–313.

13.

Frank

Reanne

Akresh

Ilana Redstone

. 2010. “Latino Immigrants and the U.S. Racial Order.” American Sociological Review 75:378–401.

14.

Gallegos

Jenny

2010. “Perceptions of Discrimination: An Analysis of Four National Surveys of Latinos; Findings from the Pew Hispanic Center/Kaiser Family Foundation National Survey of Latinos.” McNair Scholars Research Journal 6:13–19.

15.

Golash-Boza

Tanya

. 2016. “A Critical and Comprehensive Sociological Theory of Race and Racism.” Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 2:129–41.

16.

Hall

Schekeva P.

Carter

Robert T.

2006. “The Relationship between Racial Identity, Ethnic Identity, and Perceptions of Racial Discrimination in an Afro-Caribbean Descent Sample.” Journal of Black Psychology 32:155–75.

17.

Heeringa

Steven G.

Wagner

James

Torres

Myriam

Duan

Naihua

Adams

Terry

Berglund

Patricia

. 2004. “Sample Designs and Sampling Methods for the Collaborative Psychiatric Epidemiology Studies (CPES).” International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research 13:221–40.

18.

Helms

Janet E.

1990. “Introduction: Review of Racial Identity Terminology.” Pp. 3–8 in Black and White Racial Identity: Theory, Research, and Practice, edited by Helms

J. E.

New York: Greenwood Press.

19.

Hollinger

David A.

2005. “The One Drop Rule & the One Hate Rule.” Daedalus 134:18–28.

20.

Hunt

Matthew O.

Jackson

Pamela Braboy

Powell

Brian

Steelman

Lala Carr

. 2000. “Color-blind: The Treatment of Race and Ethnicity in Social Psychology.” Social Psychology Quarterly 63:352–64.

21.

Kang

Sonia K.

Bodenhausen

Galen V.

2015. “Multiple Identities in Social Perception and Interaction: Challenges and Opportunities.” Annual Review of Psychology 66:547–74.

22.

Kessler

Ronald C.

Mickelson

Kristin D.

Williams

David R.

1999. “The Prevalence, Distribution, and Mental Health Correlates of Perceived Discrimination in the United States.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 40:208–30.

23.

Kim

Claire Jean

. 1999. “The Racial Triangulation of Asian Americans.” Politics & Society 27:105–38.

24.

Krieger

Nancy

1999. “Embodying Inequality: A Review of Concepts, Measures, and Methods for Studying Health Consequences of Discrimination.” International Journal of Health Services 29:295–352

25.

Krieger

Nancy

. 2012. “Methods for the Scientific Study of Discrimination and Health: An Ecosocial Approach.” American Journal of Public Health 102:936–44.

26.

Lee

Hedwig

Turney

Kristin

. 2012. “Investigating the Relationship between Perceived Discrimination, Social Status, and Mental Health.” Society and Mental Health 2:1–20.

27.

Lee

Jennifer C.

Bean

Frank. D.

2010. The Diversity Paradox: Immigration and the Color Line in 21st Century America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation Press.

28.

Lee

Jennifer C.

Kye

Samuel

. 2016. “Racialized Assimilation of Asian Americans.” Annual Review of Sociology 42:253–73.

29.

Lopez

Ian Haney

. 1996. White by Law: The Legal Construction of Race. New York: New York University Press.

30.

Major

Brenda

Quinton

Wendy J.

McCoy

Shannon K.

2002. “Antecedents and Consequences of Attributions to Discrimination: Theoretical and Empirical Advances.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 34:251–330.

31.

Mazumdar

Sanjoy

Mazumdar

Shampa

Docuyanan

Faye

McLaughlin

Colette Marie

. 2000. “Creating a Sense of Place: The Vietnamese-Americans and Little Saigon.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 20:319–33.

32.

Mossakowski

Krysia N.

2003. “Coping with Perceived Discrimination: Does Ethnic Identity Protect Mental Health?” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 44:318–31.

33.

Omi

Michael

Winant

Howard

. 2014. Racial Formation in the United States. New York: Routledge.

34.

Pager

Devah

Shepherd

Hana

. 2008. “The Sociology of Discrimination: Racial Discrimination in Employment, Housing, Credit, and Consumer Markets.” Annual Review of Sociology 34:181–209.

35.

Pascoe

Elizabeth A.

Richman

Laura Smart

. 2009. “Perceived Discrimination and Health: A Meta-analytic Review.” Psychological Bulletin 135:531–54.

36.

Pennell

Beth-Ellen

Bowers

Ashley

Carr

Deborah

Chardoul

Stephanie

Cheung

Gina-qian

Dinkelmann

Karl

Gebler

Nancy

Hansen

Sue Ellen

Pennell

Steve

Torres

Myriam

. 2004. “The Development and Implementation of the National Comorbidity Survey Replication, the National Survey of American Life, and the National Latino and Asian American Survey.” International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research 13:241–69.

37.

Perez

A. Daniel

Hirschman

Charles

. 2009. “The Changing Racial and Ethnic Composition of the US Population: Emerging American Identities.” Population and Development Review 35:1–51.

38.

Perez

Debra Joy

Fortuna

Lisa

Alegria

Margarita

. 2008. “Prevalence and Correlates of Everyday Discrimination among U.S. Latinos.” Journal of Community Psychology 36:421–33.

39.

Portes

Alejandro

Parker

Robert N.

Cobas

Jose A.

1980. “Assimilation or Consciousness: Perceptions of U.S. Society among Recent Latin American Immigrants to the United States.” Social Forces 59:200–24.

40.

Quillian

Lincoln

. 2006. “New Approaches to Understanding Racial Prejudice and Discrimination.” Annual Review of Sociology 32:299–328.

41.

Rumbaut

Ruben G.

1994. “The Crucible within: Ethnic Identity, Self-esteem, and Segmented Assimilation among Children of Immigrants.” International Migration Review 28:748–94.

42.

Schildkraut

Deborah J.

2005. “The Rise and Fall of Political Engagement among Latinos: The Role of Identity and Perceptions of Discrimination.” Political Behavior 27:285–312.

43.

Seaton

Eleanor K.

2009. “Perceived Racial Discrimination and Racial Identity Profiles among African American Adolescents.” Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 15:137–44.

44.

Sellers

Robert M.

Shelton

J. Nicole

. 2003. “The Role of Racial Identity in Perceived Racial Discrimination.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 84:1079–92.

45.

Sizemore

David S.

Milner

Wesley T.

2004. “Hispanic Media Use and Perceptions of Discrimination: Reconsidering Ethnicity, Politics, and Socioeconomics.” The Sociological Quarterly 45:765–84.

46.

Smith

William A.

Yosso

Tara J.

Solórzano

Daniel G.

2007. “Racial Primes and Black Misandry on Historically White Campuses: Toward Critical Race Accountability in Educational Administration.” Educational Administration Quarterly 43:559–85.

47.

Stata Corporation. 2015. Stata Survey Data Reference Manual. Release 14. College Station: STATA Corporation.

48.

Steele

Claude M.

1997. “A Threat in the Air: How Stereotypes Shape Intellectual Identity and Performance.” American Psychologist 52:613–29.

49.

Stryker

Sheldon

. 1987. “Identity Theory: Developments and Extensions.” Pp. 89–103 in Self and Identity: Psychosocial Perspectives, edited by Honess

K. Y. T.

Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

50.

Sue

Derald W.

2010. Microaggressions in Everyday Life: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation. Hoboken: Wiley.

51.

Thoits

Peggy A.

1991. “On Merging Identity Theory and Stress Research.” Social Psychology Quarterly 54:101–12.

52.

Thomas

William I.

Thomas

Dorothy S.

1928. The Child in America: Behavior Problems and Programs. New York: Knopf.

53.

Walton

Emily

. 2015. “Making Sense of Asian American Ethnic Neighborhoods: A Typology and Application to Health.” Sociological Perspectives 58:490–515.

54.

Williams

David R.

Mohammed

Selina

. 2009. “Discrimination and Racial Disparities in Health: Evidence and Needed Research.” Journal of Behavioral Medicine 32:20–47.

55.

Williams

David R.

Neighbors

Harold W.

Jackson

James S.

2003. “Racial/Ethnic Discrimination and Health: Findings from Community Studies.” American Journal of Public Health 93:200–08.

56.

Williams

David R.

Yan

Jackson

James S.

Anderson

Norman B.

1997. “Racial Differences in Physical and Mental Health.” Journal of Health Psychology 2:335–51.

57.

Jun

Lee

Jennifer C.

2013. “The Marginalized ‘Model’ Minority: An Empirical Examination of the Racial Triangulation of Asian Americans.” Social Forces 91:1363–97.

58.

Yinger

J. Milton

. 1976. “Ethnicity in Complex Societies.” Pp. 176–216 in The Uses of Controversy in Sociology, edited by Coser

L. A.

Larsen

O. N.

New York: Free Press.

59.

Yip

Tiffany

Gee

Gilbert C.

Takeuchi

David T.

2008. “Racial Discrimination and Psychological Distress: The Impact of Ethnic Identity and Age among Immigrant and United States–born Asian Adults.” Developmental Psychology 44:787–800.

60.

Zeng

Zhen

Xie

. 2004. “Asian-Americans’ Earnings Disadvantage Reexamined: The Role of Place of Education.” American Journal of Sociology 109:1075–108.

61.

Zhou

Min

Bankston

Carl L.

III . 1998. Growing up American: The Adaptation of Vietnamese Children to American Society. New York: Russell Sage Foundation Press.

62.

Zuckerman

Marvin

. 1991. Psychobiology of Personality. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.