Keywords

If current projections are realized, in less than three decades, the USA will become a “minority-majority” nation (Census, 2014). Meaning that for the first time in US history, the number of non-White individuals will be greater than the number of White individuals in the US population. Although many individuals deny that ethnic and racial prejudice exists and uses a number of strategies to rationalize unfair treatment that could be attributed to racism or xenophobia (Bonilla-Silva, 2014), examination of the educational, social, and occupational outcomes of ethnic-racial minority groups tells a different story. Anecdotally, a cursory review of one’s newsfeed in any given week can provide evidence that prejudice is a very real threat to the well-being of communities of color in the USA. Indeed, ethnic and racial prejudice plays a role in inequalities in education, health, and life chances of youth of color in the USA and thus threatens the nation’s capacity to fully realize the promise of its ever-increasing diversity. Although disparities in the life outcomes of ethnic-racial minority groups are a global concern, we focus in the USA because the largest body of ethnic-racial prejudice research focuses on this context.

Race and ethnicity are factors that inform individuals’ social and psychological experiences across the life span. Yet, issues related to ethnic or racial prejudice may manifest in qualitatively distinct ways in childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. In this chapter, we first provide an overview and conceptualization of prejudice and how it is related to attitudes and behaviors. We then review five ways in which ethnic and racial prejudice can be expressed: dehumanization, stereotypes, stereotype threat, discrimination and microaggressions, and skin colorism – focusing on how these experiences negatively impact ethnically and racially marginalized individuals from childhood through adulthood. In doing so, we explicitly note the ages or developmental periods represented in the studies reviewed throughout this chapter. We then briefly discuss two key promotive and protective mechanisms that have been a focus of studies in multiple developmental periods: ethnic-racial coping and ethnic-racial identity. We conclude with notes regarding areas of the literature in need of clarification or extension.

The Psychology of Prejudice

Prejudice is part of a complex system of phenomena, including social categorization and stereotyping, that are related to how an individual categorizes and evaluates members of different social groups. The process of social categorization, or seeing other people as group members instead of unique persons, is thought to be one of the starting places from which prejudice can develop (Stangor, 2000). Social categorization occurs easily and frequently, often without one’s awareness (Stangor, 2000). Stereotypes are mental representations of these social categories, including beliefs or expectations about people based upon their social group memberships. Stereotypes guide how an individual perceives others – what one notices about members of a social group, how others’ behavior is interpreted, and how this information is organized in one’s memory (Biernat, Manis, & Nelson, 1991; Fiske & Neuberg, 1990; Jones, 2002; Jussim, Nelson, Manis, & Soffin, 1995). However, stereotyping is not inevitable, as a perceiver’s own motivations and the ease with which an individual can be sorted into one’s existing mental representations influence engagement in stereotyping (Jones, 2002).

Stereotype awareness or the knowledge and understanding of stereotypes is a developmental phenomenon. The development of stereotype awareness, as it relates to ethnic-racial stereotypes, is theorized to begin to emerge by middle childhood. By early childhood, youth have an understanding of group categorization on the basis of ethnic-racial groups (Aboud, 2003). And by middle childhood, youth begin to develop more advanced social cognition like perspective taking, abstract thinking, and awareness of racial groups (Quintana, 2008). From the awareness of groups and more sophisticated cognition, youth begin to understand widely held beliefs about various ethnic-racial groups and how these beliefs can then be applied to individuals of a given ethnic-racial groups (Copping, Kurtz-Costes, Rowley, Wood, 2013; McKown & Weinstein, 2003). Indeed, empirical evidence has emerged to support the notion that middle to late childhood represents a time-increasing awareness of stereotypes (Pauker, Ambady, & Apfelbaum, 2010; Williams & Davidson, 2009).

Whereas stereotypes are mental shortcuts, prejudice is characterized by affect and emotional responses. Specifically, prejudice involves negative feelings or attitudes toward members of a given social group, such as dislike, discomfort, hatred, disgust, and fear that is directed toward people because of their social group memberships (Allport, 1954; Jones, 2002; Stangor, 2000). However, like stereotypes, prejudice often occurs quickly and unconsciously. Stereotypes do not always lead to prejudice, but they are often part of the process. For example, believing that people from given social group are unintelligent or lazy (a stereotype), may lead to a general dislike of members of that social group (prejudice). When applied to a specific group, prejudices often take on more exact forms and definitions (e.g. racism refers to race-based prejudice, sexism refers to gender-based prejudice).

People rapidly form emotional and evaluative appraisals (e.g., good-bad, positive-negative) of other people and objects, often without conscious awareness (Fiske, 2014). These rapid appraisals serve as subliminal cues, building implicit attitudes and biases. Implicit attitudes toward others involve “affect-laden associations” that people may or may not consciously endorse but nonetheless possess because of cultural or personal experiences (Gawronski & Bodenhausen, 2006; Fiske, 2014, pp. 239). For example, studies have found that people who are White more quickly identify positive words and attributes (e.g., “smart”) after seeing White faces and negative words after seeing Black faces; people who are Black more quickly identify positive words after seeing Black faces and negative words after seeing White faces (Dovidio, Evans, & Tyler, 1986; Fazio, Jackson, Dunton, & Williams, 1995; Perdue, Dovidio, Gurtman, & Typer, 1990). However, people’s motivation to control their prejudice reactions influences whether or not these associations become explicit attitudes, which involve more overt, conscious evaluations that people believe to be true, regardless of their actual accuracy (Fiske, 2014; Gawronski & Bodenhausen, 2006).

In recent decades, there has been an increased interest in examining how prejudice has shifted across time. Social norms have increasingly deemed prejudicial attitudes as inappropriate (Costa-Lopes, Dovidio, Pereira, & Jost, 2013; Monteith, Arthur, & Flynn, 2010) and modern forms of racism have become increasingly subtle and covert but are still strikingly prevalent: most estimates posit that 70–80% of Whites would score relatively high on modern racism (Fiske, 2014). Modern racism is largely characterized by the belief that racial discrimination is no longer a major issue in contemporary society, that racial and ethnic minorities are given special treatment by the government and other organizations, that they demand too much, and that they should try harder (McConahay, 1986; Poteat & Spanierman, 2012; Sears, Hetts, Sidanius, & Bobo, 2000). Moreover, Norton and Sommers (2011) recently found that many Whites view racism as a zero-sum game, believing that decreases in bias against Blacks over time have been associated with increases in bias against Whites. This modern form of racism is now more prevalent in America than traditional forms of racism (Fiske, 2014), underlining how modern-day, insidious racism may be less blatant than decades ago, but is still a pervasive issue.

Perhaps the greatest negative impact of prejudice lies in its behavioral enactment – discrimination. Researchers have noted that prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination are interrelated in how group attitudes function, with each representing affective, cognitive, and behavioral components, respectively (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). Discrimination refers to negative behavior toward members of a social group because of their group membership and often involves acting upon one’s stereotypes and prejudices (Allport, 1954; Fiske, 2014). Prejudice toward a given social group may also create a stigma against them, whereby people from a devalued social group are discredited and rejected (Link & Phelan, 2001), and is associated with a host of negative outcomes, such as decreased well-being and self-esteem; increased depression, psychological distress, and blood pressure; and shortened life span (Allison, 1998; Chae et al., 2014; DeBlaere & Bertsch, 2013; Kelleher, 2009). Thus, prejudice is part of a system that devalues and rejects members of certain social groups and is linked with a number of social and health disparities. In the following section, we provide an overview of manifestations of prejudice through dehumanization, stereotypes, stereotype threat, discrimination and microaggressions, and skin colorism.

Manifestations of Prejudice

Dehumanization

Dehumanization refers to “perceiving or treating people as if they are less than fully human” (Haslam & Stratemeyer, 2016, p. 25). Individuals are more likely to dehumanize outgroup members, lower-status groups, and the less powerful (Capozza, Andrighetto, Di Bernardo, & Falvo, 2012; Gwinn, Judd, & Park, 2013; Haslam & Loughnan, 2014). Once dehumanization takes place, individuals are less likely to feel empathy or offer help to targets (Cuddy, Rock, & Norton, 2007; Haslam & Loughnan, 2014; Haslam & Stratemeyer, 2016) and more likely to engage in violence and punitive behavior because it loosens the perpetrators’ moral constraints (Goff, Eberhardt, Williams, & Jackson, 2008; Obermann, 2011).

Childhood and Adolescence

Recent findings suggest that Black people in the USA are not regarded as having the same level of humanity as Whites. In one study, Goff and his colleagues (2014) examined the level of innocence ascribed by a predominantly White sample of participants to Black and White children. They found that Black and White children ages 0–9 were rated as similarly innocent – that is, needing of protection and deserving of care – regardless of racial group. However, Black children were rated as significantly less innocent than White 10-year-olds; this pattern was found through every age thereafter up through age 25 (the last age specified). These authors further found evidence in a series of subsequent studies that Black boys are differentially perceived: participants viewed them as older, more culpable for their actions, and more likely to be a target of use of force by law enforcement. Thus, Black boys were ascribed characteristics that made them less likely to be protected by their childhood status, as compared to their same-age White counterparts. Another related study revealed that with age, White children perceive Black children as experiencing less pain than White children. Dore and her colleagues (2014) asked a predominately White sample of 5-, 7-, and 10-year-olds to rate their own pain and the pain of Black and White target children. Five-year-olds rated the pain of Black and White targets similarly, but the 10-year-olds rated the pain of Black targets as lower than White targets in response to the same events. Thus, young Black children are less likely to be afforded the protection of characteristics ascribed to Whites – to be seen as less than children – which has profound implications for how they grow up in this society.

Adulthood

Research suggests that ethnic-racial minority adults also experience dehumanization. Most studies have focused on Black Americans, although immigrants and refugees are also common targets of dehumanization (Esses, Medianu, & Lawson, 2013). Dehumanization has been proposed as an explanation for police bias in shooting ethnic-racial minority individuals. For example, Mekawi, Bresin, and Hunter (2016) found that White adults higher in fear of Blacks and higher in the tendency to dehumanize Black people demonstrated a shooting bias toward Black targets as compared to White targets (Mekawi et al., 2016). Research around dehumanizing has revealed that individuals have made associations that Black individuals are less human than their White counterparts; however research has also revealed that dehumanizing can extend as far as making comparisons or associations between Black people and other species of nonhuman animals (Kteily & Bruneau, 2017). For example, Goff et al. (2008) examined the priming of historical Black and ape associations on performance in cognitive tasks and decision-making. Results revealed that implicit historical associations of Blacks and apes impaired basic, cognitive processes and altered judgment in criminal justice contexts for both White and ethnic-racial minority individuals, suggesting that these persistent historical associations between Blacks and apes likely contribute to the dehumanization of Black Americans. Dehumanization has also been implicated in individuals’ attitudes about social groups and interpersonal relationships. For example, examinations of individuals’ mental representations of social class groups indicate that the poor are perceived as Blacker than the middle class or wealthy and that they are also perceived as having less human traits, suggesting interrelated attitudes about the poor, Blacks, and possession of human qualities and emotions (Lei & Bodenhausen, 2017). In terms of interracial relationships, Skinner and Hudac (2017) found that Black-White interracial couples were dehumanized compared to same-race Black or White couples, and this was partially due to greater feelings of disgust toward the interracial vs. the same race couples. Notably, these studies suggest that fear and disgust are emotions associated with the dehumanization of outgroup members.

Waytz, Hoffman, and Trawalter (2015) proposed that some groups are perceived as superhuman; rather than perceiving groups as nonhuman because they are associated with animals or objects (i.e., dehumanization), they are instead perceived as nonhuman because they are associated with the possession of qualities that are perceived as supernatural, extrasensory, or magical. Yet, like dehumanization, superhumanization is proposed to be associated with negative outcomes; because they do not experience normal human emotions and sensations, superhuman groups are not subject to usual human consideration and treatment. Consistent with this, research has found that greater perceptions of Blacks as subhuman or superhuman are associated with White people’s perceptions that Black people are more tolerant of pain (Trawalter, Hoffman, & Waytz, 2012; Waytz et al., 2015). Thus, consistent with the research on children, Black adults are perceived to experience less pain than Whites, and this belief is tied to seeing Black people as something other than human.

Stereotypes

As described previously, stereotypes have been defined as shared knowledge structures about specific groups on the basis of social categories (Devine, 1989). The awareness of ethnic-racial stereotypes has been shown to impact individuals of color in many different domains, starting as early as childhood and moving through adulthood (Steele, 1997).

Childhood and Adolescence

In a cross-sectional study with Black and White American youth in grades 4, 6, and 8, researchers asked youth about their perceptions of adults’ beliefs about Black and White people with regard to academic and athletic ability. Results revealed that perceptions of adults’ stereotypes became increasingly stereotypical (where Blacks are less intelligent and more athletic than Whites) across the three age groups, thus demonstrating youth’s increasing awareness of stereotypes and the belief that others are likely to endorse these stereotypes (Copping et al., 2013).

Adulthood

In their sample of more than 600 ethnically diverse adults, Ghavami and Peplau (2013) found that American adults’ stereotypes of ethnic-racial minorities tend to be overtly negative. Middle Easterners are stereotyped as terrorists and dangerous (Ghavami & Peplau, 2013). American Indians are stereotyped as lazy and alcoholics (Tan, Fujioka, & Lucht, 1997). African Americans are stereotyped as unintelligent and living off of welfare (Chang & Kleiner, 2003). Latino/Latina individuals are stereotyped as likely illegal immigrants and criminal or lacking ambition (Feagin & Feagin, 1996). Asian Americans often encounter the perpetual foreigner stereotype (Kim, Wang, Deng, Alvarez, & Li, 2011) and are stereotyped as bad drivers as well as effeminate (Ghavami & Peplau, 2013). Further, they found that stereotypes of Blacks, Latinos, Middle Eastern Americans, and Whites better represented stereotypes of the men rather than the women from that group – one notable exception to this phenomenon was for stereotypes of Asian Americans, who were stereotyped as effeminate.

Stereotype Threat

Stereotype threat was first identified by Steele and Aronson (1995) as occurring when an individual experiences fear or anxiety about confirming a negative stereotype about a social group to which they belong (Inzlicht & Schmader, 2012). This anxiety or fear depletes cognitive resources as the individual works to avoid confirming the stereotype which, in turn, can result in learning decrements and performance declines. Scores of empirical research have provided evidence of these phenomena across the life span and social identities (e.g., ethnicity and race, gender, age, religion; Inzlicht & Schmader, 2012).

Childhood and Adolescence

Effects of racial stereotype threat and racial priming on task performance have been observed as early as middle childhood. In a study with Asian American youth, researchers primed youth with their Asian American identity before taking a math test. Results revealed that children in lower elementary school and middle school who were primed with their Asian identity scored higher on the math test than youth whose identity was not primed before taking test (Ambady, Shih, Kim, & Pittinsky, 2001). In a similar study, African American and European American 7- to 9-year-olds were racially primed by coloring a picture of either two African American children, two European American children, or two animals (control condition) playing outdoors. After coloring the picture, children then completed a test of verbal ability administered by two European American experimenters. Children, regardless of their race, performed better when given the White prime and performed worst when given the African American prime, compared to the control condition (Steele, Bianchi, & Ambady, 2014). Finally, in a study of 10- to 12-year-old Black children, results indicated that those who express awareness of race-based intelligence stereotypes (e.g., Black people are less intelligent than White people) performed worse on a verbal task (suggesting greater stereotype threat) compared to children unaware of race-based intelligence stereotypes (Shelvin, Rivadeneyra, & Zimmerman, 2014).

Adulthood

An immense body of research has found that stereotype threat has a number of negative consequences for adults, and most of these studies have focused on tests of intellectual ability. In their meta-analysis of 39 psychological studies on stereotype threat across the life span, spanning five countries and over 3000 participants, Walton and Spencer (2009) found that under conditions of stereotype threat, stereotyped students (e.g., African Americans, Hispanic Americans, women, etc.) performed worse than non-stereotyped students on tests of intellectual performance. However, when there was no stereotype threat, stereotyped students performed better than non-stereotyped students. These results suggest that stereotype threat has a significant impact on group differences in test scores. Walton, Spencer, and Erman (2013) conservatively estimate that stereotype threat is responsible for as much as 29% of the gap between Black and White students on the SAT. As described by Spencer, Logel, and Davies (2016), “it is as if the members of stereotyped groups were running all of their heats at a track meet into a stiff headwind. Although they had times similar to the members of non-stereotyped groups, when they all ran the final without a headwind, the members of the stereotype group sprinted to the head of the pack” (p. 422).

Discrimination and Microaggressions

Ethnic-racial discrimination refers to the exclusion or negative treatment of individuals from a particular ethnic-racial group (Landrine & Klonoff, 1996). Discrimination has been suggested as both a behavioral expression of prejudice and an attempt for majority group members to maintain their greater power by denying resources and opportunities to others (Fiske, 2014). Ethnic-racial microaggressions are brief and often subtle verbal, behavioral, or environmental insults and slights that target individuals because of their race or ethnicity (Sue Capodilupo et al., 2007) and might be categorized as “small” acts of ethnic-racial discrimination or harassment. Whereas racial microaggressions refer to experiences of “everyday discrimination” that take place in interpersonal interactions, formal ethnic-racial discrimination also includes structural and institutional forms of unfair treatment, such as racial preferences in hiring and racial bias in criminal justice sentencing. Both of these types of ethnic-racial mistreatment are considered to be stressors associated with significant negative outcomes (Landrine & Klonoff, 1996).

Childhood and Adolescence

One key stressor that is too often a fact of life for youth of color is discriminatory treatment that is unfair or meant to subordinate them due to their ethnicity or race (Brown, Alabi, Huynh, & Masten, 2011; Huynh, Guan, Almeida, McCreath, & Fuligni, 2016; Neblett, Rivas-Drake, & Umaña-Taylor, 2012; Umaña-Taylor, 2016). Experiences of everyday discrimination can occur in myriad behaviors and situations, such as being treated rudely, disrespectfully, or suspiciously, being called names or harassed, being treated as though one is threatening, and being condescended to (e.g., Fisher, Wallace, & Fenton, 2000; Sellers, Copeland-Linder, Martin, & Lewis, 2006). Such exposure manifests at multiple levels. At one level, youth can experience interpersonal discrimination during their interactions with other individuals; at another level, as members of marginalized groups, they may also have unequal access to resources in schools and disproportionate contact with law enforcement (Fisher et al., 2000; Ramey, 2015; Rosenbloom & Way, 2004; Wong, Eccles, & Sameroff, 2003). Moreover, a number of studies have shown that during adolescence, interpersonal discrimination is not only perpetrated by adults but also other youth (e.g., Greene, Way, & Pahl, 2006; Niwa et al., 2016; Rivas-Drake, Hughes, & Way, 2008).

In a recent review, Umaña-Taylor (2016) noted that ethnic-racial discrimination becomes more prevalent in adolescence relative to childhood. Many groups – including African American, Latino, Asian American, and Native American youth across the USA – experience this increase in discrimination from childhood to adolescence (Behnke, Plunkett, Sands, & Bámaca-Colbert, 2011; Benner & Graham, 2011; Benner & Kim, 2009; Niwa, Way, & Hughes, 2014; Rivas-Drake et al., 2008; Seaton, Caldwell, Sellers, & Jackson, 2008). Thus, it is not surprising that adolescence is a time of increased salience of discrimination (Benner, 2017). Some empirical evidence, albeit mixed, also suggests that exposure to persistent or increasing levels of discrimination between adolescence and young adulthood (i.e., 11–21 years of age) has long-term implications for youths’ well-being and adjustment (Brody et al., 2014; Greene et al., 2006; Witherspoon, Seaton, & Rivas-Drake, 2016).

In adolescence, discrimination experiences are linked to negative socioemotional and physical health outcomes, including lower self-esteem and more anger, depression, perceived stress, delinquency, conduct problems, substance use, and poorer sleep (Fuller-Rowell et al., 2012; Gibbons et al., 2007; Greene et al. 2006; Niwa et al., 2016; Rivas-Drake et al., 2008; Sellers et al., 2006; Simons, Chen, Stewart, & Brody, 2003; Wong et al., 2003; Yip, 2015; Zeiders, Umaña-Taylor, Jahromi, Updegraff, & White, 2016). Moreover, this may be due to increases in activity from the hypothalamic pituitary adrenal axis (the stress response system in the brain) as measured by cortisol (the stress hormone) levels (Huynh et al., 2016). The sequelae of exposure to discrimination extend to the academic domain as well (e.g., Benner & Graham, 2011; Benner & Kim, 2009; Chavous, Rivas-Drake, Smalls, Griffin, & Cogburn, 2008; Neblett, Chavous, Nguyên, & Sellers, 2009). More discrimination exposure prospectively predicted lower academic engagement among Chinese American adolescents (Benner & Kim, 2009) and grades in school among Chinese American (Benner & Kim, 2009) and Asian, Latino, and European American adolescents (Huynh & Fuligni, 2010). Benner and Graham (2011) found that increases in discrimination from fall of ninth grade and spring of tenth grade were associated with less positive school climate perceptions and, in turn, lower grades and more absences in tenth grade.

Adulthood

As with children and adolescents, adult experiences of ethnic-racial discrimination or microaggressions are associated with poor psychological and physical health outcomes across ethnic-racial groups, including hypertension, less energy, more pain, more anxiety and depression, and sleep problems (Ayalon & Gum, 2011; Dolezsar, McGrath, Herzig, & Miller, 2014; Fuller-Rowell et al., 2017; Gee, Spencer, Chen, Yip, & Takeuchi, 2007; Hwang & Goto, 2008; Lee & Ahn, 2011, 2012; Lewis, Cogburn, & Williams, 2015; Nadal, Griffin, Wong, Davidoff, & Davis, 2017; Nadal, Wong, Sriken, Griffin, Fujii-Doe, 2015; Sanchez, Smith, & Adams, 2018; Williams, Neighbors, & Jackson, 2003). Among ethnic-racial minority women in the USA, racial discrimination is related to adverse childbirth outcomes (e.g., low birth weight, preterm birth), suggesting that racial discrimination can have a significant intergenerational impact (Alhusen, Bower, Epstein, & Sharps, 2016).

Ethnic-racial discrimination in the workplace is a form of mistreatment unique to adults (and working teens). Studies indicate that 40–76% of ethnic-racial minority employees report at least one negative race-related experience at work within a 12–24-month period (Harrell, 2000; Schneider, Hitlan, & Radhakrishnan, 2000). Indeed, racial discrimination is pervasive in the workplace, and discriminatory hiring practices frequently exclude racial and ethnic minorities from even entering it. Using identical resumes that differed only in whether the potential employee had a Black sounding name or a White sounding name, Bertrand and Mullainathan (2004) found that applicants with a White sounding name were 50% more likely to receive a callback. Examining decades of hiring practices, Quillian, Pager, Hexel, and Midbøen (2017) conducted a meta-analysis of hiring discrimination based on studies using this type of resume comparison or those in which confederates trained to have similar job-related characteristics but differ in race apply for the same jobs. They found that since 1989, Whites receive an average of 36% more callbacks than Blacks and 24% more callbacks than Latinos, evidence of persistent racial discrimination in hiring practices. Further, they found that there has been no change in the level of hiring discrimination toward Blacks compared to Whites but a small decline in discrimination toward Latinos compared to Whites. Racial discrimination also occurs in promotion practices. For example, both Black and White supervisors give White workers higher performance ratings than Black workers, although this bias is greater for White supervisors (Stauffer & Buckley, 2005). As with general assessments of ethnic-racial discrimination, another meta-analysis indicated that perceived racial discrimination in the workplace is related to more negative job attitudes and worse physical and psychological health (del Carmen Triana, Jayasinghe, & Pieper, 2015).

Skin Colorism

Another form of prejudice experienced by people of color in the USA is colorism. Colorism can be defined as “the allocation of privilege and disadvantage according to the lightness or darkness of one’s skin tone” (Burke, 2008, p. 17). Typically, privileges are afforded individuals with lighter skin tones over those with darker skin tones. This is a phenomenon that occurs both within and between ethnic-racial minority groups in the USA (Hunter, 2007).

Childhood and Adolescence

Preferences for lighter skin tones can be observed as early as childhood. One study of African American children enrolled in kindergarten assessed attitudes and stereotypes through storytelling (Averhart & Bigler, 1997). Results revealed that children showed better memory when the darker-skinned character was paired with the negative traits and the lighter-skinned character was paired with the positive traits (Averhart & Bigler, 1997). Results also showed that children had better memory of stereotypic stories (i.e., dark-skinned person in a low-status occupation and light-skinned person in a high-status occupation) than counter-stereotypic stories (i.e., light-skinned person in a low-status occupation and dark-skinned person in a high-status occupation; Averhart & Bigler, 1997). A more recent study of 7- and 9-year-old African American children found that children were more likely to assign positive traits to lighter-skinned children and negative traits darker-skinned children (Williams & Davidson, 2009). Further, among 123 African American adolescents ranging in age from 11 to 19 (M = 15 years), youth who rated themselves as having dark skin were less likely to report satisfaction with their skin tone compared to adolescents with light skin. Further, over 50% of dark-skinned adolescents reported wishing their skin tone was lighter (Robinson & Ward, 1995).

Adulthood

For adults, lighter skin tone is associated with more favorable outcomes across a number of domains (Adams, Kurtz-Costes, & Hoffman, 2016), including educational and occupational outcomes. For example, Latinos with lighter skin tone are rated as more intelligent than those with darker skin tones, controlling for educational attainment and vocabulary test scores (Hannon, 2014). Lighter skin tone Asian Americans are more likely to get a Bachelor’s degree than those with a dark brown skin tone (Ryabov, 2016). In terms of employment, Harrison and Thomas (2009) conducted an experiment of hiring decisions and found that lighter-skinned Black applicants received more positive ratings than darker-skinned Blacks. They also found that lighter-skinned Blacks with more qualifications for the position received more positive ratings than darker-skinned Blacks with fewer qualifications, and this effect was particularly strong for ratings of Black men. In real-world settings, research finds that African American males with the lightest skin tone are more likely to find a job and be in college and African American females with the lightest skin tone are more likely to find a full-time job (Ryabov, 2013). Further, among Latinos, those with darker skin are more likely to be employed in ethnic niches (i.e., in sectors with same-race co-workers) compared to those with lighter skin, controlling for demographic factors such as education and language ability (Morales, 2008). Colorism has also been examined in the criminal justice system. For example, King and Johnson (2016) found that defendants with darker skin tone and more Afrocentric features were more likely to be sentenced to prison (vs. given a stay), and this finding was present for both Black and White individuals.

Despite the consensus of lighter skin tone being associated with more positive outcomes, some studies have examined differences in colorism between ingroup (i.e., same race) and outgroup members. Among African American women, those with a light skin tone were judged as more attractive and reported the least colorism (i.e., poor treatment) from outgroup members (Uzogara & Jackson, 2016). However, from ingroup members, African American women with average or medium skin tone reported receiving the best treatment. In a qualitative study of African American women, Hall (2017) similarly found that medium-skinned women reported the positive treatment and acceptance from other ingroup members, whereas darker-skinned women were perceived most negatively and light-skinned women most positively, by outgroup members. Among African American men, light-skinned men reported less outgroup discrimination than dark-skinned men. Further, compared to light- and dark-skinned men, medium-skinned men perceived the least discrimination from ingroup members (Uzogara, Lee, Abdou, & Jackson, 2014).

Some Ethnic-Racial Promotive and Protective Mechanisms

Given the various forms of ethnic-racial prejudice and discrimination outlined above, we briefly discuss ethnic-racial coping strategies and ethnic-racial identity as resiliency factors in the face of adversity.

Ethnic-Racial Coping

With increased understanding and ability to perceive ethnic-racial prejudice in childhood and adolescence, researchers have begun to investigate both the strategies that individuals use to cope with prejudice and discrimination and how those strategies may change in a given context (Richardson et al., 2015). In general, research has revealed that engaging in approach strategies (i.e., attempts to improve a situation through cognitive or behavioral actions; Ayers, Sandier, West, & Roosa, 1996) are often related to more positive and adaptive outcomes for adolescents and adults of color (e.g., greater feelings of self-efficacy and lower levels of psychological distress; Krieger, 1990; Noh & Kaspar, 2003; Polanco-Roman, Danies, & Anglin, 2016). Additionally, confronting discrimination may be associated with higher psychological well-being via greater feelings of autonomy (Sanchez, Himmelstein, Young, Albuja, & Garcia, 2016). Support-seeking coping strategies (i.e., obtaining emotional or behavioral support from others) have yielded inconsistent relations for youth of color (Brondolo, Brady, Pencille, Beatty, & Contrada, 2009; Noh & Kaspar, 2003), although Kim (2013) found that emotion-focused coping lessened depressive symptoms associated with racial discrimination among Asian Americans and peer support was found to be protective among a multiracial sample of college students (Juang, Ittel, Hoferichter, & Gallarin, 2016). In contrast to approach coping strategies, avoidance coping strategies (i.e., not thinking about or ignoring a problem) are often related to negative or less adaptive outcomes for adolescents and adults of color (e.g., Sanchez et al., 2018; Seaton, Upton, Gilbert, & Volpe, 2014; Utsey, Ponterotto, Reynolds, & Cancelli, 2000). However, the efficacy of coping strategies in their protection against the deleterious effects of discrimination appears to be sensitive to the context and the other factors within the individual (Seaton et al., 2014).

Ethnic-Racial Identity

Ethnic-racial identity (ERI) refers to the significance and importance individuals attach to their ethnic-racial group affiliation. Some studies have found that the importance one places on race and positive feelings toward one’s ethnic-racial group can lessen the negative effect of racial discrimination (Rivas-Drake et al., 2008; Sellers, Caldwell, Schmeelk-Cone, & Zimmerman, 2003). Further, Umaña-Taylor, Tynes, Toomey, Williams, and Mitchell (2015) found that Latino youth who experienced more peer discrimination evinced more externalizing problems when they had less clarity about their ethnic identity (lower ERI resolution) or felt more negatively about it (lower affirmation). The results of the protective vs. risk role of public regard, or the belief that others view your ethnic-racial group positively, is unclear, as a study of Chinese American early adolescents (sixth graders) who experienced high levels of peer discrimination reported fewer depressive symptoms when they perceived more favorable public regard (Rivas-Drake et al., 2008). In contrast, a study of African American youth indicated that racial discrimination was more weakly related to depression and stress for those low public regard (i.e., those who perceived others view African Americans unfavorably; Sellers et al., 2006). In terms of physical health, research has found that positive ERI reduces physiological stress responses, negative health behaviors, and poor health outcomes associated with ethnic-racial discrimination in ethnic-racial minority individuals (Lucas et al., 2017; Neblett & Carter, 2012; Neblett & Roberts, 2013; Richman, Boynton, Costanzo, & Banas, 2013). Further, racial identity can be important for academic outcomes. For example, among Latino third and fourth grade children attending schools where they were not the majority group, teacher discrimination was associated with less positive academic attitudes and school belonging. By contrast, teacher discrimination was not associated with academic attitudes or belonging among children with more positive ethnic identities (Brown & Chu, 2012).

Areas in Need of Clarification

Understanding Impact of Prejudice at the Tails of the Life Span

The majority of theory and empirical research regarding prejudice comes from social psychology. Therefore, much of the work to date has been theorized for adults and examines prejudice in young to middle-aged adult samples. Less research can be found exploring prejudice and its impacts in the early and late years of life. Much of the literature regarding children and prejudice merely assesses children’s awareness of prejudice and rarely assesses its relation or impact on psychosocial, academic, and mental health outcomes. Among older adult samples, even less literature could be found examining the relation and impact of ethnic-racial prejudice on important outcomes. Research on prejudice toward ethnic-racial minority youth may be particularly needed if it is the case that children and adolescents are more vulnerable to the effects given that they may have had fewer prejudice experiences and may be less well-equipped with protective factors, compared to adults. Indeed, research has begun to reveal differences in perceptions of discrimination among children and older adults, compared to younger adult samples, on other forms of prejudice (Garstka, Schmitt, Branscombe, & Hummert, 2004; North & Fiske, 2012).

Understanding Prejudice Across Different Countries and Groups

Much of our understanding of prejudice is derived from American theories and typically has focused on the experiences of Black Americans. However, experiences of prejudice on the basis of ethnicity or race have been documented in countries across the globe (e.g., Hansen, 2015; Mobius, Rosenblat, & Wang, 2016), although who is the target of mistreatment and its implications may vary. Having a more comprehensive insight of the manifestations and experiences of prejudice across other countries can aid in the understanding of what aspects of prejudice are universal across nations and cultures and what aspects of prejudice are uniquely American. Research has also revealed that prejudice and its manifestations occur across various ethnic and racial minority groups (e.g., Mossakowski, Wongkaren, & Uperesa, 2017; Romero, Edwards, Fryberg, & Orduña, 2014). Within the USA, Black samples have dominated the extant prejudice research. Although research on prejudice manifestations among Asian/Asian Americans and Latina/Latino populations is increasing, very little exists for American Indian/Native American or Middle Eastern/North African individuals. More research is needed to understand how prejudice manifests in the lives of individuals of other ethnic-racial minority groups in the USA. Perhaps it is the case, there are nuances in the expression of prejudice that are different for individuals of ethnic-racial groups who are perceived as immigrants (e.g., Asians or Latina/Latinos) compared to those who are not perceived as immigrants (e.g., American Indian/Native Americans or African Americans). Thus, future research should aim to develop a more international perspective and explore experiences of prejudice in an array of ethnic and racial minority groups to develop a more comprehensive and robust understanding of the prejudice experienced by ethnic and racial minority individuals.

Measurement Issues

In order for future research to better articulate the impact of ethnic-racial prejudice on the lives and conceptualization of the self across the life span and across ethnically and racially diverse populations, measures should be sensitive to the ways in which prejudice may manifest among different groups. For instance, Armenta et al. (2013) report on a measure developed to assess “foreigner objectification,” which refers to actions that convey or perpetuate the stereotype that ethnic minorities are foreigners or perpetual foreigners. Their measure was designed to capture experiences such as being asked “where are you from?” by strangers; being spoken to in “an unnecessarily slow or loud way”; having someone “comment on or be surprised by” one’s English language ability; and having had one’s American citizenship or residency questioned. Although the authors argued and demonstrated empirically that the measure was psychometrically invariant between Asian American and Latino samples, the implications of such objectification varied by foreign-born status. In particular, among US-born individuals, perceived foreigner objectification was directly linked to less life satisfaction and more depressive symptoms; among foreign-born participants, such objectification was linked to a greater perception of being viewed as less American, and this in turn was associated with lower life satisfaction. This is just one example of how measurement issues can be addressed in the study of ethnic-racial prejudice but one that underscores the conceptual (i.e., qualitative nature of prejudice) and empirical implications of attending to such issues (i.e., invariance in psychometric properties and differential links to psychosocial outcomes across populations).

Intersectionality

More research on prejudice and its manifestations should employ an intersectional perspective. Intersectionality theory takes into account that individuals hold multiple social identities that together shape their lived experience (Cole, 2009; Crenshaw, 1993; Warner, Settles, & Shields, 2017). The meaning of one social identity, such as race/ethnicity, therefore depends on the other identities one holds. As a result, prejudice toward ethnic-racial minority individuals is likely to be experienced and manifests differently depending on their sex, gender identity, social class, nationality, sexual orientation, etc. Additionally, intersectionality focuses on the relative power, privilege, and access to resources (or lack thereof) afforded to individuals based on the status of their multiple social identities and also brings attention to the social context and structural forces (Else-Quest & Hyde, 2016; Moradi & Grzanka, 2017). Thus, an intersectional perspective on prejudice would grapple with not only prejudice experienced at the interpersonal level (e.g., through rude treatment or being stereotyped as unintelligent) but also how it is manifested in biased social systems and social structures (e.g., how immigration laws and rhetoric institutionalize racial profiling of Latinos or how zero tolerance policies in schools allow teachers’ racial and ethnic prejudices to disproportionately negatively affect students of color).

Implications for Public Policy

Given the prejudice that ethnic-racial minority individuals are likely to experience over the course of their lifetimes, scholars have sought to explain how prejudice may contribute to the inequalities that exist across various domains of life between ethnic-racial majority and ethnic-racial minority groups. The empirical evidence indicates that developing policies to reduce prejudice across various segments of society is paramount. For example, efforts to reduce bias among school teachers and administrators and law enforcement and judicial officials are of particular importance, as they may serve as authorities of discipline for youth at an early age. School teacher and administrator training about prejudice and prejudice reduction should be addressed in coursework for new teachers and administrators as well as continued education/training in professional development workshops for teachers and administrators. Similarly, education about prejudice and prejudice reduction should be required in the training of law enforcement and judicial officials, both in initial and continued education. These individuals should be able to understand and identify prejudice and its manifestations, along with how prejudice can broadly impact their profession and personally influence the decisions they make for individuals of color. To further mitigate prejudice within these fields, increased regulations and vigilance could be enacted to provide transparency about the status of prejudice in the field both in terms of events related to prejudice and efforts made to reduce bias. Further, stricter sanctions for transgressions related to prejudice could be instilled. In conclusion, it critical that public policy-makers are aware of and understand the impact of prejudice in the lives of individuals of color and should make marked steps in mitigating the deleterious effects of ethnic-racial prejudice through the allocation of resources toward awareness of and training in anti-bias strategies.

Summary and Key Points

This chapter offers a broad overview of the psychology of ethnic and racial prejudice across the life span. From this review, it is clear that prejudice manifests in a number of ways that contribute to negative life outcomes and limited opportunities for ethnic-racial minority individuals in the USA. Underlying these adverse outcomes are negative feelings, attitudes, and beliefs about ethnic-racial minorities that have often developed as a means of justifying the greater status and privilege afforded to White people in the USA. The manifestations of prejudice may also occur simultaneously or work in concert. For example, the dehumanization of Black people may contribute to discrimination toward them. Further, research suggests that the negative effects of ethnic-racial prejudice on ethnic-racial minorities begin early and persist into adulthood (Sanders-Phillips, Settles-Reaves, Walker, & Brownlow, 2009). In fact, some effects may be intergenerational (Hartmann & Gone, 2016). Because of the negative effect of prejudice on ethnic-racial minority individuals, and because we live in an increasingly globalized and diverse world where intergroup contact is common, it is paramount to investigate and understand the ways which individuals may encounter and experience prejudice throughout the course of their lives. Indeed, research surrounding prejudice has flourished and proven to be a topic of importance and interest among scholars; however, continued research in this field is warranted to develop more nuanced and complex understandings of prejudice and how it manifests and unfolds in the lives of ethnic and racial minority individuals.