Next Article in Journal
If You Don’t See Inequality, You Cannot Teach Equality: What Is Missing in STEM Teachers’ Perceptions for an Equality Pedagogy in STEM Teaching?
Previous Article in Journal
Regional Autonomy in Nigeria: Influence on Dynamics of Governance and National Integration
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Social Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 9
10.3390/socsci14090564
socsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Advocacy in the Face of Adversity: Influence in the Relationship Between Racial Microaggressions and Social Justice Advocacy

by
Michael S. Ternes
,
Johanna E. Nilsson
*,
Anum Khalid
and
Melànie B. Siems
Department of Psychology and Counseling, University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, MO 64110, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Soc. Sci. 2025, 14(9), 564; https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14090564
Submission received: 30 June 2025 / Revised: 25 August 2025 / Accepted: 16 September 2025 / Published: 19 September 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Crime and Justice)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Background: Urban institutions offer quality post-secondary education to individuals who may not otherwise have access, yet do not always provide necessary resources for racially marginalized students. Students at primarily White, urban institutions face race-based stressors, such as microaggressions. According to stress and coping theory, individuals respond to stressors through coping strategies, which differ in effectiveness and subsequent outcomes. Social justice advocacy (SJA) represents a potentially important avenue for coping with discrimination, yet the relationship between microaggressions and SJA, as well as the association of task-focused coping with SJA, is unclear. Methods: A total of 96 students with racially marginalized identities were surveyed. Results: Analyses revealed significant associations between experiencing racial microaggressions, coping, and engagement in SJA, as well as a partial mediations of the associations between racial microaggressions and engagement in SJA through task-focused coping. Conclusions: The study offers support for the established association between discrimination and coping, including SJA. Results indicate that consideration should be given to SJA and task-focused coping as encouraged responses to racial microaggressions. Future studies should evaluate the outcome of these coping efforts and consider alternative ways of coping.

1. Introduction

Most of the United States population lives in or near urban areas. In tandem with this reality is a higher concentration of individuals who possess marginalized racial identities. Urban universities were founded on the principles of accessible education. This accessibility was intended to provide quality education to those who may not resemble traditional post-secondary education students or may not otherwise have access to such opportunities (Riposa 2003). Despite this tradition and their practice of outreach to the communities with which they are often directly intertwined, urban universities, particularly those that are predominantly White institutions (PWIs), may not understand the unique experiences and needs of their marginalized students (Apugo 2017). For example, PWIs may not fully invest in students with marginalized racial identities inside and outside of the classroom, failing to offer peer and faculty mentorship opportunities that are essential for the retention of students with such identities (Griffith et al. 2019; Palmer et al. 2011).
In addition to failing to provide resources, educational environments at PWIs can be sources of discrimination. For example, the environment of an institution or program, including faculty and staff who resemble potential sources of support via mentorship and meaningful connection for racially marginalized students, may be the ones who enact instances of discrimination (García-Louis et al. 2023; Wong and Jones 2018). Furthermore, faculty and staff may be unprepared to handle difficult discussions on race emerging from in-class microaggressions, which often elicit strong emotional reactions in both teachers and students (Sue et al. 2009). Experiences of discrimination in educational environments are often not experienced as isolated incidents, but rather as cumulative (Griffith et al. 2019). These cumulative discriminatory experiences have significant harmful impacts on students’ self-perceptions and well-being, which can contribute to elevated psychological distress and foster a sense of not belonging within PWI environments (Apugo 2017; García-Louis et al. 2023; Wong and Jones 2018).

1.1. Discrimination and Coping

Discrimination is a large and complex phenomenon that shapes systemic, cultural, and interpersonal dynamics and adversely impacts health outcomes (Vargas et al. 2020). There is extensive evidence of the negative impact of racial discrimination on mental and physical health of racially marginalized individuals (e.g., Vargas et al. 2020; Williams and Mohammed 2009). Generally, racial discrimination is not an isolated experience, often representing a pervasive aspect of lifetime experience (Neukrug et al. 2022). Experiences of racial discrimination are present across cultural identities (Williams et al. 2019), yet can manifest with distinct form and impact for Black/African American (McDermott et al. 2022; Williams et al. 2019), Asian/Asian-American (Song et al. 2025), Latinx/Hispanic (Forster et al. 2022; McDermott et al. 2022), and Muslim communities (Colgan et al. 2024; Jeevanba et al. 2024), as well as communities representing intersections of marginalized identities such as lesbian, gay, and bisexual people of color (Huynh and Lee 2023). Manifestations of racial discrimination do not have to be overt and immediately recognizable events, such as racially motivated violence. Instead, racial discrimination can take on more subtle forms. One such form is that of racial microaggressions.
Racial microaggressions are defined as intended and unintended indignities communicated through verbal, behavioral, and environmental messages that carry hostile or debasing meaning regarding a person or group on the basis of race. These intended and unintended communications can be categorized as microassaults understood as “explicit racial derogation characterized primarily by a verbal or nonverbal attack meant to hurt the intended victim through name-calling, avoidant behavior, or purposeful discriminatory actions”; microinsults defined as “communications that convey rudeness and insensitivity and demean a person’s racial heritage or identity…subtle snubs, frequently unknown to the perpetrator, but clearly convey a hidden insulting message”; and microinvalidation referring to “communications that exclude, negate, or nullify the psychological thoughts, feelings, or experiential reality of a person of color” (Sue et al. 2007, p. 247).
Racial microaggressions can lead to a number of negative outcomes related to psychological health and social adjustment. Specifically, experiences of racial microaggressions are associated with increased anxiety, traumatic stress, and depressive symptoms (e.g., Blume et al. 2012; Moody and Lewis 2019; Ong et al. 2013; Sue et al. 2007). Shahid et al. (2018) found that racial tension on a PWI campus was associated with more stress for Black college women. In another study of Black women in a PWI environment, experiences of microaggressions were associated with depression and psychological distress such that 30% of participants reported experiencing depression and 54% reported general psychological distress (Burton et al. 2024). Taken together, microaggressions represent a frequent, raced-based stressor experienced by individuals with marginalized racial identities.
Stress and coping theory postulates a relationship between individuals and their environment, such that individuals assess situations to determine meaning and importance (Lazarus and Folkman 1984). When a situation is meaningful to an individual and contains demands that exceed an individual’s available resources, it is regarded as a source of stress. Due to the influence of personal values and characteristics in determining whether or not a situation is meaningful, the categorization of a specific situation as stressful can differ across people and contexts (Folkman 2010), not unlike racial microaggressions necessitating the perception of harm by the individual who has experienced them (Sue et al. 2007). When a stressor has been identified, individuals must then consider ways in which they could respond through coping actions and cognitions intended to mitigate both internal and external effects of a stressor (Lazarus and Folkman 1984).
While individuals may utilize different styles of coping, task-focused, also referred to as problem-focused, coping is recognized as an effective style, reflected through coping strategies such as decision-making and problem-solving (Folkman 2010; Lazarus and Folkman 1984). Researchers have documented associations between task-focused coping and reduced levels of distress (Ben-Zur 2005; Folkman and Lazarus 1988). For example, in a U.S.-based study of over 500 adults, those who endorsed more depression and sleep problems during the COVID-19 pandemic reported less distress when utilizing task-focused coping (Chang et al. 2024).

1.2. Coping with Discrimination and Social Justice Advocacy

Individuals facing persistent perceived discrimination utilize a variety of different strategies to address the impacts of the stress they experience. Some may cope through emotion-focused strategies such as religious practices, acceptance, and disengagement (Huynh and Lee 2023; Jeevanba et al. 2024; Song et al. 2025). Others lean into more active, task-focused coping such as social networking and support, confronting sources of discrimination, and taking steps to protect oneself through behavioral modification (Colgan et al. 2024; Huynh and Lee 2023; Jeevanba et al. 2024; Neukrug et al. 2022). Some studies examining coping responses to racial discrimination have shown that emotion-focused coping is associated with higher levels of distress, while task-focused coping is related to lower levels of distress (Forster et al. 2022; Jelsma et al. 2022). In a study of 549 racially diverse college students, Farber and colleagues (Farber et al. 2021) found that task-focused coping mediated the relationship between racial microaggressions and symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress.
Social justice advocacy (SJA) is a form of active engagement that is motivated by valuing equitable treatment of those who have been marginalized or hold less societal power (Constantine et al. 2007; Lee and Barrett 2007). It is an active pursuit of economic, social, and political change for the betterment of people’s lives (Cohen 2001). SJA can take many forms including educating others about a cause, operating as an ambassador of one’s culture (Griffith et al. 2019; Song et al. 2025), or fighting for the rights of oneself and others to exist and thrive in society (Kira et al. 2025). One way to measure engagement in and attitudes toward SJA in research, is the Social Issues Advocacy Scale-2 Short Form (SIAS-2 SF; Nilsson et al. 2024; Marszalek et al. 2017). This measure captures aspects of multiple SJA constructs including (a) an awareness of social and political inequities; (b) engagement in traditional activist behaviors, such as voting, demonstrating, and contacting legislators; (c) reported willingness to confront and challenge colleagues and friends when observing discriminatory actions and/or attitudes; (d) self-expressed commitment to and engagement with local communities; and (e) social justice self-efficacy.
Past research observed an association between engagement in SJA and an enhanced sense of empowerment and healing following experiences of racial discrimination (Kira et al. 2025). As such, SJA may represent an important style of coping in response to perceived discriminatory experiences like racial microaggressions. When surveyed, 171 mostly Latinx, undocumented college students reported experiences of racial discrimination in significant association with elevated levels of depressive symptoms, while also exhibiting a significantly positive association with engagement in SJA. SJA was then an important component in a serial mediation that demonstrated a small, yet significant, association with reduced depressive symptoms (Cadenas et al. 2025). In another study, a sample of 281 counselors-in-training exhibited significant associations between exposure to gender and racial discrimination and greater engagement in SJA (Luu and Inman 2022).
When considering SJA in the context of task-focused coping, scant research exists. One study of 412 doctoral students in psychology revealed a small, yet significant association between task-focused coping and engagement with SJA in the context of perceived discrimination among other contextual variables (Linnemeyer et al. 2018). While the majority of participants in Linnemeyer and colleagues’ study were White women, calls to replicate the findings in a more diverse sample have yet to be answered. Taken together, while SJA may serve as an important coping response to racial discrimination, there is a paucity of research exploring this association. Additionally, little is known about how task-focused coping might inform this relationship.

1.3. Present Study

Despite being institutions that aspire to offer educational opportunities to those who may not otherwise have access (Riposa 2003), urban universities, particularly those that are PWIs, may not provide the depth of support necessary for racially marginalized students to persist and succeed in their educational pursuits (Griffith et al. 2019; Palmer et al. 2011). Racial discrimination is a pervasive experience for those with marginalized racial identities (Apugo 2017; Williams and Mohammed 2009) that can manifest through subtle forms of communication known as microaggressions (Sue et al. 2007), a form of race-based stress.
Individuals respond to identified stressors with actions and cognitions intended to mitigate the effects of such stressors on internal and external aspects of experience (Lazarus and Folkman 1984). Despite the burgeoning evidence for the importance of SJA as a coping response (Cadenas et al. 2025; García-Louis et al. 2023; Kira et al. 2025), there is a paucity of research into this association for racially marginalized students at urban PWIs. This study examined task-focused coping and its relationships with social justice advocacy in the context of racial microaggressions in a racially diverse, urban college sample. This study sought to provide insight into the potential relationships amongst these variables to contribute to the growing body of literature emphasizing SJA as an important avenue of coping with racial discrimination. The following hypotheses were proposed:
  • Experiencing racial microaggressions will be significantly positively associated with the utilization of task-focused coping.
  • Experiencing racial microaggressions will be significantly positively associated with engagement in social justice advocacy.
  • Task-focused coping will significantly mediate the relationship between racial microaggressions and engagement with social justice advocacy, such that task-focused coping will significantly positively relate to engagement in social justice advocacy, as well as display significant indirect effect in the relationship between racial microaggressions and four different aspects of social justice advocacy (relationship building, political and social advocacy, willingness to confront and challenge, political awareness).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

A total of 96 participants completed the study. These participants ranged in age from 18 to 53 (M = 21.39, SD = 4.84). The participants reported their gender identities, with 77.1% (n = 74) reporting being a woman and 21.8% reporting being a man (n = 20) or transgender man (n = 1). One participant declined to respond. Regarding sexual orientation, 12.5% (n = 12) of participants reported being bisexual or pansexual, 3.1% (n = 3) reported being gay or lesbian, 81.3% (n = 78) reported being straight or heterosexual, and 2.1% (n = 2) reported identifying with another sexual orientation. Again, one participant declined to respond. In this sample, 20.8% (n = 20) were freshmen, 27.1% (n = 26) were sophomores, 29.2% (n = 28) were juniors, and 22.9% (n = 22) were seniors. Finally, participants reported their racial/ethnic identities, with 25% (n = 24) Hispanic/Latinx, 24% (n = 23) Asian American/Pacific Islander, 24% (n = 23) Black/African American, 14.6% (n = 14) bi- or multi-racial, 5.2% (n = 5) Middle Eastern, 4.2% (n = 4) international students, and 1% (n = 1) being West Indian. Two individuals declined to report their racial/ethnic identity. Though participants were recruited through a participant pool associated with general education and major emphasis courses in the psychology department, thirteen different majors and double majors were reported within the sample.

2.2. Measures

The Racial Microaggression Scale (RMAS; Torres-Harding et al. 2012) was used to assess participants’ experiences with racial microaggressions. The scale comprises 32 items, each scored on a four-point Likert-type scale ranging from 0 (Never) to 3 (Often/Frequently), with higher scores indicating more frequent experiences with racial microaggressions. Example items include, “Because of my race, other people assume that I am a foreigner” and “Others suggest that my racial heritage is dysfunctional or undesirable.” In addition to its total score, the RMAS contains six subscales (invisibility, criminality, dysfunctional culture, sexualization, foreigner/not belonging, environmental microaggressions). The RMAS evidenced convergent validity via positive correlations with the Schedule of Racist Events, a measure of lifetime racial mistreatment and discrimination. Internal reliability has been reported to be excellent (α = 0.93). This study utilized a total scale score, and internal reliability was excellent (α = 0.95).
The Social Issues Awareness Scale-2 Short Form (SIAS-2 SF; Nilsson et al. 2024; Marszalek et al. 2017) was used to assess social justice advocacy. SIAS-2 SF consists of eight subscales comprising 38 items: relationship building, political and social advocacy, sense of community responsibility, willingness to challenge and confront, political awareness, social issue awareness, social justice self-efficacy, and confronting discrimination. Items are scored on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), with higher total scale scores representing higher self-reported social justice advocacy. The SIAS-2 SF evidenced convergent validity via significant, positive associations with measures of related variables including political engagement, cultural openness and desire to learn, social justice self-efficacy and engagement, as well as a significant, negative association with belief in a just world. Cronbach’s alpha for total scale has shown excellent internal reliability (α = 0.94). Rather than utilize a total score, the authors examined the items in each subscale to determine which subscales evaluated disposition and which examined action. Consistent with this study’s focus on engagement in social justice advocacy, only subscales containing action-oriented items (e.g., I discuss policy/legislative issues that are important to me with co-workers or acquaintances) were included in the analyses. The four subscales retained were Relationship Building (α = 0.86), Political and Social Advocacy (α = 0.88), Political Awareness (α = 0.79), and Willingness to Challenge and Confront (α = 0.80).
The Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations-Short Form (CISS-SF; Cohan et al. 2006; Endler and Parker 1994) assessed participants’ utilization of different coping strategies. Consisting of 13-items and scored on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much), the CISS-SF yields scores on two subscales: task-oriented coping (six-items; “Determine a course of action and follow it”) and emotion-oriented coping (seven-items; “Become very upset”). Higher scores indicate a higher prevalence of coping with the associated coping style. Both the task-oriented and emotion-oriented subscales have demonstrated acceptable to good internal reliability (Cohan et al. 2006). Consistent with this study’s focus on task-focused coping, only the task-focused coping subscale was utilized in all analyses. Internal consistency in the present study was regarded as good for task-oriented coping (α = 0.83).

2.3. Procedures and Planned Analyses

Following IRB approval, participants were recruited via a participant pool at a large, Midwestern university comprising students in general education and major emphasis courses in the psychology department. Participants who agreed to participate in the study completed a survey through Qualtrics including demographic items and instruments assessing participants’ experience of racial microaggressions, social justice advocacy, and coping behaviors. Upon completion of the survey, participants were thanked for their time and provided with extra credit.
Analyses were performed with SPSS (Version 29), R version 4.3.3 (R Core Team 2024), and PROCESS macro for R (Hayes 2022). Preliminary analyses included an evaluation of the data for missingness, as well as univariate and multivariate normality. Descriptive statistics were derived, including intervariable correlations. Mediation analyses were completed with PROCESS macro for R. Assumption testing included linearity, homoskedasticity, normality of residuals, multicollinearity, and outliers. Following assumption evaluation for each initial model, mediation analyses were repeated implementing bootstrapping and heteroskedasticity-consistent standard errors, excluding model outliers, to evaluate all hypotheses.

3. Results

3.1. Preliminary Analyses

Participants missing more than 20% of response data were excluded from the analysis. Remaining missingness was evaluated using Little’s Missing Completely at Random (Little 1988), which found that missing data were missing completely at random ( χ 2(12) = 11.253, p = 0.51) with less than 1% missing data. Monte Carlo estimation was used to conduct a power analysis. Assuming large effects in the relationship between the predictor and mediator variable and in the relationship between the mediator and the outcome variable, approximately 65 participants would be needed. Assuming moderate effects, 176 participants would be needed. Given the limited power of the present sample and data missing completely at random, multiple imputation was utilized to maximize the sample available for the primary analyses. Univariate normality was assessed using a Shapiro–Wilk, which showed experiencing microaggressions (W = 0.98, p = 0.13), relationship building (W = 0.98, p = 0.08), and political awareness (W = 0.98, p = 0.11) as univariate normal, while task-focused coping (W = 0.93, p < 0.001), political and social advocacy (W = 0.96, p < 0.01), and willingness to challenge and confront (W = 0.95, p < 0.01) were non-normal.
Data were then standardized and fitted to four mediation models using PROCESS (Hayes 2022) in the open-source statistical platform R (R Core Team 2024). In each model experiencing racial microaggressions task-focused coping. Then, racial microaggressions and task-focused coping each predicted one of the action-oriented subscales of the SIAS-2 SF (relationship building, political and social advocacy, willingness to challenge and confront, and political awareness). To explore these proposed relationships, PROCESS runs two component linear regression models and uses the provided coefficients to generate estimates of direct and indirect effects. To address concerns related to non-normality and potential heteroskedasticity, robust standard error estimates and bootstrapping were implemented.
The results of the initial modeling were used to further evaluate the proposed mediation models via component models for assumptions of homoskedasticity, residual normality, multicollinearity, univariate and multivariate outliers. Results of these evaluations revealed no consistent violations of assumptions, though some concerns were evident for homoskedasticity and normality such that robust standard errors and bootstrapping were retained for the final analysis of each model. Additionally, some cases in each model demonstrated consistent evidence as a multivariate (examined through Mahalanobis distance) and univariate outlier (examined through standardized and studentized residuals, Cook’s distance, leverage, difference in fit, and difference in beta). As such, those cases were removed from the dataset for each relevant analysis. Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations for the study variables can be found in Table 1.

3.2. Primary Analyses

The first mediation analysis modeled relationship building as the outcome and yielded two significant regression models, as well as significant direct and indirect effects. The final version of the first model excluded two participants found to be outliers (n = 94) and is depicted with standardized coefficients and 95% confidence intervals in Figure 1. Experiencing racial microaggressions was significantly positively associated with task-focused coping (F(1,92) = 6.966, p < 0.01, R2 = 0.071; β = 0.24, p < 0.01). The second component model predicting relationship building with experiencing racial microaggressions and task-focused coping was significant (F(2,91) = 6.995, R2 = 0.168, p < 0.01). Both experiencing racial microaggressions (β = 0.20, p < 0.05) and task-focused coping (β = 0.32, p < 0.01) were significantly positively associated with relationship building. Furthermore, task-focused coping partially mediated the relationship between experiencing racial microaggressions and relationship building with a standardized effect of 0.08 (95% CI: 0.012–0.165).
The second mediation examined political and social advocacy as the outcome and yielded only one significant regression model, as well as non-significant direct and indirect effects. One participant was excluded from the final version of the second model as an outlier (n = 95). Figure 2 depicts the final version of the second model with standardized coefficients and 95% confidence intervals. As with the first mediation model, experiencing racial microaggressions was significantly positively associated with task-focused coping (F(1,93) = 7.239, p < 0.01, R2 = 0.072; β = 0.25, p < 0.01). Inconsistent with expectations, the second component model predicting political and social advocacy with experiencing racial microaggressions and task-focused coping was not significant (F(2,92) = 0.516, R2 = 0.016, p = 0.60). The standardized indirect effect of task-focused coping was −0.01 (95% CI: −0.073–0.057).
Willingness to challenge and confront was modeled as the outcome for the third mediation model. Analysis yielded two significant regression models, including significant direct and indirect effects. The final analysis excluded three participants as outliers (n = 93) and is modeled in Figure 3 with standardized coefficients and 95% confidence intervals. As with the previous models, experiencing racial microaggressions was significantly positively associated with task-focused coping (F(1,91) = 5.979, p < 0.05, R2 = 0.054; β = 0.21, p < 0.05). Furthermore, a significant second component model (F(2,90) = 13.028, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.217) revealed that willingness to challenge and confront was significantly positively associated with both experiencing racial microaggressions (β = 0.26, p < 0.01). and task-focused coping (β = 0.31, p < 0.01). The relationship between experiencing racial microaggressions and willingness to challenge and confront was partially mediated by task-focused coping as indicated by a meaningful, standardized indirect effect (0.065 [95% CI: 0.011–0.136]).
The final mediation analysis modeled political awareness as the outcome. Results indicated that both component models were significant but did not include a significant indirect effect. The final analysis excluded one participant as an outlier (n = 95) and is modeled with standardized coefficients and 95% confidence intervals in Figure 4. Consistent with the previous analyses, political awareness was significantly positively associated with experiencing racial microaggressions (F(1,93) = 7.24, p < 0.01, R2 = 0.072; β = 0.25, p < 0.01). The significant second component model (F(2,92) = 4.624, p < 0.05, R2 = 0.102) showed experiencing racial microaggressions (β = 0.28, p < 0.05) was significantly positively associated with political awareness unlike task-focused coping (β = 0.11, p = 0.43). The standardized indirect effect of 0.03 (95% CI: −0.037–0.102) was not significant, suggesting that task-focused coping did not mediate the relationship between experiencing racial microaggressions and political awareness.
Taken together, results revealed consistent support for hypothesis one in that microaggression was associated with task-focused coping. Hypothesis two received mixed support. While experiencing racial microaggressions was significantly positively associated with relationship building, willingness to challenge and confront, and political awareness, it was not significantly related to political and social advocacy. Finally, hypothesis three received mixed support. Task-focused coping was significantly positively associated with relationship building and a willingness to challenge and confront. At the same time, task-focused coping was not significantly associated with political and social advocacy or political awareness. Furthermore, task-focused coping only partially mediated the relationship between racial microaggressions and the aspects of SJA (relationship building, willingness to challenge and confront aspects of engagement in SJA). These indirect effects, though small, suggest that task-focused coping is one dynamic that might help to explain the association between experiencing racial microaggressions and engagement in SJA.

4. Discussion

The present study sought to add to the burgeoning literature emphasizing SJA as an important avenue of coping in response to experiences of discrimination (Cadenas et al. 2025; García-Louis et al. 2023; Kira et al. 2025). This study explored the relationship between experiences of racial microaggressions and engagement in SJA, as well as whether task-focused coping informed that association for racially marginalized students attending an urban PWI. Results were mixed with support found for the hypothesized associations, as well as indications that continued exploration is warranted. In general, experiencing racial microaggressions was found to be meaningfully associated with task-focused coping and with engaging in SJA, specifically in the form of relationship building, willingness to challenge and confront discrimination, and political awareness. Additionally, task-focused coping may help to contextualize the association between experiencing racial microaggressions and engaging in SJA.
As individuals experienced more microaggressions, they also exhibited increased utilization of a task-focused coping style. While the past literature has explored connections between experiences with discrimination and different methods of coping (Colgan et al. 2024; Song et al. 2025), these significant associations add further support to the established conceptualization of microaggressions as a form of discrimination, a race-based stressor (Sue et al. 2007; Williams et al. 2019), and their prevalence in the experiences of students at urban PWIs (Wong and Jones 2018). Furthermore, this study builds upon the literature through the demonstrated association between experiencing microaggressions and engaging in SJA. This finding is consistent with a growing literature base that suggests a significant relationship between discrimination and engagement in SJA (Cadenas et al. 2025; Kira et al. 2025) and yet offers insight regarding racial microaggressions as a particular form of discrimination.
One past study, focused on doctoral psychology students, examined the relationship between task-focused coping and engaging in SJA in the context of discrimination (Linnemeyer et al. 2018). Consistent with those findings, the present study showed that task-focused coping was significantly associated with engagement in SJA such that increased utilization of coping strategies such as planning and decision-making was related to increased engagement in SJA. Additionally, small, yet significant mediation effects were found in the relationship between experiencing racial microaggressions and engaging in SJA through task-focused coping. This suggests that the association between microaggressions as a race-based stressor and engagement in SJA could be partially explained by one’s use of task-focused strategies.
Unexpectedly, experiencing racial microaggressions was not significantly associated with engagement in SJA via the domain of political and social advocacy. A closer examination of the items within the scale offers some insight into one possibility for this finding. Items in this subscale include “I meet with policymakers/legislators to advocate for social issues that I personally believe in”, “I make telephone calls to policymakers to voice my opinion on issues that impact my profession”, and “I participate in demonstrations or rallies about social issues that are important to my profession.” Racial microaggressions are commonly experienced through interpersonal communications (Sue et al. 2007), thus, it is perhaps less likely that someone would respond to these interpersonal events through contact with legislators, policy advocacy, or rally attendance. Instead, perhaps individuals are more likely to respond to these interpersonal experiences through direct intervention such as that captured by willingness to challenge and confront through items such as “I confront friends and family members if I think they display signs of discrimination toward culturally/ethnically different people or groups.”

4.1. Implications

The findings of this study emphasize the need to address racial microaggressions in urban educational settings as one form of discrimination that demands a coping response from students. The persistent presence of racial discrimination via microaggressions in the daily lives of those with marginalized identities is not a novel finding (Ong et al. 2013; Sue et al. 2007). These experiences can occur across contexts including classroom settings (Sue et al. 2009), in peer relationships (Ayala and Chalupa Young 2022), in dynamics with staff (García-Louis et al. 2023), and in advisory and supervisory relationships (Burt et al. 2019; Sukumaran et al. 2025) and can have profound impacts on student well-being and sense of belongingness (Apugo 2017; Palmer et al. 2011; Wong and Jones 2018). Thus, addressing these experiences directly is essential for promoting the well-being and success of students of color (Ayala and Chalupa Young 2022).
In some instances, students gravitate toward selective mentorship relationships with peers and faculty who can provide insight into the ways in which they have navigated experiences of discrimination (Apugo 2017; Griffith et al. 2019). Urban universities could support this by providing opportunities for meaningful connection and community building between students and amongst students and faculty beyond efforts to establish student organizations for marginalized students (Palmer et al. 2011; Riposa 2003). Faculty must also be willing and able to address microaggressions as they emerge in classroom and mentorship interactions. NAME is one strategy for microaggression intervention in which faculty could be trained (Byers et al. 2020). This approach requires individuals to recognize and call attention to what has occurred in the environment without judging or shaming and absent defensiveness (i.e., N—notice). Then, an opportunity is presented for instructors to reinforce the need for educational spaces to be inclusive, as well as process the ways in which identity, personal experiences, and power dynamics may have informed individual experiences of what transpired (i.e., A—acknowledge and M—make space). Finally, collaborate on a way forward as a class (i.e., E—enlist the group).
In mentorship or therapy-based relationships, it could be important to consider experiences of microaggressions as a form of discrimination experienced by mentees or clients. In this consideration, thoughtfulness regarding coping strategies that are encouraged in response to microaggressions is necessary. Task-focused coping strategies are implemented in response to microaggressions; however, these strategies may not have consistent outcomes regarding student well-being (Ayala and Chalupa Young 2022; Forster et al. 2022). Furthermore, past research has emphasized the need to consider engagement in SJA as a coping response to racial discrimination (Cadenas et al. 2025).
Resistance motivated by the will to exist and thrive within society (Kira et al. 2025), arguably a manifestation of SJA, can be embodied through collective action. Collective action can be critical for healing in the face of discriminatory experiences and can take many forms (Mosley et al. 2020). Calls to collective action have been issued across a number of professional contexts all with the goal of motivating sustained anti-racist efforts (Bell et al. 2021; Brandow and Swarbrick 2022; Morais et al. 2022; Oddiri et al. 2023). Engagement with SJA through collective action has demonstrated an ability to disrupt the relationship between microaggressions and psychological distress (Kuo 2011), and thus could be considered as a way for individuals to respond to experiences of racial microaggressions. Encouragement of collective action behaviors by mentors, peer and senior, as well as therapists could lead to benefit for individuals with racially marginalized identities. Furthermore, engagement in other coping responses that prioritize situational action may help individuals become engaged in SJA.

4.2. Limitations and Future Directions

Several limitations must be accounted for in the interpretation of the present study. First, the sample size is small. The consequence of a smaller sample size is likely a lack of power for statistical analyses. This lack of statistical power could lead to an underestimation of relationships in the mediation models examined. Thus, smaller effects likely have been missed. Future studies would do well to collect a larger sample size with which to explore these relationships. A larger sample may also provide a more accurate evaluation of the effects that were observed in the present study. Relatedly, the sample was comprised primarily of participants who identified as women. Thus, samples that are more balanced in gender representation may yield different results due to gender-based differences in exposure to racial microaggressions (Midgette and Mulvey 2021). Future studies would benefit from more equivalent gender representation to offer a fuller conceptualization of a combined model or allow for differential examination.
Another critical consideration is nature of Eurocentrically grounded conceptualizations of coping that may not capture preferences for group-oriented coping among those with racially marginalized identities (Kuo 2011; Utsey et al. 2007). Other categorizations of coping include avoidant coping and approach-oriented coping, which can be further disaggregated into self-sufficient and socially supported coping (Litman 2006). Coping that is more group oriented in nature may be particularly important for communities of color and can be embodied through engagement with faith communities (Stewart et al. 2025; Ward et al. 2013). In this context, future studies may benefit from implementing a different conceptualization of coping that allows for a more culturally informed coping framework that makes space for socially supported coping strategies including but not limited to faith community engagement.
Finally, this study did not evaluate the outcomes of different styles of coping in response to experiencing racial microaggressions. Thus, while each task-focused coping and engaging in SJA may be avenues of response to race-based environmental stress, it is unclear what the implication of these coping attempts may be. While scant research has explored outcomes associated with each of these coping strategies in association with racial discrimination (Cadenas et al. 2025; Randelman and Watson 2023), the associations among styles of coping in relationship to well-being outcomes such as empowerment, belongingness, or eudaimonia remains relatively unexplored. Future studies would do well to integrate measures of both psychological well-being and distress into examinations of coping responses to racial microaggressions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.E.N. and M.S.T.; methodology, M.S.T. and J.E.N.; validation, M.S.T. and J.E.N.; formal analysis, M.S.T.; investigation, J.E.N. and M.S.T.; resources, J.E.N. and M.S.T.; data curation, M.S.T. and J.E.N.; writing M.S.T., J.E.N., A.K. and M.B.S.; writing—review and editing, M.S.T. and J.E.N.; supervision, J.E.N.; project administration, J.E.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the University of Missouri-Kansas City Institutional Review Board (Protocol ID: 19-090 and date of approval 17 April 2019).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors have reviewed and edited the output and take full responsibility for the content of this publication.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
PWIPrimarily White Institution
SJASocial Justice Advocacy
RMASRacial Microaggressions Scale
SIAS-2 SFSocial Issues Awareness Scale-2 Short Form
CISS-SFCoping Inventory for Stressful Situations-Short Form

References

  1. Apugo, Danielle. L. 2017. “We All We Got”: Considering Peer Relationships as Multi-Purpose Sustainability Outlets Among Millennial Black Women Graduate Students Attending Majority White Urban Universities. The Urban Review 49: 347–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ayala, Maria Isabel, and Dana Chalupa Young. 2022. Racial Microaggressions and Coping Mechanisms Among Latina/o College Students. Sociological Forum 37: 200–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Bell, Myrtle. P., Daphne Berry, Joy Leopold, and Stella Nkomo. 2021. Making Black Lives Matter in Academia: A Black Feminist Call for Collective Action Against Anti-Blackness in the Academy. Gender, Work & Organization 28: 39–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ben-Zur, Hasida. 2005. Coping, Distress, and Life Events in a Community Sample. International Journal of Stress Management 12: 188–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Blume, Arthur W., Laura V. Lovato, Bryan N. Thyken, and Natasha Denny. 2012. The Relationship of Microaggressions with Alcohol Use and Anxiety Among Ethnic Minority College Students in a Historically White Institution. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology 18: 45–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Brandow, Crystal L., and Margaret Swarbrick. 2022. Improving Black Mental Health: A Collective Call to Action. Psychiatric Services 73: 697–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Burt, Brian. A., Alade McKen, Jordan Burkhart, Jennifer Hormell, and Alexander Knight. 2019. Black Men in Engineering Graduate Education: Experiencing Racial Microaggressions within the Advisor-Advisee Relationship. Journal of Negro Education 88: 493–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Burton, Wanda. M., Angelia M. Paschal, Jessica Jaiswal, James D. Leeper, and David A. Birch. 2024. Gendered Racial Microaggressions and Black College Women: A Cross-Sectional Study of Depression and Psychological Distress. Journal of American College Health 72: 2811–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Byers, David. S., Lauren B. McInroy, Shelley L. Craig, Sarah Slates, and Shanna K. Kattari. 2020. Naming and Addressing Homophobic and Transphobic Microaggressions in Social Work Classrooms. Journal of Social Work Education 56: 484–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Cadenas, German A., Eric Garcia, and Kelsey Autin. 2025. Social Justice Activism and Critical Agency Among Undocumented Students: Coping Mediators Between Discrimination and Depression. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education 18: 123–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Chang, Olivia D., Kaitlin P. Ward, and Shawna J. Lee. 2024. Examining Coping Strategies and Mental Health during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Evidence for the Protective Role of Problem-Focused Coping. Health & Social Work 49: 175–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Cohan, Sharon. L., Kerry L. Jang, and Murray B. Stein. 2006. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of a Short Form of the Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations. Journal of Clinical Psychology 62: 273–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Cohen, David. 2001. Advocacy: Its Many Faces and a Common Understanding. In Advocacy for Social Justice: A Global Action and Reflection Guide. Edited by D. Cohen, R. De la Vega and G. Watson. Boulder: Kumarian Press, pp. 7–10. [Google Scholar]
  14. Colgan, Courtney. A., Pratyusha Tummala-Narra, Tanvi N. Shah, Tooba Fatima, Sahar M. Sabet, and Gayatri M. Khosla. 2024. A Qualitative Exploration of Muslim American College Students’ Experiences of Discrimination and Coping. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 95: 535–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Constantine, Madonna G., Sally M. Hage, Mai M. Kindaichi, and Rhonda M. Bryant. 2007. Social Justice and Multicultural Issues: Implications for the Practice and Training of Counselors and Counseling Psychologists. Journal of Counseling & Development 85: 24–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Endler, Norman S., and James D. A. Parker. 1994. Assessment of Multidimensional Coping: Task, Emotion, and Avoidance Strategies. Psychological Assessment 6: 50–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Farber, Reya, Emma Wedell, Luke Herchenroeder, Cheryl L. Dickter, Matthew R. Pearson, and Adrian J. Bravo. 2021. Microaggressions and Psychological Health Among College Students: A Moderated Mediation Model of Rumination and Social Structure Beliefs. Journal of Racial Ethnic Health Disparities 8: 245–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Folkman, Susan. 2010. Stress, Coping, and Hope. Psycho-Oncology 19: 901–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Folkman, Susan, and Richard S. Lazarus. 1988. Coping as a Mediator of Emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54: 466–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Forster, Myriam, Timothy Grigsby, Christopher Rogers, Jennifer Unger, Stephanie Alvarado, Bethany Rainisch, and Eunice Areba. 2022. Perceived Discrimination, Coping Styles, and Internalizing Symptoms Among a Community Sample of Hispanic and Somali Adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health 70: 488–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. García-Louis, Claudia, Victor B. Sáenz, and Tonia Guida. 2023. How Community College Staff Inflict Pervasive Microaggressions: The Experiences of Latino Men attending Urban Community Colleges in Texas. Urban Education 58: 2378–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Griffith, Aisha N., Noelle M. Hurd, and Sadia B. Hussain. 2019. “I Didn’t Come to School for This”: A Qualitative Examination of Experiences with Race-Related Stressors and Coping Responses Among Black Students Attending a Predominantly White Institution. Journal of Adolescent Research 34: 115–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hayes, Andrew F. 2022. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis, Third Edition: A Regression-Based Approach, 3rd ed. New York: Guilford Press. Available online: https://www.routledge.com/Introduction-to-Mediation-Moderation-and-Conditional-Process-Analysis-Third-Edition-A-Regression-Based-Approach/Hayes/p/book/9781462549030 (accessed on 9 June 2025).
  24. Huynh, Kiet D., and Debbiesiu L. Lee. 2023. Emotion-Focused Coping Strategies as Mediators of the Discrimination–Mental Health Association Among LGB POC. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity 10: 413–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Jeevanba, Sathya Baanu, Johanna E. Nilsson, and LaVerne Berkel. 2024. Discrimination, Traumatic Stress, and Coping Among Muslim International Students. Journal of College Student Mental Health, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Jelsma, Elizabeth, Shanting Chen, and Fatima Varner. 2022. Working Harder than Others to Prove Yourself: High-Effort Coping as a Buffer between Teacher-Perpetrated Racial Discrimination and Mental Health among Black American Adolescents. Journal of Youth & Adolescence 51: 694–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kira, Ibrahim, Siddrah Irfan, Hanaa Shuwiekh, and Mireille Bujold-Bugeaud. 2025. Coping with Continuous Traumatic Stressors (Gender Discrimination, Intersected Discrimination and COVID-19): The Will to Exist, Live, Fight, Resist and Survive. Current Psychology 44: 10713–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kuo, Ben C. H. 2011. Culture’s Consequences on Coping: Theories, Evidences, and Dimensionalities. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 42: 1084–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Lazarus, Richard. S., and Susan Folkman. 1984. Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer Publishing Company. [Google Scholar]
  30. Lee, Eun-Kyoung “Othelia”, and Callan Barrett. 2007. Integrating Spirituality, Faith, and Social Justice in Social Work Practice and Education: A Pilot Study. Journal of Religion & Spirituality in Social Work 26: 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Linnemeyer, Rachel M., Johanna E. Nilsson, Jacob M. Marszalek, and Marina Khan. 2018. Social Justice Advocacy Among Doctoral Students in Professional Psychology Programs. Counselling Psychology Quarterly 31: 98–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Litman, Jordan A. 2006. The COPE Inventory: Dimensionality and Relationships with Approach- and Avoidance-Motives and Positive and Negative Traits. Personality & Individual Differences 41: 273–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Little, Roderick J. A. 1988. A Test of Missing Completely at Random for Multivariate Data with Missing Values. Journal of the American Statistical Association 83: 1198–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Luu, Linh P., and Arpana G. Inman. 2022. Social Justice Advocacy: The Role of Race and Gender Prejudice, Injustice, and Diversity Experiences. Counselling Psychology Quarterly 35: 652–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Marszalek, Jacob M., Carolyn Barber, and Johanna E. Nilsson. 2017. Development of the Social Issues Advocacy Scale-2 (SIAS-2). Social Justice Research 2: 117–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. McDermott, Elana R., Katharine H. Zeiders, Antoinette M. Landor, and Selena Carbajal. 2022. Coping with Ethnic–racial Discrimination: Short-Term Longitudinal Relations Among Black and Latinx College Students. Journal of Research on Adolescence 32: 1530–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Midgette, Allegra J., and Kelly Lynn Mulvey. 2021. Unpacking Young Adults’ Experiences of Race and Gender-Based Microaggressions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 38: 1350–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Moody, Anahvia Taiyib, and Jioni A. Lewis. 2019. Gendered Racial Microaggressions and Traumatic Stress Symptoms Among Black Women. Psychology of Women Quarterly 43: 201–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Morais, Calia A., Edwin N. Aroke, Janelle E. Letzen, Claudia M. Campbell, Anna M. Hood, Mary R. Janevic, Vani A. Mathur, Ericka N. Merriwether, Burel R. Goodin, Staja Q. Booker, and et al. 2022. Confronting Racism in Pain Research: A Call to Action. The Journal of Pain 23: 878–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Mosley, Della V., Helen A. Neville, Nayeli Y. Chavez-Dueñas, Hector Y. Adames, Jioni A. Lewis, and Bryana H. French. 2020. Radical Hope in Revolting Times: Proposing a Culturally Relevant Psychological Framework. Social & Personality Psychology Compass 14: e12512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Neukrug, Hannah, G. Perusi Benson, Graham Buhrman, and Vanessa V. Volpe. 2022. Affect Reactivity and Lifetime Racial Discrimination Among Black College Students: The Role of Coping. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 92: 516–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Nilsson, Johanna. E., Jacob M. Marszalek, Alissa Kim, Anum Khalid, Bethany Bierman, and Sophie Chabot. 2024. Development and Validation of Social Issues Advocacy Scale 2-Short Form. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Oddiri, Uchechi, Oriaku A. Kas-Osoka, and Stephanie L. White. 2023. Learning to Action: Finding Your Anti-Racism and Equity Lens. Pediatrics 152: 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ong, Anthony D., Anthony L. Burrow, Thomas E. Fuller-Rowell, Nicole M. Ja, and Derald Wing Sue. 2013. Racial Microaggressions and Daily Well-Being Among Asian Americans. Journal of Counseling Psychology 60: 188–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Palmer, Robert T., Dina C. Maramba, and Sharon L. Holmes. 2011. A Contemporary Examination of Factors Promoting the Academic Success of Minority Students at a Predominantly White University. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice 13: 329–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Randelman, Mirella Flores, and Laurel B. Watson. 2023. The Relations Among Microaggressions, Collective Action, and Psychological Outcomes Among Sexual Minority Latinx People. Journal of Latinx Psychology 11: 240–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. R Core Team. 2024. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing [Computer Software]. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available online: https://www.r-project.org/ (accessed on 9 June 2025).
  48. Riposa, Gerry. 2003. Urban Universities: Meeting the Needs of Students. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 585: 51–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Shahid, Naysha N., Tamara Nelson, and Esteban V. Cardemil. 2018. Lift Every Voice: Exploring the Stressors and Coping Mechanisms of Black College Women Attending Predominantly White Institutions. Journal of Black Psychology 44: 3–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Song, Sanga, Simin Michelle Chen, and Hyejin Kim. 2025. Coping with Anti-Asian Sentiment: A Qualitative Study of Appraisals and Coping Strategies Against Discrimination. Asian American Journal of Psychology. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Stewart, Justine, Faith Onyambu, Vernice Barrimond, and Christin Fort. 2025. Resistance and Resilience: The Black Church’s Response to Community Violence and Racism. Translational Issues in Psychological Science 11: 236–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Sue, Derald Wing, Annie I. Lin, Gina C. Torino, Christina M. Capodilupo, and David P. Rivera. 2009. Racial Microaggressions and Difficult Dialogues on Race in the Classroom. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology 15: 183–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Sue, Derald Wing, Christina M. Capodilupo, Gina C. Torino, Jennifer M. Bucceri, Aisha M. B. Holder, Kevin L. Nadal, and Marta Esquilin. 2007. Racial Microaggressions in Everyday Life: Implications for Clinical Practice. American Psychologist 62: 271–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Sukumaran, Niyatee, Johanna E. Nilsson, and Alissa Kim. 2025. Racial Microaggressions in Cross-Racial Supervision: Counseling and Multicultural Self-Efficacy, Supervisory Working Alliance, and Supervisor Multicultural Competency. The Clinical Supervisor, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Torres-Harding, Susan R., Alejandro L. Andrade, Jr., and Crist E. Romero Diaz. 2012. The Racial Microaggressions Scale (RMAS): A New Scale to Measure Experiences of Racial Microaggressions in People of Color. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology 18: 153–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Utsey, Sean O., Mark A. Bolden, Yzette Lanier, and Otis Williams, III. 2007. Examining the Role of Culture-Specific Coping as a Predictor of Resilient Outcomes in African Americans from High-Risk Urban Communities. Journal of Black Psychology 33: 75–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Vargas, Sylvanna M., Standly J. Huey, Jr., and Jeanne Miranda. 2020. A Critical Review of Current Evidence on Multiple Types of Discrimination and Mental Health. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 90: 374–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Ward, Earlise C., Jacqueline C. Wiltshire, Michelle A. Detry, and Roger L. Brown. 2013. African American Men and Women’s Attitude Toward Mental Illness, Perceptions of Stigma, and Preferred Coping Behaviors. Nursing Research 62: 185–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Williams, David R., and Selina A. Mohammed. 2009. Discrimination and Racial Disparities in Health: Evidence and Needed Research. Journal of Behavioral Medicine 32: 20–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Williams, David R., Jourdyn A. Lawrence, and Brigette A. Davis. 2019. Racism and Health: Evidence and Needed Research. Annual Review of Public Health 40: 105–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Wong, Rose, and Terry Jones. 2018. Students’ Experiences of Microaggressions in an Urban MSW Program. Journal of Social Work Education 54: 679–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Socsci 14 00564 g001
Figure 1. Standardized coefficients with 95% confidence intervals presented in brackets. Statistically meaningful coefficients are bolded. RMA = experiencing racial microaggressions. RB = relationship building.
Figure 1. Standardized coefficients with 95% confidence intervals presented in brackets. Statistically meaningful coefficients are bolded. RMA = experiencing racial microaggressions. RB = relationship building.
Socsci 14 00564 g001
Socsci 14 00564 g002
Figure 2. Standardized coefficients with 95% confidence intervals presented in brackets. Statistically meaningful coefficients are bolded. RMA = experiencing racial microaggressions. PSA = political and social advocacy.
Figure 2. Standardized coefficients with 95% confidence intervals presented in brackets. Statistically meaningful coefficients are bolded. RMA = experiencing racial microaggressions. PSA = political and social advocacy.
Socsci 14 00564 g002
Socsci 14 00564 g003
Figure 3. Standardized coefficients with 95% confidence intervals presented in brackets. Statistically meaningful coefficients are bolded. RMA = experiencing racial microaggressions. WCC = willingness to challenge and confront.
Figure 3. Standardized coefficients with 95% confidence intervals presented in brackets. Statistically meaningful coefficients are bolded. RMA = experiencing racial microaggressions. WCC = willingness to challenge and confront.
Socsci 14 00564 g003
Socsci 14 00564 g004
Figure 4. Standardized coefficients with 95% confidence intervals presented in brackets. Statistically meaningful coefficients are bolded. RMA = experiencing racial microaggressions. PA = political awareness.
Figure 4. Standardized coefficients with 95% confidence intervals presented in brackets. Statistically meaningful coefficients are bolded. RMA = experiencing racial microaggressions. PA = political awareness.
Socsci 14 00564 g004
Table 1. Variable descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations.
Table 1. Variable descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations.
Study Variable123456
  • RMAS
–
2.
CISS-SF-T
0.28 **–
3.
RB
0.29 **0.37 **–
4.
PSA
0.140.080.56 **–
5.
WCC
0.44 **0.43 **0.58 **0.46 **–
6.
PA
0.32 **0.22 *0.61 **0.65 **0.53 **–
M70.9923.7216.0013.3018.1611.35
SD22.034.514.505.084.233.70
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, RMAS = experiencing microaggressions, CISS-SF-T = task-focused coping, RB = relationship building, PSA = political and social advocacy, WCC = willingness to challenge and confront, PA = political awareness.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ternes, M.S.; Nilsson, J.E.; Khalid, A.; Siems, M.B. Advocacy in the Face of Adversity: Influence in the Relationship Between Racial Microaggressions and Social Justice Advocacy. Soc. Sci. 2025, 14, 564. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14090564

AMA Style

Ternes MS, Nilsson JE, Khalid A, Siems MB. Advocacy in the Face of Adversity: Influence in the Relationship Between Racial Microaggressions and Social Justice Advocacy. Social Sciences. 2025; 14(9):564. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14090564

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ternes, Michael S., Johanna E. Nilsson, Anum Khalid, and Melànie B. Siems. 2025. "Advocacy in the Face of Adversity: Influence in the Relationship Between Racial Microaggressions and Social Justice Advocacy" Social Sciences 14, no. 9: 564. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14090564

APA Style

Ternes, M. S., Nilsson, J. E., Khalid, A., & Siems, M. B. (2025). Advocacy in the Face of Adversity: Influence in the Relationship Between Racial Microaggressions and Social Justice Advocacy. Social Sciences, 14(9), 564. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14090564

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop