The Impact of Perceived Racial Discrimination on the Mental Health of Asian American and Latino College Students

Abstract

The authors examined the impact of perceived racial discrimination on various mental health outcomes for Asian American and Latino college students within an emic and etic framework. Results indicate that Asian American and Latino college students experienced similar exposure and reactions to various kinds of discrimination. However, Latino students were more likely than Asian American students to have been accused of doing something wrong, such as cheating and breaking the law, and more likely to appraise these experiences as stressful. Asian Americans evidenced higher risk for trait anxiety. Regardless of ethnicity, perceived racial discrimination was associated with several negative mental health outcomes, including higher psychological distress, suicidal ideation, state anxiety, trait anxiety, and depression. Findings highlight the need to address discrimination across multiple social and professional settings and to understand the broad array of mental health outcomes.

Full text

The Impact of Perceived Racial Discrimination on the Mental Health of
Asian American and Latino College Students
Wei-Chin Hwang
Claremont McKenna College
Sharon Goto
Pomona College
The authors examined the impact of perceived racial discrimination on various mental health outcomes
for Asian American and Latino college students within an emic and etic framework. Results indicate that
Asian American and Latino college students experienced similar exposure and reactions to various kinds
of discrimination. However, Latino students were more likely than Asian American students to have been
accused of doing something wrong, such as cheating and breaking the law, and more likely to appraise
these experiences as stressful. Asian Americans evidenced higher risk for trait anxiety. Regardless of
ethnicity, perceived racial discrimination was associated with several negative mental health outcomes,
including higher psychological distress, suicidal ideation, state anxiety, trait anxiety, and depression.
Findings highlight the need to address discrimination across multiple social and professional settings and
to understand the broad array of mental health outcomes.
Keywords: discrimination, racism, Asian American, Latino, depression
Throughout history, ethnic and racial minorities have been the
victims of institutional and interpersonal discrimination (Harrell,
2000; Jones, 1997). Although some may argue that the United
States has become a more racially conscious society, it is fallacious
to believe that discrimination no longer exists (Smedley & Smed-
ley, 2005). Research has documented the widespread prevalence of
racial discrimination (unfair treatment due to race) and the nega-
tive health consequences it has for African Americans (e.g., Jones,
1997; Klonoff, Landrine, & Ullman, 1999; Utsey, 1998). How-
ever, there continues to be comparatively little research that ex-
amines the impact of racial discrimination on other ethnic minority
groups. The goals of this study were to (a) examine the impact of
perceived racial discrimination on various mental health outcomes
for Asian Americans and Latinos, and (b) expand the range of our
understanding of racial discrimination and its mental health asso-
ciations (psychological distress, suicidal ideation, state and trait
anxiety, and clinical depression).
There are compelling reasons to study Asian Americans and
Latinos with respect to racial discrimination and to study the
groups together. Sociopolitical concerns such as the recent outcries
against illegal Latino immigration and economic competition be-
tween the United States and Asian countries are likely to increase
the animosity toward these two fastest growing groups in the
United States (Larsen, 2004). Asian Americans and Latinos both
evidence within group heterogeneity because of geographic, his-
torical, and demographic differences. Yet, both groups share com-
monalities that make comparative study of their discrimination
experiences intriguing. Both groups are visible minorities; have
large numbers of immigrants that may be targets of discrimination
due to xenophobia; and both groups are collectivistic in cultural
orientation, which may lead to similar responses to discrimination
(Vandello & Cohen, 1999). At the heart of collectivism is inter-
dependence and group harmony (see Markus & Kitayama, 1991).
Asian Americans and Latinos might thus be particularly attuned
and affected by negative and discriminatory interpersonal and
intergroup interactions. Shorey, Cowan, and Sullivan (2002) found
collectivism to be positively related to attributions of discrimina-
tion in Latinos. Unfortunately, few studies have assessed the
relative experience of discrimination on Asian Americans and
Latinos. In one of the few comparative studies including these
groups, Landrine, Klonoff, Corral, Fernandez, and Roesch (2006)
found that Asian Americans and Latinos reported similar levels of
discrimination over the lifetime, but that Asian Americans reported
higher levels of recent discrimination.
We propose an emic and etic framework for conceptualizing and
understanding discrimination across groups. Etics are universal
phenomena that occur across cultures, whereas emics are culturally
based manifestations of universal phenomena in specific groups
(Berry, 1969; Triandis, 2007). This framework has been effec-
tively used to understand cultural differences without creating a
deficit model in which one group’s experience becomes the norm
or standard by which other groups “fall short” (for example, see
emics– etics applied to cross-cultural differences in parenting;
Chao, 1995). For guidance about etic experiences with discrimi-
nation and group-specific experiences or emics, we turn to the
extant literature on discrimination.
As in the broader literature on African American racial discrim-
ination (Klonoff et al., 1999), Latinos and Asian Americans are
negatively affected by discrimination. For Latinos, perceived dis-
crimination is linked to increased psychological distress (Moradi
& Risco, 2006) and depressive symptoms (Greene, Way, & Pahl,
Wei-Chin Hwang, Department of Psychology, Claremont McKenna
College; Sharon Goto, Department of Psychology, Pomona College.
This study was supported in part by National Institute of Mental Health
(NIMH) grant 1R34MH73545-01A2 and the Asian American Center on
Disparities Research (NIMH grant: 1P50MH073511-01A2).
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Wei-Chin
Hwang, Department of Psychology, Claremont McKenna College, 850 Co-
lumbia Avenue, Claremont, CA 91711. E-mail: whwang@cmc.edu
Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology Copyright 2008 by the American Psychological Association
2008, Vol. 14, No. 4, 326–335 1099-9809/08/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/1099-9809.14.4.326
326

2006; Szalach et al., 2003; see Araujo & Borrell, 2006, for general
review of psychological impact of discrimination in Latinos).
Discrimination experienced by Asian Americans is also associated
with negative psychological well-being and psychological distress
(e.g., Lee, 2003; Noh, Beiser, Kaspar, Hou, & Rummens, 1999;
Yoo & Lee, 2005).
Despite the limited literature on these two groups, general
patterns emerge that are similar to research findings on African
Americans. For example, when combined with the literature re-
porting the negative mental health association of discrimination on
African Americans, the pattern of detrimental effects that discrim-
ination has on all three groups can be construed as an etic or
universal negative response. Group differences, if any, on the types
of discrimination each group experiences and the strength of the
relationship between discrimination and mental health outcomes
could be taken as emics, or ethnic-specific responses.
To date, no study has examined the emics of discrimination on
Latinos and Asian Americans. Specifically, there is little research
that delineates the type of discrimination that different ethnic
groups face. Notable exceptions are two studies on the experiences
of discrimination among urban high school students that found that
Asian American students reported more harassment by peers,
whereas Black and Latino students reported being discriminated
against more by adults (such as the police, teachers, and shopkeep-
ers; Fisher, Wallace, & Fenton, 2000; Rosenbloom & Way, 2004).
Furthermore, according to research on the Stereotype Content
Model (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002), outgroups are perceived
as either likable and disrespected (Latino) or envied but unlikable
(Asian American; see Lin, Kwan, Cheung, & Fiske, 2005). Ac-
knowledging that stereotypes differ from discrimination, the ste-
reotype research might suggest that the two groups experience
different types of discrimination.
Some of the group-specific discrimination literature has sug-
gested that there may be some differences in discriminatory expe-
riences. For example, Schneider, Hitlan, and Radhakrishnan
(2000) found that working Hispanic samples experienced mostly
verbal ethnic harassment and exclusionary practices, which had
negative effects. Another study on Latinos found color bias against
darker skin color (Hall, 2002). The growing literature on discrim-
ination experienced by Asian Americans also focuses on a few
group-specific phenomena (e.g., Barry & Grilo, 2003; Dion, Dion,
& Pappas, 1992; Gee, 2002) such as more subtle forms of dis-
crimination experienced by Asian Americans like microassaults,
microinsults, and microinvalidations (Sue, Bucceri, Lin, Nadal, &
Torino, 2007). Others have discussed the role of the model mi-
nority myth, resentment by other groups (Rosenbloom & Way,
2004), and general indifference of Asian Americans as targets of
discrimination (Delucchi & Do, 1996).
Unfortunately, there continues to be a dearth of comparative
research. This may be due in part to a reliance on measures of
overall or general discriminatory experiences, rather than specific
types or instances. Recently, Landrine and colleagues (2006) re-
viewed the extant literature on perceived discrimination and dis-
cussed limitations in the measurement of discrimination. For ex-
ample, they noted that the vast majority of studies assessed the
presence versus absence of global discriminatory events using one
to two dichotomous items (i.e., yes/no responses; Gee, 2002;
Jackson et al., 1996; Karlsen & Nazroo, 2002; Noh et al., 1999),
whereas others used several dichotomous items that did not pro-
vide a range of possible responses (Krieger, 1990; Krieger &
Sidney, 1996). Although these studies assessed the negative con-
sequences of perceived discrimination on multiple ethnic groups,
the use of only a few global items to assess discrimination limits
the ability to explore different types of discrimination experienced
and to tap into the underlying construct of discrimination. The use
of dichotomous items also reduces the variance in discrimination
measured, thereby potentially attenuating the strength of the
discrimination– health relationship (Landrine et al., 2006; Landrine
& Klonoff, 2000).
Landrine and colleagues (2006) developed a discrimination
scale to address these methodological limitations. The Schedule of
Racist Events assesses both the frequency and stress appraisal of
discriminatory events across multiple social and professional sit-
uations. Discrimination studies using this measure have found that
perceived discrimination is associated with increased risk for cig-
arette smoking and psychiatric symptoms (Landrine & Klonoff,
1996; Klonoff et al., 1999). This measure was designed for use
with African Americans, and was recently modified into the Gen-
eral Ethnic Discrimination Scale (GED) for use with multiple
ethnic groups (Landrine et al., 2006). One study using the GED
across multiple ethnic groups found that men experience more
discrimination than women, and that African Americans report
more discrimination than Asian Americans who report higher
levels than Latinos over the lifetime, with all groups reporting
more perceived discrimination than Caucasian Americans (Land-
rine et al., 2006).
Most studies, including those thus far reviewed, have focused on
the detrimental impact of perceived discrimination on a few spe-
cific mental health outcomes, namely psychological distress, anx-
iety, and depression (e.g., Kessler, Mickelson, & Williams, 1999;
Lee, 2003; Moradi & Risco, 2006; Mossakowski, 2003; Noh &
Kaspar, 2003). These studies have found that greater discrimina-
tory experiences are associated with negative health consequences.
Although the data are typically cross-sectional with very few if any
exceptions, the theoretical link is that discriminatory experiences
serve as a stressor and precipitant to multiple mental health prob-
lems. Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) stress-coping model posits
that both the frequency of exposure and appraisal of the stressful-
ness of the event determine its impact on health outcomes. For
example, two people may be called racist names on a weekly basis;
one may find it extremely upsetting, whereas the other may dis-
miss the event, thereby reducing the negative impact it has on his
or her health. In addition, different people may also evidence
differential exposure to racist events. Although the stress-coping
model has been used to explain the discrimination– health relation-
ship (Brondolo et al., 2005; Clark, Anderson, Clark, & Williams,
1999; Contrada et al., 2001; Harrell, 2000), few studies have used
more rigorous, theoretically driven measurement methodology to
assess both the frequency and stress appraisal of discriminatory
events.
Given that theoretically the frequency and appraisal of discrim-
ination varies in strength on a continuum, so might the severity of
mental health outcomes. This compels the exploration of discrim-
ination as a stressor on a broad array of mental health outcomes
beyond psychological distress and depression. Some studies have
expanded our understanding of the effects of perceived discrimi-
nation across a variety of contexts such as family outcomes
(Murry, Brown, Brody, Cutrona, & Simons, 2001) and mastery
327
DISCRIMINATION AND ASIAN AMERICANS AND LATINOS

(Broman, Mavaddat, & Hsu, 2000). One goal of this study was to
understand the impact of discrimination on multiple problems. The
relation between discrimination and outcomes of differing severity
theoretically should be positive across the outcomes. For example,
to date, no studies have investigated the relationship between
discrimination and state anxiety (transient feelings of tension and
nervousness; Cattell, 1966). Discrimination might be related to
trait and state anxiety as discrimination likely serves as a stressor
to induce anxiety. In particular, however, because of common
method variance, cumulative discrimination might be more
strongly related to trait anxiety as both constructs tap into stable,
long-term constructs. Few studies have examined whether discrim-
ination leads to increased suicidal ideation (Beck, Kovacs, &
Weissman, 1979). The relation between these two variables is of
interest because discrimination, especially violent or blatant dis-
crimination or discrimination that is chronic and unavoidable, may
lead to severe stress and thus suicidal ideation. Again, the relation
between discrimination and suicidal ideaology is expected to be
positive as discrimination serves as a stressor. Heacock (1990),
using a case study approach, linked racial discrimination with
suicidal behaviors in African Americans and Latinos. In addition,
suicidal behaviors have been linked to discrimination related to
sexual orientation bias (Diaz, Ayala, Bein, Henne, & Marin, 2001).
We took advantage of the sensitivity of the GED (Landrine et al.,
2006) to investigate the relation between discrimination and a
range of psychological outcomes.
Finally, understanding the relation between perceived discrim-
ination and the well-being of Asian and Latino American college
students is particularly important given the growing body of liter-
ature indicating greater psychological distress and depression in
these two groups than in their European American counterparts
(Okazaki, 1997; Siegel, Aneshensel, Taub, Cantwell, & Driscoll,
1998). Although a college sample might reduce group differences
in discrimination experienced because self-selection of relatively
resilient and high-functioning individuals and context similarity,
investigating the relationship with mental health consequences is
important because evidence suggests that discrimination has in-
creased over the years on college campuses (McCormack, 1995,
1996). Furthermore, Landrine and colleagues, (2006) found that
college and community samples are exposed to similar discrimi-
natory experiences.
This study examined the impact of perceived discrimination on
multiple mental health outcomes for Asian and Latino American
college students. On the basis of previous research (Landrine et al.,
2006), we explored whether Asian Americans and Latinos would
experience similar amounts of recent discrimination and similar
appraisals of the stressfulness of these events. On the basis of a
qualitative review of the extant discrimination literature and the
nature of stereotypes (e.g., Lin et al., 2005), we explored whether
there were emic or etic differences in the type of discrimination
experienced. We also explored whether both groups would evi-
dence similar risk for psychological distress, trait and state anxiety,
depression, and suicidal ideation after controlling for the effects of
discrimination. Similarities in the experience and impact and ex-
perience of discrimination on mental health outcomes would sug-
gest an etic effect of discrimination, whereas differential exposure
and impact would suggest an emic effect.
Method
Data were collected from 186 Asian American (n!107) and
Latino (n!79) college students from a university located in the
Rocky Mountain region of the United States. The student sam-
ple consisted of 67 men (Asian American !36; Latino !31)
and 119 women (Asian American !71; Latina !48). Forty
percent of the students were foreign born (Asian American !
42; Latino !32), and students represented various years in
college (1st year !24%, 2nd year !15%, 3rd year !28%, 4th
year !17%, 5th year or more !16%). International student
status was determined by their resident status, and international
students were not included in this study. The five largest groups
of Asian Americans in the sample included Chinese Americans
(n!34), Vietnamese Americans (n!20), Japanese Americans
(n!15), Taiwanese Americans (n!12), and Korean Americans
(n!10). The four largest groups of Latinos in the sample
included Mexican Americans (n!44), Peruvian Americans
(n!8), Argentinian Americans (n!4), and Puerto Rican
Americans (n!3). The rest of the respondents were few in
number and came from a variety of ethnic backgrounds. Stu-
dents responded to IRB-approved advertisements sent through
e-mail inviting them to participate in an Internet-based research
study on student health. Informed consent was obtained. Stu-
dents were administered the survey via the Internet and were
paid $10 to complete the full battery of measures, which took
approximately 1 hr to finish. Descriptive statistics for the sam-
ple are provided in Table 1. Students were also asked to rate
their financial need on a scale ranging from 1 (no financial
need)to5(severely needy).
Measures
Discrimination. Lifetime exposure to discrimination and
stress associated with exposure were measured using the GED
Table 1
Characteristics of Independent and Dependent Variables
Variable
Asian Americans
(n !107)
Latinos
(n !79)
Gender, n(%)
Women 71 (66.40) 48 (60.80)
Men 36 (33.60) 31 (39.20)
Years in school, n(%) 2.92 (1.64) 2.94 (1.33)
Mean (SD) financial
stress
2.40 (1.03) 2.86 (0.94)
Mean (SD) exposure to
discrimination
37.06 (13.27) 37.62 (14.99)
Mean (SD) stressfulness
of discrimination
44.69 (21.42) 46.09 (22.80)
Mean (SD) discrimination
total score
"0.04 (1.81) 0.11 (1.98)
Mean (SD) psychological
distress
0.70 (0.54) 0.61 (0.56)
Mean (SD) suicidal
ideation
0.05 (0.17) 0.04 (0.16)
Mean (SD) state anxiety 38.67 (11.31) 37.59 (11.50)
Mean (SD) trait anxiety 42.92 (8.99) 40.47 (10.17)
Clinical depression, n(%)
Not depressed 92 (86.00) 69 (87.30)
Depressed 15 (14.00) 10 (12.70)
328 HWANG AND GOTO

(Landrine et al., 2006). The GED is a global measure of overall
discrimination experience and also provides details concerning the
specific types of discrimination one experiences and is affected by.
The 18 different types of discriminatory experiences (e.g., work,
public places, health care, and school) that individuals are exposed
to because of their race/ethnic group are assessed. In this study, we
used two of the subscales, perceived lifetime exposure to a variety
of discriminatory events and the appraised stress associated with
experiencing those events. The GED uses a 6-point Likert-type
scale for exposure to discrimination ranging from never to almost
all of the time and not at all stressful to extremely stressful for
stress associated with each type of discrimination. Correlation
between lifetime exposure to discrimination and appraised stress
associated with exposure was .77 ( p#.01). These subscales were
combined into one overall discrimination score. They were first
standardized and then summed such that both subscales carried
equal weighting in the discrimination total score. This method
seemed most reasonable given that there currently is no one
standard for determining how to weight the effects of discrimina-
tion exposure and stress associated with discriminatory experi-
ences. Previous research has indicated that the GED demonstrates
high internal consistency ($!.94 –.95), 1-month test–retest reli-
ability (r!.95–.96) and validity (Klonoff & Landrine, 1999, 2000;
Landrine & Klonoff, 1996, 2000; Landrine et al., 2006), and
adequately differentiates frequency of discriminatory events across
ethnic groups (Landrine et al., 2006). In this study, the GED
demonstrated strong internal consistency ($!.94 –.95). However,
one limitation of the GED is that it has not been normed for Asian
Americans or Latinos.
Psychological Distress. The Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) is
a well-validated. 53-item, self-report measure of psychological dis-
tress (Derogatis & Melisaratos, 1983). Participants were asked to
indicate how much each of the symptoms described had bothered
them in the past 7 days, using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from not
at all to extremely. The present study used the Global Severity Index
because it is the most sensitive of the three global indices (Derogatis
& Melisaratos, 1983). This scale has been found to have high internal
consistency ($for subscales ranging from .71 to .85) and convergent
validity across groups (Derogatis & Melisaratos, 1983). However, no
specific ethnic norms have been developed. The mean BSI scores for
nonpatients adults are 0.30 (SD !0.31) and 0.83 (SD !0.59) for
nonpatient adolescents. Cochran and Hale (1985) attempted to estab-
lish norms on a sample of 347 students attending a 4-year private
college and found a mean score of 0.76 (SD !0.47). The mean BSI
scores for Asian American and Latino students in this public univer-
sity were 0.71 and 0.60, respectively. These scores are similar to those
of other college students and significantly lower than those of psy-
chiatric outpatients (M!1.32, SD !0.72). The BSI also demon-
strated high internal consistency for participants in the current study
($!.97). The BSI has been used extensively for research in Asian
and Asian American populations (Cheng, Leong, & Geist, 1993;
Hwang, Myers, & Takeuchi, 2000), as well as Latino populations
(Hemmings, Reimann, Madrigal, & Velasquez, 1998; Myers et al.,
2002).
Suicidal Ideation. A modified 5-item version of the Scale for
Suicidal Ideation (SSI) was used to assess current conscious
suicidal intent (Beck et al., 1979; Beck, Steer, & Ranieri, 1988).
Each item is scored on graded statements of intensity from 0 to
2. Five of the 19 original items were chosen because they
evidenced high item–total correlations and because they repre-
sented a range of suicidal types of ideation. An adjusted average
suicide ideation score was created from the 5 items that in-
cluded respondents’ wish to live, desire to kill oneself, fre-
quency of suicidal ideation, certainty that they will make a
suicide attempt, and extent to which they had developed a
specific plan. The original SSI demonstrates strong reliability
($!.89 –.96) and validity (Beck et al., 1979, 1988). However,
no specific norms or reliability or validity studies using the SSI
with Asian American or Latino college students have been
conducted. Internal consistency in this study was $!.71.
State and Trait Anxiety. The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory
(STAI) is a widely used anxiety scale consisting of 40 items
(Spielberger, 1983; Spielberger, Gorusch, & Lushene, 1970). The
notion of state anxiety, which is characterized by transient feelings
of worry, tension, nervousness and anxiety traits, and trait anxiety,
or individual differences in enduring anxiety and predisposition to
respond anxiously to stressful situations, was first introduced by
Cattell (1966) and further elaborated on by Spielberger et al.
(1970) and Spielberger (1983). The items are answered along a
4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all)to4(very
much so). Overall, the STAI demonstrates good reliability and
validity across multiple studies and populations, including multi-
ethnic adolescents and Asian American adolescents in Hawaii
(Hishinuma, Miyamoto, Nishimura, & Nahulu, 2000; Hishinuma,
Miyamoto, Nishimura, Nahulu, Andrade, et al., 2000; Hishinuma
et al., 2001; Spielberger, 1983; Spielberger et al., 1970). In this
study, the State and Trait subscales also evidenced strong internal
consistency of $!.93 and .90, respectively. The mean levels of
state and trait anxiety were similar to the norms on college students
that were developed from a sample of 855 college students at the
University of South Florida: M!37.89 (SD !11.22) and M!
39.60 (SD !9.78), respectively (Spielberger, 1983). Psychiatric
norms for state (M!47.74, SD !13.24) and trait (M!46.62,
SD !12.41) anxiety reported by Spielberger (1983) have been
previously established on the basis of 461 male neuropsychiatric
patients.
Clinical Depression. The Hamilton Depression Inventory
(HDI) is a 23-item, self-report inventory version of the Hamilton
Depression Rating Scale (HDRS; Hamilton, 1960, 1967; Reynolds
& Kobak, 1995). There is strong support for the reliability and
validity of the HDI in assessing the severity of depression in
multiethnic samples (Dozois, 2003; Reynolds & Kobak, 1995).
The HDI evidenced good internal consistency ($!.93), test–
retest reliability (r!.95), and validity (content, criterion, and
convergent) in its development study (Dozois, 2003; Reynolds &
Kobak, 1995). In this study, Cronbach’s alpha was .82. The HDI
uses clinical cutoff scores to indicate the severity of depression
over the past 2 weeks. A clinical cutoff score of 19 maximizes the
hit rate (98.2%), sensitivity (99.3%), and specificity (95.9%) in
differentiating between nonreferred community adults and psychi-
atric outpatients diagnosed with major depression (Reynolds &
Kobak, 1995). In this study, the clinical cutoff score of 19 was
used to differentiate between those who were clinically depressed
and those who were not. No specific reliability or validity studies
have been conducted with Asian American or Latino college
students.
329
DISCRIMINATION AND ASIAN AMERICANS AND LATINOS

Results
Descriptive Statistics
Because the relationship between frequency and stress appraisal
of discrimination was strong (r!.77), we merged these subscores
to create a composite score (see Method). Pearson correlation
coefficients were calculated to assess the interrelationships
between variables of interest. As shown in Table 2, results indicate
overall significant positive correlations between discrimination
and psychological distress, anxiety, and clinical depression.
Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA)
Two MANOVAs were used to determine whether Asian Amer-
icans and Latinos evidenced differential exposure to different
types of discrimination and the stresses associated with those
experiences. Power analyses (Cohen, 1988) suggested sufficient
power (1 – %!.80, p#.05) given the sample size to detect small
to medium effect sizes and larger (d!.42). As indicated in
Table 3, Latinos and Asian Americans reported no differences in
exposure to discrimination across a wide range of domains. Results
indicated that Latinos were significantly more likely to have been
accused or suspected of doing something wrong such as stealing,
cheating, not doing their share of the work, or breaking the law.
Moreover, they were more likely to perceive these accusations as
stressful. Both differences were small to moderate in effect size
(d!.43).
Regression Analyses
Hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to examine
the relationship between independent variables and mental
health outcomes (see Table 4). Demographic variables were
entered in the first block to control for their association with the
outcome variables (i.e., gender, years in school, and financial
stress). Ethnicity was dummy coded (Asian American !0,
Latinos !1) and entered in the second block to determine
whether Asian Americans and Latinos evidenced differential
risk for mental health problems, and the composite discrimina-
tion score was entered into the third block.
Psychological Distress. Results indicated that fewer years in
school were significantly associated with higher psychological dis-
tress (R
2
!.09). There were no ethnic differences in risk for psycho-
logical distress. Higher discrimination scores were significantly asso-
ciated with higher psychological distress (R
2
!.09). Cohen’s &
2
suggested small effect sizes for demographics (&
2
!.10) and ethnic-
ity (&
2
!.11) and a medium effect for discrimination (&
2
!.23).
Suicidal Ideation. Asian American and Latino students did not
evidence a significant difference in suicidal ideation. However,
higher discrimination was significantly associated with higher
suicidal ideation, accounting for 3% of the variance (R
2
!.03).
The effect sizes for demographics, ethnicity, and discrimination
were small (&
2
s!.03–.06).
State Anxiety. Financial stress was significantly associated
with state anxiety, for a small effect (&
2
!.04). Higher discrim-
ination scores were significantly associated with higher state anx-
iety (R
2
!.09), for a moderate effect (&
2
!.16).
Trait Anxiety. Compared with Latinos, Asian Americans evi-
denced higher risk for trait anxiety. In addition, higher discrimi-
nation scores were significantly associated with higher trait anxi-
ety (R
2
!.15). Again, demographics showed a small effect (&
2
!
.04), as did ethnicity (&
2
!.06), and discrimination showed a
medium effect, (&
2
!.18).
Clinical Depression. Hierarchical logistic regression analyses
were used to determine the relationship between variables and
clinical depression. Women evidenced a 3.35 times (confidence
interval [CI] !1.09, 10.32) higher likelihood of experiencing
clinical depression than men ( p#.05). Those exposed to discrim-
ination were 1.62 times (CI !1.24, 2.12) at greater risk for
depression ( p#.01).
Discussion
This study provides evidence that Asian American and Latino
American college students experience discrimination across a va-
riety of social and professional settings, and that together the
frequency of perceived discrimination and the appraisal of the
stressfulness of those incidents have serious consequences for
minority college students. Specifically, perceived discrimination
was associated with increased risk for psychological distress, sui-
cidal ideation, state and trait anxiety, and clinical depression. The
results also suggest that younger college students were at higher
risk for psychological distress.
The results from this study contribute to the discrimination–
health literature in a number of ways. First, this study used a
discrimination measure that assessed both frequency of exposure
Table 2
Intercorrelation Matrix for All Measured Variables Used in the Model: Asian Americans and Latinos
Variable 1 2 3 4 56789
1. Sex — .06 .12 .12 ".01 ".18 ".12 ".08 ".15
2. Years in school ".16 — .01 .02 ".15 ".03 .01 ".09 .02
3. Financial stress .03 ".02 — .34
!!
.24
!
".12 .32
!!
.25
!
.10
4. Discrimination .03 .03 .00 — .43
!!
.10 .38
!
.47
!!
.23
!
5. Psychological distress ".10 ".29
!!
.10 .20
!
— .45
!!
.59
!!
.80
!!
.65
!!
6. Suicidal ideation ".10 ".13 .02 .18 .28
!!
— .29
!!
.46
!!
.60
!!
7. State anxiety .03 ".15 .09 .28
!!
.57
!!
.27
!!
— .81
!!
.36
!!
8. Trait anxiety ".02 ".14 .08 .19 .63
!!
.28
!!
.82
!!
— .56
!!
9. Clinical depression ".17
†
".06 ".08 .26
!!
.62
!!
.47
!!
.39
!!
.45
!!
—
Note. Variable correlations for Asian Americans and Latinos are on the bottom left half and top right, respectively.
!
p#.05, two-tailed.
!!
p#.01, two-tailed.
†
p#.10, one-tailed.
330 HWANG AND GOTO

to discrimination and appraised stressfulness of those experiences
(Landrine et al., 2006). This measurement method is consistent
with the stress coping and appraisal literature (Lazarus & Folkman,
1984) and may more accurately assess the impact of perceived
discrimination on health outcomes than dichotomous instruments
or those that use fewer items. Our results yielded a high correlation
between frequency and stress appraisals and justified the creation
of a composite score. Thus, we are confident that our composite
score represents a conceptually broad measure of discrimination. It
is important to note that for most types of discrimination, mean
exposure levels were somewhere between once in a while to
sometimes, indicating that discriminatory experiences are a reality
for Asian and Latino American college students. Furthermore, our
results suggest that perceived discrimination accounts for approx-
imately 10% of the variance across state and trait anxiety and
psychological distress. When considering the number of possible
experiential and dispositional factors that can influence mental
health, and the importance of coping strategies, the moderate effect
size of the relationship between racial discrimination and mental
health is impressive.
Table 3
Multivariate Analysis of Variance Results for Ethnic Differences in Exposure and Stress Associated with Discrimination
Asian
Americans Latinos Total
Type of discrimination M SD M SD M SD F
1
Treated unfairly by...because of your race/ethnic group?
1. Teachers and professors 1.98 0.93 1.97 0.95 1.98 0.94 .01
Stress appraisal 2.74 1.66 2.93 1.84 2.82 1.73 .35
2. Employers, bosses, and supervisors 1.77 0.94 1.87 1.10 1.81 1.01 .00
Stress appraisal 2.34 1.66 2.55 1.93 2.43 1.78 .03
3. Coworkers, students, and colleagues 2.17 0.93 2.23 1.06 2.20 0.93 .01
Stress appraisal 2.72 1.60 2.87 1.85 2.78 1.70 .07
4. People in service jobs (store clerks, waiters, bartenders, bank tellers,
and others)
2.42 1.11 2.44 1.21 2.43 1.15 .00
Stress appraisal 2.93 1.59 3.13 1.78 3.01 1.67 .32
5. Strangers 2.42 1.03 2.44 1.13 2.43 1.07 .10
stress appraisal 2.76 1.66 2.87 1.63 2.80 1.64 .10
6. People in helping jobs (doctors, nurses, psychiatrists, case workers,
dentists, school counselors, therapists, social workers, and others)
1.66 0.85 1.73 1.02 1.69 0.92 .00
Stress appraisal 2.08 1.48 2.16 1.57 2.11 1.52 .01
7. Neighbors 2.09 1.13 2.08 1.13 2.09 1.13 .18
Stress appraisal 2.38 1.61 2.54 1.61 2.44 1.60 .07
8. Institutions (schools, universities, law firms, police, courts, department
of social services, unemployment office, and others)
1.94 1.06 2.05 1.29 1.99 1.16 .04
Stress appraisal 2.64 1.82 2.59 1.84 2.62 1.83 .22
9. People you thought were your friends 1.83 0.99 1.64 0.93 1.75 0.97 2.77
†
Stress appraisal 2.33 1.65 2.25 1.68 2.29 1.66 .18
How often...because of your race/ethnic group?
10. Have you been accused of doing something wrong (e.g., stealing,
cheating, not doing share of work, or breaking the law)
1.50 0.97 1.95 1.10 1.68 1.05 5.71
!
Stress appraisal 1.97 1.67 2.84 2.08 2.33 1.90 6.42
!
11. Have people misunderstood your intentions and motives 2.09 0.99 2.16 1.17 2.12 1.07 .05
Stress appraisal 2.42 1.58 2.72 1.77 2.54 1.66 .65
12. Have you wanted to tell someone off for being racist but you didn’t
say anything
2.54 1.37 2.60 1.52 2.57 1.43 .03
Stress appraisal 3.11 1.76 3.07 1.88 3.10 1.80 .09
13. Have you been really angry about something racist done to you 2.36 1.26 2.49 1.60 2.41 1.41 .14
Stress appraisal 3.37 1.77 3.35 1.90 3.36 1.82 .00
14. Have you been forced to take drastic steps (file grievance, lawsuit,
quit job, move, and other actions) to deal with some racist thing
done to you
1.27 0.72 1.36 0.76 1.31 0.74 .36
Stress appraisal 1.72 1.55 1.94 1.81 1.81 1.66 .16
15. Have you been called a racist name 2.33 0.92 2.08 1.13 2.22 1.02 3.51
†
Stress appraisal 2.95 1.64 2.67 1.84 2.83 1.73 1.69
16. Have you gotten into argument or fight about something racist done to
you or another member of your race/ethnic group
1.98 1.09 2.09 1.18 2.03 1.13 .27
Stress appraisal 2.59 1.69 2.96 1.78 2.74 1.73 1.01
17. Have you been made fun of, picked on, pushed, shoved, hit, or
threatened with harm
2.17 1.01 1.95 1.18 2.08 1.09 1.91
Stress appraisal 3.11 1.84 2.62 1.89 2.91 1.87 3.56
†
18. How different would your life be now if you had not been treated in a
racist and unfair way?
2.53 1.27 2.36 1.49 2.46 1.36 .97
!
p#.05, two-tailed.
!!
p#.01, two-tailed.
†
p#.10, one-tailed.
331
DISCRIMINATION AND ASIAN AMERICANS AND LATINOS

For the most part, Asian Americans and Latinos experienced
similar types of perceived discrimination and also had similar
reactions to the stressfulness of those events. Contrary to other
studies, Asian Americans did not report more peer discrimination
than Latinos (Fisher et al., 2000; Rosenbloom & Way, 2004). This
is perhaps due to the use of different measures (both qualitative
and quantitative) in previous studies or different experiences
among primary school versus college youth. As found in other
studies, Latino did report feeling like they have been accused of
doing something wrong (e.g., stealing, cheating, not doing share of
work, or breaking the law) more than Asian Americans. This
seems to be the largest difference between these two college
samples and suggests the existence of emic or group-specific types
of discrimination experiences. The power analysis suggested
enough sensitivity to detect small to medium effect sizes, which is
reasonable given the exploratory nature of our study. We did not
correct for multiple comparisons given the exploratory nature
(Perneger, 1998), so our results should be interpreted with caution.
However, future studies might explore more subtle differences
across groups and use multi-item measures to assess the different
types of discrimination, particularly from peers and surrounding
accusations of wrongdoing.
The stress associated with perceived discriminatory experiences
also had broad impacts on the mental health status of minority
students. This study supported the extant literature suggesting that
discrimination negatively influences psychological distress, anxi-
ety, and depression in Asian Americans and Latinos (e.g., Con-
trada et al., 2001; Lee, 2003; Noh & Kaspar, 2003). Our primary
regression analyses speak to the etics or cross-group associations
of discrimination with mental health. That is, we controlled for the
effects of ethnicity- and socioeconomic status-related variables
before investigating the effects of discrimination. This is a com-
mon practice, but our etic framework provides a strong theoretical
rationale for this statistical practice. The emics or group-specific
relations were revealed in the correlation matrix by group and
suggest striking etics across groups, with the exception of stronger
relations between discrimination and depression and suicidal ide-
ation for Latinos. Again, these possible emic differences are ex-
ploratory in nature and should be further explored.
Beyond these oft-studied variables, the results suggest that per-
ceived discrimination also affects mental health outcomes in more
and less severe ways. This supports case study research (Heacock,
1990) linking racial discrimination with suicidal behaviors in
African Americans and Latinos. The relation between suicidal
ideation and discrimination was small, perhaps because of the
severity and low base rate of the outcome. Yet, the relation
strength was comparable to the relations of suicidal ideation with
demographics and ethnicity, and perhaps would not have been
detected with less sensitive measures. These results importantly
suggest that racial discrimination, like sexual orientation discrim-
ination (Diaz et al., 2001), has suicidal correlates. Furthermore, the
finding that retrospective measures of perceived discrimination are
related to state anxiety is provocative given that state anxiety is
thought to be transient in nature. Perhaps merely recalling past
negative events serves as a prompt or prime, stirring up current
anxiety levels. This model of state anxiety seems intuitively ap-
pealing and should be further explored. These findings importantly
suggest that the associations of perceived discrimination reach
beyond distress, trait anxiety, and depression in outcomes of
varying severity.
Results from this study have a number of practical implications.
For example, conducting workshops and support groups that ac-
knowledge the experience of discrimination across many settings
with some specific tailoring by group might aid in promoting the
value of diversity and cultural acceptance. Reducing discrimina-
tion toward minority students is important because they sometimes
feel that they are the targets of racial stereotypes and prejudice as
well as unfair treatment by faculty, staff, teaching assistants, and
other students (Ancis, Sedlacek, & Mohr, 2000).
A limitation of the discrimination literature is that it is difficult
to disaggregate perceived versus actual discrimination. However,
there is an abundance of literature indicating that the perception of
being discriminated against is sufficient to decrease the health and
mental health status of ethnic minorities (Jones, 1997; Landrine et
al., 2006; Smedley & Smedley, 2005; Utsey, 1998). Although
some may question whether minorities may be too sensitive and
overreport discriminatory experiences, there is sufficient research
to show that minority group members tend to minimize their
experiences with discrimination (Crosby, 1984; Ruggiero & Tay-
Table 4
Hierarchical Regression Model for Psychological Distress
Variable %t
2
R
2
'R
2
Psychological distress
Block 1 .09 .09
!!
Gender "0.10 "1.41
Years in school "0.25 "3.55
!!
Financial stress 0.13 1.78
†
Block 2 .10 .01
Ethnicity "0.10 "1.33
Block 3 .19 .09
!!
Discrimination 0.30 4.40
!!
Suicidal ideation
Block 1 .03 .03
Gender "0.13 "1.74
†
Years in school "0.13 "1.70
†
Financial stress "0.04 "0.55
Block 2 .03 .00
Ethnicity "0.24 "0.31
Block 3 .06 .03
!
Discrimination 0.17 2.28
!
State anxiety
Block 1 .04 .04
†
Gender "0.06 "0.82
Years in school "0.11 "1.51
Financial stress 0.16 2.19
!
Block 2 .05 .01
Ethnicity "0.08 "1.12
Block 3 .14 .09
!!
Discrimination 0.31 4.41
!!
Trait anxiety
Block 1 .04 .04
†
Gender "0.08 "1.05
Years in school "0.14 "1.89
†
Financial stress 0.11 1.53
Block 2 .06 .02
!
Ethnicity "0.15 "1.94
!
Block 3 .15 .10
!!
Discrimination 0.32 4.45
!!
!
p#.05, two-tailed.
!!
p#.01, two-tailed.
†
p#.10, one-tailed.
332 HWANG AND GOTO

lor, 1997). Because the pool of participants was likely collectivist,
our respondents may have been less likely to perceive racist
dispositions in individuals and across situations than would others
who tend to make more dispositional attributions and pay less
attention to the role of the situation in interpreting behavior (see
Choi, Nisbett, & Norenzayan, 1999).
Although the findings from this study add to the existing liter-
ature on discrimination and mental health outcomes, a number of
limitations deserve mention. First, data were collected on college
students who are a select and resilient group, able to overcome
barriers, and perhaps have particular coping strategies (see Sanders
Thompson, 2006). Although studies suggest no difference between
college samples and community samples with the GED (Landrine
et al., 2006), caution should be taken in generalizing our results, in
particular the mental health associations to nonstudent samples. In
addition, there are dozens of distinct Asian and Latino ethnic
groups with different backgrounds, generational status, and expe-
riences (Sue & Sue, 2003). Findings from any one study, including
this study, may not equally apply to these heterogeneous popula-
tions. The terms Latino and Asian American do not recognize this
hetereogeneity and may perpetuate stereotypes (Helms, Jernigan,
& Mascher, 2005). Third, like most discrimination studies, data
were cross-sectional and directionality of effects cannot be certain.
For example, it may be that those with poorer mental health may
be more prone to perceiving and reporting discrimination. In this
study, a composite score for discrimination exposure and stress
appraisal was used. Future studies should improve on measure-
ment and data analytic techniques to better ascertain the combined
effects of exposure and stress appraisal. Some may argue that
participants in an online study may differ qualitatively from non-
online participants. Prior research has supported the use of the
Internet as an effective means of obtaining data, and has provided
support that Internet and traditional methods produce similar find-
ings (Gosling, Vazire, Srivastava, & John, 2004).
Given the heightened sociopolitical pressures against Asian
Americans and Latinos, it becomes increasingly important to better
understand the discriminatory experience of these groups, outside
of the Black–White paradigm. We propose a cultural framework of
etics and emics (Triandis, 2007) to help illuminate cross-group
versus within-group differences. Our results suggest that the racial
discrimination experiences of Latinos and Asian Americans are
comparable. Yet, differences in the domain in which discrimina-
tion occurs do exist and should be further explored. Furthermore,
understanding the negative impact of discrimination on a broad
array of mental health outcomes sheds light on the far-reaching
implications of this social issue. This study takes a step toward
better understanding the complexities and impact of perceived
discrimination in Asian American and Latino college students.
References
Ancis, J. R., Sedlacek, W. E., & Mohr, J. J. (2000). Student perceptions of
campus cultural climate by race. Journal of Counseling and Develop-
ment, 78, 180 –185.
Araujo, B. Y., & Borrell, L. N. (2006). Understanding the link between
discrimination, mental health outcomes, and life chances among Latinos.
Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 28, 245–266.
Barry, D. T., & Grilo, C. M. (2003). Cultural, self-esteem, and demo-
graphic correlates of perception of personal and group discrimination
among East Asian immigrants. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
73, 223–229.
Beck, A. T., Kovacs, M., & Weissman, W. (1979). Assessment of suicidal
intention: The Scale for Suicide Ideation. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 47, 343–352.
Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Ranieri, W. F. (1988). Scale for Suicide
Ideation: Psychometric properties of a self-report version. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 44, 499 –505.
Berry, J. W. (1969). On cross-cultural comparability. International Journal
of Psychology, 4, 119 –128.
Broman, C. L., Mavaddat, R., & Hsu, S.-Y. (2000). The experience and
consequences of perceived racial discrimination: A study of African
Americans. Journal of Black Psychology, 26, 165–180.
Brondolo, E., Kelly, K. P., Coakley, V., Gordon, T., Thompson, S., Levy,
E., et al. (2005). The Perceived Ethnic Discrimination Questionnaire.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 335–365.
Cattell, R. B. (1966). Patterns of change: Measurement in relation to state
dimension, trait change, lability, and process concepts. In R. B. Cattell
(Ed), Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology (pp. 355–502).
Chicago: Rand McNally.
Chao, R. K. (1995). Chinese and European American cultural models of
the self reflected in mothers’ childrearing beliefs. Ethos, 23, 328 –354.
Cheng, D., Leong, F. T., & Geist, R. (1993). Cultural differences in psycho-
logical distress between Asian and Caucasian American college students.
Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 21, 182–190.
Choi, I., Nisbett, R. E., & Norenzayan, A. (1999). Causal attributions
across cultures. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 47– 63.
Clark, R., Anderson, N. B., Clark, C. R., & Williams, D. R. (1999). Racism
as a stressor for African Americans: A biopsychosocial model. American
Psychologist, 54, 805– 816.
Cochran, C. D., & Hale, W. D. (1985). College student norms on the Brief
Symptom Inventory. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 41, 777–779.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Contrada, R. J., Ashmore, R. D., Gary, M. L., Coups, E., Egeth, J. D.,
Sewell, A., et al. (2001). Measures of ethnicity-related stress: Psycho-
metric properties, ethnic group differences, and associations with well-
being. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 1775–1820.
Crosby, F. (1984). The denial of personal discrimination. American Be-
havioral Scientist, 27, 371–386.
Delucchi, M., & Do, H. D. (1996). The model minority myth and percep-
tions of Asian Americans as victims of racial harassment. College
Student Journal, 30, 411– 414.
Derogatis, L. R., & Melisaratos, N. (1983). The Brief Symptom Inventory:
An introductory report. Psychological Medicine, 13, 595– 605.
Diaz, R. M., Ayala, G., Bein, E., Henne, J., & Marin, B. V. (2001). The
impact of homophobia, poverty, and racism on the mental health of gay
and bisexual Latino men: Findings from 3 US cities. American Journal
of Public Health, 91, 927–932.
Dion, K. L., Dion, K. K., & Pappas, G. (1992). Personality based hardiness as
a buffer for discrimination-related stress in members of Toronto’s Chinese
community. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 24, 517–536.
Dozois, D. J. A. (2003). The psychometric characteristics of the Hamilton
Depression Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80, 31– 40.
Fisher, C. B., Wallace, S. A., & Fenton, R. E. (2000). Discrimination distress
during adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29, 679– 695.
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often
mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow
from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 82, 878 –902.
Gee, G. C. (2002). A multilevel analysis of the relationship between
institutional and individual racial discrimination and health status. Amer-
ican Journal of Public Health, 92, 615– 623.
Gosling, S. D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, O. P. (2004). Should we
333
DISCRIMINATION AND ASIAN AMERICANS AND LATINOS

trust Web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions
about Internet questionnaires. American Psychologist, 59, 93–104.
Greene, M. L., Way, N., & Pahl, K. (2006). Trajectories of perceived adult
and peer discrimination among Black, Latino, and Asian American
adolescents: Patterns and psychological correlates. Developmental Psy-
chology, 42, 218 –238.
Hall, R. E. (2002). A descriptive methodology of color bias in Puerto Rico:
Manifestations of discrimination in the new millennium. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 32, 1527–1537.
Hamilton, M. (1960). A rating scale for depression. Journal of Neurology,
Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 23, 56 – 62.
Hamilton, M. (1967). Development of a rating scale for primary depressive
illness. British Journal of Social Clinical Psychology, 6, 278 –296.
Harrell, S. P. (2000). A multidimensional conceptualization of racism-
related stress: Implications for the well-being of people of color. Amer-
ican Journal of Orthopsychiatryy, 70, 42–57.
Heacock, D. R. (1990). Suicidal behavior in Black and Hispanic youth.
Psychiatric Annals, 20, 134 –142.
Helms, J. E., Jernigan, M., & Mascher, J. (2005). The meaning of race in
psychology and how to change it. American Psychologist, 60, 27–36.
Hemmings, M., Reimann, J. O. F., Madrigal, D., & Velasquez, R. J. (1998).
Predictors of scores on the Brief Symptom Inventory for ethnically
diverse female clients. Psychological Reports, 83, 800 – 802.
Hishinuma, E. S., Miyamoto, R. H., Nishimura, S. T., Goebert, D. A.,
Yuen, N. Y. C., Makini, G. K., et al. (2001). Prediction of anxiety
disorders using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for multiethnic ado-
lescents. Anxiety Disorders, 15, 511–533.
Hishinuma, E. S., Miyamoto, R. H., Nishimura, S. T., & Nahulu, L. B.
(2000). Differences in State-Trait Anxiety Inventory scores for ethni-
cally diverse adolescents in Hawaii. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minor-
ity Psychology, 6, 73– 83.
Hishinuma, E. S., Miyamoto, R. H., Nishimura, S. T., Nahulu, L. B.,
Andrade, N. N., Makini, G. K., Jr., et al. (2000). Psychometric properties
of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for Asian/Pacific Islander adoles-
cents. Assessment, 7, 17–36.
Hwang, W., Myers, H., & Takeuchi, D. (2000). Psychosocial predictors of
first-onset depression in Chinese Americans. Social Psychiatry and
Psychiatric Epidemiology, 35, 133–145.
Jackson, J. S., Brown, T. N., Williams, D. R., Torres, M., Sellers, S. L., &
Brown, K. (1996). Racism and the physical and mental health status of
African Americans. Ethnic Disparities, 6, 32– 47.
Jones, J. M. (1997). Prejudice and racism (2nd ed.). Washington, DC:
McGraw-Hill.
Karlsen, S., & Nazroo, J. Y. (2002). Relation between racial discrimina-
tion, social class, and health among ethnic minority groups. American
Journal of Public Health, 92, 624 – 651.
Kessler, R. C., Mickelson, K. D., & Williams, D. R. (1999). The preva-
lence, distribution, and mental health correlates of perceived discrimi-
nation in the United States. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 40,
208 –230.
Klonoff, E. A., & Landrine, H. (1999). Cross-validation of the Schedule of
Racist Events. Journal of Black Psychology, 25, 231–254.
Klonoff, E. A., & Landrine, H. (2000). Is skin color a marker for racial
discrimination? Explaining the skin color– hypertension relationship.
Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 23, 329 –338.
Klonoff, E. A., Landrine, H., & Ullman, J. B. (1999). Racial discrimination
and psychiatric symptoms among Blacks. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic
Minority Psychology, 5, 329 –339.
Krieger, N. (1990). Racial and gender discrimination: Risk factors for high
blood pressure? Social Science and Medicine, 30, 1273–1281.
Krieger, N., & Sidney, S. (1996). Racial discrimination and blood pressure:
The CARDIA study. American Journal of Public Health, 86, 1370–1378.
Landrine, H., & Klonoff, E. A. (1996). The Schedule of Racist Events.
Journal of Black Psychology, 22, 144 –168.
Landrine, H., & Klonoff, E. A. (2000). Racial discrimination and
smoking among Blacks: Findings from two studies. Ethnic Dispari-
ties, 10, 195–202.
Landrine, H., Klonoff, E. A., Corral, I., Fernandez, S., & Roesch, S.
(2006). Conceptualizing and measuring ethnic discrimination in health
research. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 29, 79 –94.
Larsen, L. J. (2004). The foreign-born population in the United States:
2003. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping.
Springer: New York.
Lee, R. M. (2003). Do ethic identity and other-group orientation protect
against discrimination for Asian Americans? Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 50, 133–141.
Lin, M., Kwan, V. S. Y., Cheung, A., & Fiske, S. T. (2005). Stereotype
content model explains prejudice for an envied outgroup: Anti-Asian
Americans Prejudice Scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
31, 24 – 47.
Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and self: Implications for
cognition, emotion and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224 –253.
McCormack, A. S. (1995). The changing nature of racism on college
campuses: Study of discrimination at a northeastern public university.
College Student Journal, 29, 150 –156.
McCormack, A. S. (1996). Revisiting discrimination on campus: 1988,
1992, 1996. College Student Journal, 32, 378 –393.
Moradi, B., & Risco, C. (2006). Perceived discrimination experiences and
mental health of Latina/o American persons. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 53, 411– 421.
Mossakowski, K. N. (2003). Coping with perceived discrimination: Does
ethnic identity protect mental health? Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 44, 318 –331.
Murry, V. M., Brown, P. A., Brody, G. H., Cutrona, C. E., & Simons, R. L.
(2001). Racial discrimination as a moderator of the links among stress,
maternal psychological functioning, and family relationships. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 63, 915–926.
Myers, H. F., Lesser, I., Rodriguez, N., Bingham, C. B., Hwang, W.,
Camp, C., et al.. (2002). Ethnic differences in clinical presentation of
depression in depressed adult outpatients. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic
Minority Psychology, 8, 138 –156.
Noh, S., Beiser, M., Kaspar, V., Hou, F., & Rummens, J. (1999). Perceived
racial discrimination, depression, and coping: A study of Southeast
Asian refugees in Canada. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 40,
208 –230.
Noh, S., & Kaspar, V. (2003). Perceived discrimination and depression:
Moderating effects of coping, acculturation, and ethnic support. Amer-
ican Journal of Public Health, 93, 232–238.
Okazaki, S. (1997). Sources of ethnic differences between Asian American
and White American college students on measures of depression and
social anxiety. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 52– 60.
Perneger, T. V. (1998). What’s wrong with Bonferroni adjustments. British
Medical Journal, 316(7139), 1236 –1238.
Reynolds, W. M., & Kobak, K. A. (1995). Reliability and validity of the
Hamilton Depression Inventory: A paper-and-pencil version of the Ham-
ilton Depression Rating Scale Clinical Interview. Psychological Assess-
ment, 7, 472– 483.
Rosenbloom, S. R., & Way, N. (2004). Experiences of discrimination
among African American, Asian American, and Latino adolescents in an
urban high school. Youth & Society, 35, 420 – 451.
Ruggiero, K. M., & Taylor, D. M. (1997). Why minority group members
perceive or do not perceive the discrimination that confronts them: The
role of self-esteem and perceived control. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 72, 373–389.
Sanders Thompson, V. L. (2006). Coping responses and the experience
of discrimination. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 1198 –
1214.
334 HWANG AND GOTO

Schneider, K. T., Hitlan, R. T., & Radhakrishnan, P. (2000). An exami-
nation of the nature and correlates of ethnic harassment experiences in
multiple contexts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 3–12.
Shorey, H. S., Cowan, G., & Sullivan, M. P. (2002). Predicting perceptions
of discrimination among Hispanics and Anglos. Hispanic Journal of
Behavioral Sciences, 24, 3–22.
Siegel, J. M., Aneshensel, C. S., Taub, B., Cantwell, D. P., & Driscoll,
A. K. (1998). Adolescent depressed mood in a multiethnic sample.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 27, 413– 427.
Smedley, A., & Smedley, B. D. (2005). Race as biology is fiction, racism
as a social problem is real. American Psychologist, 60, 16 –26.
Spielberger, C. D. (1983). State-Trait Anxiety Inventory: A comprehensive
bibliography. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., & Lushene, R. E. (1970). Manual for
the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psycholo-
gists Press.
Sue, D. W., Bucceri, J., Lin, A. I., Nadal, K. L., & Torino, G. C. (2007).
Racial microaggressions and the Asian American experience. Cultural
Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13, 72– 81.
Sue, D. W., & Sue, S. (2003). Counseling the culturally diverse: Theory
and practice. New York: Wiley.
Szalach, L. A., Erkut, S., Coll, C. G., Alarcon, O., Fields, J. P., & Ceder, I.
(2003). Discrimination and Puerto Rican children’s and adolescent’s mental
health. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 9, 141–155.
Triandis, H. C. (2007). Culture and psychology: A history of the study of
their relationship. In S. Kitayama & D. Cohen (Eds.), Handbook of
cultural psychology (pp. 59 –76). New York: Guilford Press.
Utsey, S. O. (1998). Assessing the stressful effects of racism: A review of
instrumentation. Journal of Black Psychology, 24, 269 –288.
Vandello, J. A., & Cohen, D. (1999). Patterns of collectivism across the United
States. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 279–292.
Yoo, H. C., & Lee, R. M. (2005). Ethnic identity and approach-type coping
as moderators of the racial discrimination/well-being relation in Asian
Americans. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 497–506.
Members of Underrepresented Groups:
Reviewers for Journal Manuscripts Wanted
If you are interested in reviewing manuscripts for APA journals, the APA Publications and
Communications Board would like to invite your participation. Manuscript reviewers are vital to the
publications process. As a reviewer, you would gain valuable experience in publishing. The P&C
Board is particularly interested in encouraging members of underrepresented groups to participate
more in this process.
If you are interested in reviewing manuscripts, please write to the address below. Please note the
following important points:
• To be selected as a reviewer, you must have published articles in peer-reviewed journals. The
experience of publishing provides a reviewer with the basis for preparing a thorough, objective
review.
• To be selected, it is critical to be a regular reader of the five to six empirical journals that are most
central to the area or journal for which you would like to review. Current knowledge of recently
published research provides a reviewer with the knowledge base to evaluate a new submission
within the context of existing research.
• To select the appropriate reviewers for each manuscript, the editor needs detailed information.
Please include with your letter your vita. In the letter, please identify which APA journal(s) you
are interested in, and describe your area of expertise. Be as specific as possible. For example,
“social psychology” is not sufficient—you would need to specify “social cognition” or “attitude
change” as well.
• Reviewing a manuscript takes time (1– 4 hours per manuscript reviewed). If you are selected to
review a manuscript, be prepared to invest the necessary time to evaluate the manuscript
thoroughly.
Write to Journals Office, American Psychological Association, 750 First Street, NE, Washington,
DC 20002-4242.
335
DISCRIMINATION AND ASIAN AMERICANS AND LATINOS