Access to this full-text is provided by Frontiers.
Content available from Frontiers in Psychology
This content is subject to copyright.
fpsyg-15-1499295 December 27, 2024 Time: 16:23 # 1
TYPE Original Research
PUBLISHED 07 January 2025
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1499295
OPEN ACCESS
EDITED BY
Ralph Erich Schmidt,
University of Geneva, Switzerland
REVIEWED BY
Judith Meijer,
University of Humanistic Studies, Netherlands
Johannes Due Enstad,
Norwegian Institute for Social Research (ISF),
Norway
*CORRESPONDENCE
Maor Shani
maor.shani@uos.de
RECEIVED 20 September 2024
ACCEPTED 17 December 2024
PUBLISHED 07 January 2025
CITATION
Shani M, Goldberg D and van Zalk MHW
(2025) “If you prick us, do we not bleed?”
Antisemitism and psychosocial health
among Jews in Germany.
Front. Psychol. 15:1499295.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1499295
COPYRIGHT
© 2025 Shani, Goldberg and van Zalk. This is
an open-access article distributed under the
terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License (CC BY). The use, distribution or
reproduction in other forums is permitted,
provided the original author(s) and the
copyright owner(s) are credited and that the
original publication in this journal is cited, in
accordance with accepted academic
practice. No use, distribution or reproduction
is permitted which does not comply with
these terms.
“If you prick us, do we not
bleed?” Antisemitism and
psychosocial health among Jews
in Germany
Maor Shani*, Dana Goldberg and Maarten H. W. van Zalk
Department of Developmental Psychology, Institute for Psychology, Osnabrück University,
Osnabrück, Germany
Introduction: Amid escalating global antisemitism, particularly following the
Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, this study addresses critical gaps in
understanding the psychosocial impact of antisemitism on Jewish communities
worldwide.
Methods: Focusing on the Jewish community in Germany, we conducted a
cross-sectional survey of 420 Jewish individuals (mean age = 40.71 years, SD
= 15.90; 57% female). Participants completed measures assessing four distinct
forms of perceived and experienced antisemitism: everyday discrimination,
microaggressions (subtle antisemitism and collective experiences such as
encountering antisemitic comments on social media), vigilance against
antisemitism, and perceived prevalence of antisemitism. Psychosocial
outcomes—including depression, anxiety, subjective well-being, and social
participation—were also measured. Data were analyzed using correlation
analyses and multiple linear regressions, and Latent Profile Analysis (LPA)
identified distinct groups based on shared perceptions and experiences of
antisemitism and levels of Jewish identification.
Results: Results indicate that experiences of antisemitism, particularly everyday
discriminatory acts, were significantly associated with poorer mental health
outcomes and reduced social participation. The LPA revealed three distinct
groups, with the high-identity, high-antisemitism group (53% of the sample)
reporting significantly higher anxiety levels than those with average identification
and more rare experience with antisemitism.
Discussion: These findings underscore the pervasive nature of antisemitism
and its detrimental effects on the well-being of Jewish individuals. The
study highlights the need for targeted interventions to promote resilience
within Jewish communities and calls for broader societal efforts to combat
antisemitism.
KEYWORDS
antisemitism, perceived discrimination, racism-related stress, Jewish identity,
microaggressions
Frontiers in Psychology 01 frontiersin.org
fpsyg-15-1499295 December 27, 2024 Time: 16:23 # 2
Shani et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1499295
1 Introduction
Antisemitic incidents have surged worldwide, increasing by
235% in 2023, particularly in the United States and Europe (Anti-
Defamation League, 2024). Following the Hamas attack on Israel
on 7 October 2023, the German Association for Research and
Information on Antisemitism (RIAS) documented 994 antisemitic
incidents in Germany between October 7 and November 9—a 320%
increase over the same period in 2022 (Fischer and Wetzels, 2024).
These incidents, ranging from violence and property damage to
threats and offensive behavior, have eroded the Jewish community’s
sense of safety. A 2024 report by the European Union Agency
for Fundamental Rights found that 77% of Jewish respondents
in Germany viewed public hostility toward Jews as a significant
problem, with 52% personally experiencing antisemitism in public
spaces (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2024).
Given this alarming situation, it is crucial to ask: what are the
consequences of antisemitism? At the societal level, antisemitism—
like other forms of racial discrimination and bigotry—may
damage social cohesion, reducing trust and cooperation among
community members (Bonick, 2021). In Germany, it hinders
reconciliation with the past and the commitment to Holocaust
remembrance and nurturing Jewish life (Jikeli, 2020). From
a human rights perspective, antisemitism infringes upon basic
freedoms, including freedom of religion, equality, and the
ability to practice cultural life free from harassment (OHCHR,
2019). Importantly, antisemitism may detrimentally affect victims’
everyday lives, psychological health, and wellbeing. Persistent
exposure may lead to chronic stress, anxiety, and depression among
Jewish individuals, potentially impacting their overall quality of
life (Harrell, 2000;Rosen et al., 2018). The fear of antisemitism
can result in behavioral changes, such as concealing one’s Jewish
identity or avoiding public spaces, leading to social isolation
and reduced participation in community life (Himmelstein et al.,
2015;Watson-Singleton et al., 2019). These effects may extend
beyond the individual, influencing family dynamics, career choices,
and residential decisions, thereby shaping the broader Jewish
experience in contemporary society.
Indeed, extensive social psychology research shows that chronic
exposure to discrimination among stigmatized groups is linked
to maladaptive physiological outcomes like high blood pressure,
obesity, and diabetes (Pascoe and Richman, 2009;Lee and Ahn,
2012). It also affects psychosocial health, including depression,
anxiety, social interactions, subjective wellbeing (SWB), and self-
esteem (Pascoe and Richman, 2009;Schmitt et al., 2014;Paradies
et al., 2015;Williams et al., 2019;Priest et al., 2021;Emmer
et al., 2024). The theory of racism-related stress posits that racism,
whether perceived or real, acts as a chronic psychological stressor,
detrimentally impacting both mental and physical health over time
(Harrell, 2000;Ong et al., 2009;O’Connor et al., 2021;Ahuja and
Haeny, 2024). Racial stigma spans social contexts and can be a
source of devaluation (Miller and Kaiser, 2001). Repeated exposure
to racism may lead to chronic overactivation of stress pathways,
contributing to metabolic issues that impair development and
potentially cause early aging, heart disease, and other illnesses
(Selvarajah et al., 2022). Notably, even microaggressions—subtle
and sometimes unintentional discrimination—can cause chronic
stress that negatively affects mental health and quality of life,
indicating poor psychological adjustment (Hu and Taylor, 2016;
Lui and Quezada, 2019). These effects have been observed across
various minority groups, although most research has focused on
American minorities like Blacks, Latinos, and Asians.
Despite a growing body of research on the outcomes of racism,
relatively little is known about the impact of antisemitism on Jewish
communities across the diaspora (Enstad, 2023;Walker et al.,
2024). This gap is notable, given that research consistently shows
Jews report significantly higher fear of victimization compared
to other religious groups (Enstad, 2024;Scheitle et al., 2023).
Using data from the EU Fundamental Rights Agency’s 2018
survey, Enstad (2024) found that higher perceived prevalence of
societal antisemitism strongly predicts experiences of antisemitic
victimization, including harassment and violence. Furthermore,
country-level unfavorable opinions of Israel and the presence
of larger Muslim populations were identified as predictors of
increased experiences and perceptions of antisemitic victimization,
supporting the concept of “new antisemitism.”
Several factors contribute to this research gap. First, perceiving
Jews as “white” in race, class, and culture has led to their
exclusion from core analyses in racism research. This “passing” as
white, while sometimes seen as advantageous, paradoxically fuels
antisemitic attitudes viewing Jews as part of an undeserved elite
(Stein et al., 2024). Second, the misconception of antisemitism
as a historical artifact with little contemporary relevance persists,
despite the current surge in anti-Jewish rhetoric and hate crimes
(Kressel and Kressel, 2016). Third, the complexity and evolving
nature of antisemitism across societal segments presents significant
methodological challenges for researchers (Salzborn et al., 2011).
Lastly, ongoing debates about what constitutes antisemitism,
particularly regarding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and the
concept of “New antisemitism,” have politicized the topic, making
it contentious even in scholarly fields (Waxman et al., 2022).
We adopted Zick et al.’s (2011) definition of antisemitism as
“a social prejudice directed against Jews simply because they are
Jewish.” This definition provides a broad socio-psychological lens
for examining the associations between perceived or experienced
antisemitism and psychosocial health, focusing on individual
perceptions and responses. However, we also recognize the
importance of definitions that address the specific contemporary
manifestations of antisemitism, such as the International Holocaust
Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition. The IHRA definition
delineates explicit examples of antisemitism, including Holocaust
denial, conspiracy theories, and anti-Israel rhetoric (Weitzman,
2019). We utilized this discourse-specific IHRA definition to
construct measurement items reflecting contemporary expressions
of antisemitism (see below).
Perceived antisemitism, adapted from definitions of perceived
discrimination (Pascoe and Richman, 2009;Schmitt et al.,
2014;Williams and Mohammed, 2009), refers to the subjective
experience of being treated unfairly, excluded, or denigrated
because one’s Jewish identity. Building on Zick et al.’s (2011)
definition, perceived antisemitism encompasses individuals’
interpretations of behaviors, beliefs, or institutional practices that
they attribute to antisemitic bias. This definition acknowledges
that the psychosocial effects of antisemitism depend on the victim’s
perception of discrimination, regardless of the perpetrator’s
intent or whether the incident aligns with societal definitions of
antisemitism. Consequently, the terms “perceived antisemitism”
Frontiers in Psychology 02 frontiersin.org
fpsyg-15-1499295 December 27, 2024 Time: 16:23 # 3
Shani et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1499295
and “experienced antisemitism” are used interchangeably
throughout this article to reflect the subjective nature of these
reports. While we situate perceived antisemitism within theoretical
frameworks on racial discrimination, we also emphasize that
antisemitism possesses unique historical, cultural, and social
characteristics, as well as distinctive contemporary expressions, as
highlighted in ongoing academic debates (e.g., Cousin and Fine,
2012;Yuval-Davis, 2024). Nevertheless, we believe that established
theoretical models linking experiences of racism to psychosocial
health outcomes, such as racism-related stress (Harrell, 2000),
minority stress theory (Meyer, 2003), and linked lives theory (Elder
et al., 2003), offer valuable insights into the effects of antisemitism.
These frameworks have been successfully applied across multiple
forms of discrimination, including antisemitism (e.g., Rosen et al.,
2018;Trilesnik et al., 2022).
Despite limited research, some recent studies have examined
the psychological impact of antisemitism. In the United States,
direct experiences of antisemitism have been linked to lower
life satisfaction, decreased wellbeing, reduced self-esteem, and
larger negative affect (Altman, 2011;Chase, 2018;Rosen et al.,
2018). Such experiences also strongly predict feelings of being an
outsider within one’s community (Alper and Olson, 2011) and
correlate with higher levels of depression and a greater propensity
for survivor guilt (Kosdon et al., 2021). However, instruments
like the Antisemitism-Related Stress Inventory—which combine
exposure frequency and stress reactions—make it challenging to
isolate the specific impact on wellbeing (Paradies et al., 2015). In
Canada, both explicit and ambiguous discrimination have been
found to predict increased depressive symptoms among Jewish
individuals (Matheson et al., 2019). Similarly, in Australia, concerns
about antisemitism and Israel following traumatic events were
positively related to increased anxiety, mediating the impact of
exposure to graphic and distressing content on social media
(Bankier-Karp and Graham, 2024). Although German studies are
fewer, they reveal comparable patterns: experiences of antisemitism
are associated with heightened worries, fears, and perceived
burdens (Zick et al., 2017), significantly limiting individuals’
lives and hindering self-determination (Reimer-Gordinskaya and
Tzschiesche, 2021). Among German and Austrian ex-Soviet
Jews, perceived antisemitism predicts lower quality of life, while
mental health appears more adversely affected by perceived
xenophobia than by perceived antisemitism (Trilesnik et al.,
2022).
Collectively, these studies show consistent associations
between perceived antisemitism and negative mental health
outcomes among Jewish individuals—including decreased life
satisfaction, increased anxiety and depression, and feelings of
social exclusion. However, prior research predominantly focused
on blatant, overt discrimination based on ethnic or religious
affiliation. To better capture contemporary Jewish experiences
with antisemitism in Western societies, it is necessary to address
additional domains. Modern antisemitism manifests in complex
forms beyond direct discrimination, often appearing as cultural
codes, tropes, or metonymical worldviews within political,
historical, and cultural contexts (Schuller, 2021). These include
conspiracy theories, stereotypes, and delegitimizing beliefs about
Israel as a Jewish collectivity (Weitzman, 2019). Moreover,
antisemitism frequently appears as subtle microaggressions
and collective-discursive forms, especially in online spaces and
public discourse (Becker and Bolton, 2022;Weitzman et al.,
2023).
These developments mirror the evolution of modern racism
and prejudice. Research suggests that ethno-racial prejudice
is nowadays more likely expressed subtly or symbolically, as
overt expressions are socially unacceptable (Pettigrew and
Meertens, 1995;Akrami et al., 2000;Stanke et al., 2024).
And still, recent studies indicated that subtle prejudice is no
less harmful to minorities’ adjustment outcomes than blatant
discrimination (Jones et al., 2016), whether these acts are attributed
by targets to racism (Carter and Murphy, 2015;Platow et al.,
2022) or cause stress due to their ambiguous interpretation
(Cuevas et al., 2024). In this context, racial microaggressions
are identified as subtle, indirect expressions of racism
(Kanter et al., 2017).
Parallel to such subtle manifestations of antisemitism, Jewish
experiences can be affected by vicarious racism—indirect exposure
through hearing about or witnessing racism in one’s environment
or media (Harrell, 2000;Gee et al., 2012;Himmelstein et al.,
2015;Heard-Garris et al., 2018). Social identity theory posits that
self-image may be influenced by collective self-esteem, shaped
by perceptions of norms and outgroup evaluations (Crocker and
Major, 1989;Tajfel and Turner, 2004;Liang and Fassinger, 2008).
Actions that devalue or stigmatize the ingroup may negatively affect
self-concept and contribute to cumulative racism-related stress
on psychosocial health. The theory of linked lives suggests that
injustices against ingroup members lead to personal distress (Elder
et al., 2003;Gee et al., 2012). Neuroscience evidence indicates that
indirect racism can have spillover effects, activating brain regions
associated with ostracism, exclusion, and rejection (Masten et al.,
2013;Berger and Sarnyai, 2015). These notions suggest that racist or
traumatic events can impact health among targeted group members
(e.g., Tynes et al., 2019) or even extend beyond the immediate
ingroup.
Finally, research on minority stressors has focused on
concealing one’s identity to avoid victimization (e.g., Beyer
et al., 2024;Meyer, 2003;Lo et al., 2024). Vigilance to
racial discrimination involves heightened attentiveness to the
environment in anticipation of experiencing racism (Sawyer et al.,
2012;Himmelstein et al., 2015). Beyer et al. (2024) recently found
that hiding or concealing one’s Jewish identity among German
Jews was more common among young individuals and those
living in areas with higher perceived Muslim population, while
direct experiences with antisemitic harassment was less predictive
of such vigilance. While sometimes a coping mechanism, this
vigilance can lead to intense worry, persistent monitoring, and
social avoidance—the consequences of living “on alert.” During
the COVID-19 pandemic, waves of racism against Asian and
Black Americans showed that vigilance practices independently
contributed to racism-related stress (LaVeist et al., 2014;Chae
et al., 2021). In the context of antisemitism, Jews may contend not
only with antisemitic experiences but also with the anticipation
of such encounters (Reimer-Gordinskaya and Tzschiesche, 2021).
This anticipation may lead some to conceal their Jewish identity
in public, such as avoiding Jewish symbols or disguising
religious practices. Such measures can add to anticipatory stress
or perseverative cognitions—chronic worries and fears—which
exacerbate the negative effects of racism-related stress on physical
and mental health (Sawyer et al., 2012).
Frontiers in Psychology 03 frontiersin.org
fpsyg-15-1499295 December 27, 2024 Time: 16:23 # 4
Shani et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1499295
In conclusion, given this complexity in contemporary
prejudice, it is crucial to examine both overt discriminatory acts
and subtle, collective forms of antisemitism to fully understand
their psychological impact on Jewish individuals and communities.
A comprehensive approach is therefore essential for capturing
the unique characteristics of contemporary antisemitism and its
potential effects on mental health and social behavior.
1.1 The present study
This study aims to fill research gaps on perceived and
experienced antisemitism and its outcomes by conducting a cross-
sectional analysis among Jews living in Germany. Nearly eight
decades after the fall of the Third Reich, the Jewish community in
Germany numbers about 100,000 individuals—barely 0.2% of the
population—with many immigrants from the former Soviet Union
(Geller and Meng, 2020). As antisemitic incidents rise globally,
understanding their psychological toll becomes increasingly
crucial. This understanding can inform targeted interventions to
mitigate negative psychological consequences like anxiety, stress,
and social withdrawal (European Union Agency for Fundamental
Rights, 2024), raise awareness among policymakers for effective
prevention strategies, and provide insights into resilience factors
applicable to combating other forms of discrimination. Given
Germany’s unique historical context, understanding contemporary
antisemitism is essential for addressing the Holocaust’s legacy and
ensuring the safety and wellbeing of Jewish communities.
The main objective was to examine relationships between
perceptions and experiences of antisemitism and indicators of
psychosocial health. In our theoretical review, we emphasized
the importance of considering various forms of antisemitic
discrimination, as different types of experiences can have distinct
psychological impacts (Paradies et al., 2015;Williams et al.,
2019;Zick et al., 2017). Traditionally, research has focused
on overt, blatant discrimination based on ethnic or religious
affiliation, which we operationalized as perceived antisemitic
discrimination or everyday antisemitism, adapted from “everyday
racism” scales (Williams et al., 1997). However, recent literature
highlights the significance of subtle forms of discrimination, such
as microaggressions, which can be equally harmful to mental health
(Jones et al., 2016;Sue, 2010). Based on Sue’s (2010) framework,
we distinguished between two types of microaggressions: subtle
antisemitism, which are covert, sometimes automatic responses
from non-Jews relying on stereotypes and prejudice; and collective
antisemitism, involving devaluations and antisemitic expressions
communicated publicly without directly targeting individuals,
such as exposure to antisemitic hate speech online. These
forms capture both direct subtle insults and indirect or public
expressions of antisemitism that individuals may encounter.
Furthermore, the literature points to the unique effects of vigilance
against antisemitism, which involves heightened alertness to
discrimination and efforts to reduce the likelihood of being
targeted, an experience found to contribute to poor mental
health among minorities (Himmelstein et al., 2015). Lastly, we
considered the perceived prevalence of antisemitism in society, as
research shows that merely perceiving antisemitism as a significant
societal issue can impact individuals’ wellbeing, even without
direct or indirect experiences (Paradies et al., 2015;Williams
et al., 2019;Zick et al., 2017). Each of these types captures
different dimensions of antisemitic experiences that may uniquely
contribute to psychosocial stress and health outcomes among Jews.
Regarding psychosocial outcomes, we focused on common
mental health indicators: depression and anxiety, which are
frequently examined in the context of perceived discrimination
and linked to negative long-term outcomes and poor quality of
life (Schmitt et al., 2014;Priest et al., 2021). We also examined
associations between perceived antisemitism and SWB, referring
to overall life satisfaction (Diener, 1994). Finally, we explored the
manifestation of antisemitism in social life. Social participation, an
important aspect of social capital, is linked to both psychological
and physiological health (Berkman et al., 2000). Limited research
has so far been published on social participation as an outcome of
discrimination. Limited research has examined social participation
as an outcome of discrimination; among African Americans,
discrimination was found to be a significant risk factor for social
exclusion, contributing to poor mental health and feelings of
isolation (Saasa, 2019).
Our second objective was to identify and characterize
different profiles among members of the Jewish community in
Germany based on their experiences with antisemitism and their
identification as Jews. By moving beyond linear relationships,
we aimed to gain deeper insights through homogeneous clusters
and data-driven typologies of antisemitism-related perceptions and
experiences, revealing non-linear relationships that conventional
methods might overlook. To achieve this, we utilized latent profile
analysis (LPA), a flexible categorical modeling approach that
classifies participants into latent clusters based on patterns across
various variables (Spurk et al., 2020). To our knowledge, no prior
studies have employed LPA in research on perceived antisemitism.
In exploring profiles based on antisemitic perceptions and
experiences, we included a measure of social identification with
Jewish religious or ethno-national identity, as it may influence
perceptions and experiences of antisemitism and interact with
them to determine psychosocial outcomes. Jews may utilize their
Jewish identity as a coping mechanism or buffer against the
negative impact of such experiences (Branscombe et al., 1999;
Schmitt et al., 2014), or they may distance themselves from the
social category as a disengagement strategy (Becker and Tausch,
2014;van Veelen et al., 2020). Prior research has found consistent
evidence for a positive relationship between Jewish identification
and self-reported experiences of antisemitism (e.g., Dubow et al.,
2000;Altman, 2011;Rebhun, 2014;Zick et al., 2017;Trilesnik
et al., 2022;Enstad, 2024). Individuals with stronger Jewish
identity may be more attuned to recognizing and interpreting
incidents as antisemitic due to heightened awareness of Jewish
issues and history (Friedlander et al., 2010). Higher ingroup
identification may increase Jewish visibility, but can also increase
resilience, suggesting that a stronger sense of group cohesion and
identity confidence can attenuate the sense of fear and worry
(Wallengren and Mellgren, 2015;Enstad, 2024). Social identity
theory (Tajfel and Turner, 2004) provides a robust framework
for understanding this relationship: individuals derive significant
parts of their self-concept from group membership, including
religious and ethnic identities. For strongly identified Jews, their
Jewish identity becomes central to their self-concept, making them
more sensitive to potential threats or discrimination against their
Frontiers in Psychology 04 frontiersin.org
fpsyg-15-1499295 December 27, 2024 Time: 16:23 # 5
Shani et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1499295
group (Kessler and Hollbach, 2005) and more vigilant about
subtle forms of antisemitism or microaggressions (Sellers and
Shelton, 2003). Furthermore, the rejection-identification model
suggests that perceiving discrimination can lead to increased in-
group identification as a coping mechanism, creating a reciprocal
relationship between Jewish identity strength and antisemitism
perception (Branscombe et al., 1999).
Together, these research goals have the potential to significantly
contribute to social psychology and antisemitism research. By
addressing the understudied psychosocial impact of antisemitism
amid the recent global surge in incidents, this study aims to fill
a crucial gap in the literature. Examining four distinct forms of
perceived antisemitism provides a comprehensive framework for
understanding how various manifestations affect mental health
and social behavior. This approach may inform future studies on
subtle and collective forms of prejudice across different minority
groups. Investigating the role of Jewish identification in relation
to antisemitic experiences and mental health outcomes could offer
valuable insights into coping mechanisms and resilience factors
applicable to other forms of discrimination. Employing LPA to
identify distinct groups within the Jewish community introduces
a novel methodology for understanding heterogeneous responses
to discrimination. Ultimately, the findings have the potential to
inform the development of targeted interventions to promote
resilience among Jewish communities and guide broader efforts to
combat antisemitism and other forms of discrimination.
2 Materials and methods
All measures, data, and analysis files are
publicly available at https://osf.io/4f7s5/?view_only=
5c91dd5391aa4726b495237194d8a972. The study was approved by
the ethics committee of the authors’ institute.
2.1 Participants and procedure
Due to the difficulty of obtaining a representative sample of
the Jewish community in Germany, we employed a convenient
snowball sampling method to recruit participants aged 18 and
above who live in Germany and identify as Jewish. Recruitment
was conducted through contacts with Jewish and professional
organizations, mailing lists, and personal networks. A total of
619 individuals accessed the online survey between December
2022 and March 2023. After excluding 179 participants with
over 90% missing data, four who selected “Christianity” as their
religion (retaining three who identified as “Atheists”), and 16
who failed an attention check, the final sample comprised 420
participants—sufficient for statistical power (see Supplementary
material). After signing a standard consent form, participants
completed questionnaires assessing perceptions and experiences
of antisemitism, outcome variables, sociodemographic and
sociopolitical characteristics, and other measures not reported here.
The average age of participants was 40.71 years (SD = 15.90).
Gender distribution was 57% female (n= 239), 42% male (n= 177),
and three participants chose “other.” German nationality was
held by 78%, with the remainder mostly having dual German
and Israeli citizenship, only Israeli citizenship, or citizenship of
another European country. A majority (80%) had a migration
background. Approximately half were born in Germany, 27% in
the former Soviet Union, 13% in Israel, and 10% in other countries.
Regarding education, 10% did not achieve a high-school diploma
(Abitur or equivalent), 32% held a high-school diploma, and 43%
had academic education—including 18% with a master’s degree
and 10% with a doctoral degree. Socioeconomic status (SES) was
perceived as “very good” by 14%, “good” by 50%, “medium” by 30%,
“bad” by 6%, and “very bad” by one participant. Employment status
included 41% full-time employed, 11% part-time employed, 20%
students, and 7% retired. Marital status was 41% married, 19% in a
relationship, nearly 30% single, 8% divorced, and 1% widowed; 48%
had children. Over 60% resided in large cities with over 500,000
inhabitants, and only 7% lived in towns or villages with fewer than
20,000 residents. Most participants (82%) were members of Jewish
communities across the country, and 32% frequently participated
in community activities.
2.2 Measures
All measures not originally in English, or without an existing
validated German version, were translated using a forward-
backward translation procedure by a member of the research team
highly proficient in both English and German. While we did not
explicitly differentiate between online and offline experiences in
our measures of everyday antisemitism and subtle antisemitism,
these scales were designed to capture antisemitic encounters
that could occur in any context, including both physical and
virtual environments. Acknowledging the significant role of online
platforms in the dissemination of antisemitic content (Becker et al.,
2024), the collective antisemitism scale specifically includes items
referring to online antisemitism, such as exposure to antisemitic
comments on the internet or social networks (e.g., “You see
antisemitic comments on the internet, e.g., in social networks”).
2.2.1 Everyday antisemitism
To assess perceptions of direct discriminatory experiences,
we used the German-translated Everyday Discrimination Scale
(Williams et al., 1997). Participants rated nine items (e.g., “You are
treated with less courtesy than other people are”; “People act as if
they are afraid of you”) on a 5-point scale (1 = never to 5 = very
often), indicating the frequency they felt discriminated against due
to their Jewish, Israeli, or religious affiliation. The scale showed high
internal consistency (α= 0.89).
2.2.2 Antisemitic microaggressions
Antisemitic microaggressions were measured using a similar
5-point frequency scale. As mentioned earlier, we measured
antisemitic microaggressions with two subscales: subtle and
collective antisemitism. The collective antisemitism subscale
included items referring to demonization and delegitimization
of the Jewish state, in accordance with the IHRA definition of
antisemitism and its contemporary manifestations (Weitzman,
2019), such as “You hear or read media reports that demonize
Israel, the Israeli military, or the Israeli people.” Specifically, we
aimed to cover the spectrum of contemporary manifestations of
Frontiers in Psychology 05 frontiersin.org
fpsyg-15-1499295 December 27, 2024 Time: 16:23 # 6
Shani et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1499295
antisemitism in Germany, including Holocaust-related secondary
antisemitism and Israel-related antisemitism (Kempf, 2015).
Specifically, subtle antisemitism was assessed with five items (e.g.,
“Someone makes you feel like you’re not part of German society”;
“Someone makes you feel like you have to justify yourself for
all sorts of things as a Jewish person”), showing good reliability
(α= 0.87). Collective antisemitism was measured with seven items
(e.g., “You hear or read conspiracy theories involving Jews”), also
with high reliability (α= 0.89).
2.2.3 Perceived prevalence of antisemitism
The perceived prevalence of antisemitism in German society
was measured using a sliding scale ranging from 1% to 100%.
Participants estimated the percentage of people in German society
who hold negative views of Jews.
2.2.4 Vigilance against antisemitism
Vigilance against antisemitism was assessed using nine
items adapted from Zick et al.’s (2017) instrument measuring
antisemitism-related worries, security perceptions, and behaviors.
Participants rated their agreement on a 5-point scale (1 = completely
disagree to 5 = completely agree). Sample items include “There are
events and places to which I do not go because of antisemitism”
and “I would not want my neighbors to know that I am Jewish.”
The scale demonstrated good reliability (α= 0.86).
2.2.5 Depression and anxiety
Depression and anxiety were measured using the Hospital
Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS; Petermann, 2011), a widely
used instrument assessing psychological distress on a 4-point scale
with varying anchors. After removing one item due to insufficient
model fit in a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) (see below), the
anxiety subscale comprised five items (e.g., “Worrying thoughts go
through my mind,” α= 0.79), and the depression subscale included
six items (e.g., “I have lost interest in my appearance,” α= 0.74).
2.2.6 Subjective wellbeing
Subjective wellbeing was assessed using the Satisfaction with
Life scale (Diener, 1994). Participants responded to five items (e.g.,
“In most ways my life is close to my ideal”) on a 7-point scale
ranging from 1 (not true at all) to 7 (completely true), with high
reliability (α= 0.87).
2.2.7 Social participation
Social participation was measured with a four-item scale
developed for this study. Participants rated how often they visit
friends, meet new people, and engage in activities outside the Jewish
community on a 5-point scale (1 = never to 5 = very often). The scale
showed acceptable reliability (α= 0.77).
2.2.8 Jewish identification
Jewish identification was measured using four items adapted
from Frindte and Dietrich (2017). Participants indicated their
agreement on a 6-point scale (1 = completely disagree to
6 = completely agree) with statements such as “Being Jewish is an
important part of who I am.” The scale’s reliability was acceptable
(α= 0.72).
2.2.9 Demographics and personal characteristics
Sociodemographic and personal characteristics were collected
as control variables for regression analyses and to characterize
latent profiles (see below). These included gender, age, highest
educational level, migration background and nationality, family
status and number of children, SES, religiosity, political orientation
(left-right scale), and frequency of participation in Jewish
community events and activities. For all multi-item scales,
arithmetic means were calculated to represent each construct, with
higher scores indicating a greater degree of the respective quality.
3 Results
3.1 Preliminary analysis
First, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
to validate the conceptual distinction between everyday, subtle,
and collective antisemitic experiences at the measurement level.
A correlated three-factor model, with four added inter-item
residual covariances (between items 1–2 and 8–9 on the everyday
antisemitism scale, and items 6–7 and 7–8 on the collective
antisemitism scale), yielded an acceptable model fit according to
acceptable criteria (Hu and Bentler, 1999), χ2(182) = 432.635,
p<0.001, CFI = 0.944, TLI = 0.935, RMSEA = 0.062, 90% CI [0.054,
0.069], SRMR = 0.061.
Second, we examined the factor structure of the HADS
using CFA. The initial two-factor model (depression and anxiety)
demonstrated insufficient fit, χ2(55) = 193.489, p<0.001,
CFI = 0.987, TLI = 0.0972, RMSEA = 0.083, 90% CI [0.071,
0.096], SRMR = 0.057. Modification indices indicated a high cross-
loading on item 4 of the anxiety subscale, which we removed.
By adding covariances between the residuals of items 2 and 7
in the anxiety subscale and items 6 and 8 in the depression
subscale, the model fit improved significantly: χ2(41) = 100.543,
p<0.001, CFI = 0.950, TLI = 0.932, RMSEA = 0.062, 90% CI [0.046,
0.077], SRMR = 0.043.
Finally, the vigilance against antisemitism scale showed
a good fit to a single-factor structure, as indicated by a
principal component analysis (PCA) with an added residual
covariance between items 6 and 7: χ2(26) = 52.57, p= 0.002,
CFI = 0.977, TLI = 0.968, RMSEA = 0.054, 90% CI [0.033,
0.075], SRMR = 0.040.
Missing data at the item level did not exceed 16.7%. Little’s
MCAR test indicated that the data were missing completely at
random (χ2(10,591) = 10,738.464, p= 0.155; therefore, the data
were assumed to be missing at random and cases with missing data
were omitted per analysis.
3.2 Descriptive analysis
Participants reported experiencing subtle antisemitism more
frequently than everyday antisemitism (i.e., perceived direct
discrimination). As illustrated in Figure 1, over 40% indicated that
they were at least rarely threatened or harassed, and 45% reported
being called names or insulted due to their Jewish affiliation.
In contrast, more than half of the participants stated they were
Frontiers in Psychology 06 frontiersin.org
fpsyg-15-1499295 December 27, 2024 Time: 16:23 # 7
Shani et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1499295
FIGURE 1
Percentage distribution of selected items measuring everyday, subtle, and collective antisemitism. Nvaries between 412 and 419 due to missing
responses across items.
often or very often blamed for the policies of the State of Israel
or exposed to conspiracy theories about Jews. Approximately
two-thirds encountered antisemitic statements in the media at
least sometimes. Participants in our study estimated that, on
average, 45% of Germans harbor antisemitic views (SD = 21.37), a
figure significantly higher than recent survey-based estimates. For
instance, a 2019 survey by the Anti-Defamation League. (2019)
reported that 15% of Germans hold such views. This substantial
discrepancy highlights the gap between the perceived prevalence
of antisemitism among the German Jews in our sample and
broader societal estimates, indicating a heightened perception of
antisemitism within the Jewish community.
3.3 Correlational analysis
Pearson correlations among the study’s main variables are
presented in Figure 2 (a more conventional correlation matrix
is presented in Supplementary Table 1). All measures of
perceived everyday, subtle, collective, and prevalent antisemitism
were positively correlated. Participants who experienced more
everyday antisemitism also tended to report more frequent
microaggressions, as measured through subtle and collective
antisemitism, perceived a higher prevalence of antisemitism in
German society, and, to a lesser extent, exhibited higher vigilance
against exposure to antisemitism. More frequent experiences of
everyday antisemitism were moderately associated with lower
SWB and social participation, as well as higher anxiety and
depression. Subtle and collective antisemitism, two dimensions
of antisemitic microaggressions, were also moderately linked to
increased anxiety and depression. Perceiving a higher prevalence
of antisemitism was weakly but significantly related to higher
anxiety and depression, and to reduced social participation and
SWB. Additionally, embracing more vigilant behavior was weakly
to moderately associated with higher anxiety and depression and
with lower social participation. Finally, Jewish identification was
positively related to all measures of perceived and experienced
antisemitism but was not related to vigilance against antisemitism.
Interestingly, we found no significant relationship between Jewish
identification and psychosocial outcomes.
3.4 Multiple linear regressions predicting
outcomes from antisemitism
To examine the unique predictive power of perceived
and experienced antisemitism domains beyond demographic
variables, we conducted four multiple linear regression analyses
on the outcome variables: SWB, anxiety, depression, and social
participation. The results are illustrated in Figure 3, with detailed
parameters provided in Supplementary Tables 2–5. Regarding
demographic predictors, higher age and SES significantly predicted
higher SWB. Higher anxiety was associated with being female
and leaning toward the left of the political spectrum. Only
higher SES significantly predicted lower depression. Higher social
participation was predicted by several demographic variables,
including having fewer children, higher religiosity, higher SES, and
more frequent involvement in the Jewish community.
After controlling for demographics and relevant personal
characteristics, everyday antisemitism emerged as a significant
predictor of higher anxiety and depression, as well as lower
SWB and social participation, surpassing other predictors in
the models. Additionally, perceiving a higher prevalence of
antisemitism significantly predicted lower SWB and increased
depressive symptoms. Vigilance against antisemitism significantly
predicted reduced social participation. While the effect of subtle
Frontiers in Psychology 07 frontiersin.org
fpsyg-15-1499295 December 27, 2024 Time: 16:23 # 8
Shani et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1499295
FIGURE 2
Bivariate Pearson correlations among the study’s main variables. AS, antisemitism. Correlations with absolute values of 0.11 or higher are statistically
significant (p<0.05). Non-significant correlations are not displayed (cells remain blank). Stronger colors represent higher correlation coefficients, as
indicated by the scale on the right side of the figure.
antisemitism on anxiety, depression, and social participation was
marginally significant (ps<0.07), collective antisemitism did not
uniquely contribute to explaining variance in the outcome variables
beyond other forms of antisemitic experiences.
To control for multiple comparisons across the regression
models, we applied the Holm-Bonferroni correction to the p
values of all predictors. The adjusted pvalues for each predictor
across the models are presented in Supplementary Table 6. After
adjustment, from the main variables, only antisemitic experiences
in everyday life remained a consistently significant predictor
across all outcomes. In contrast, subtle antisemitism, collective
antisemitism, perceived prevalence of antisemitism, vigilance and
Jewish identification were not significant in any model after
adjustment, with adjusted pvalues above 0.05 across outcomes.
Finally, we conducted an additional series of multiple
linear regressions to examine a potential interaction between
Jewish identification and everyday antisemitism in predicting
the four outcomes (see Supplementary Table 7). The results
indicated no significant interactions, suggesting that the strong
predictive relationship between everyday antisemitic experiences
and psychosocial outcomes is consistent across different levels of
identification with the Jewish ethnic or religious identity.
3.5 Profiles of experiences with
antisemitism and Jewish identification
We conducted a LPA using the R package tidyLPA
(Rosenberg et al., 2018). The profiling variables were Jewish
identification, vigilance against antisemitism, perceived prevalence
of antisemitism, everyday antisemitism, and antisemitic
microaggressions (subtle and collective antisemitism). All
variables were standardized, and complete cases (n= 344) were
included. To determine the optimal profile solution, we compared
models with different variance and covariance structures: equal
variances with fixed covariances (EV/FC), varying variances with
fixed covariances (VV/FC), equal variances with equal covariances
(EV/EC), and varying variances with varying covariances (VV/VC)
(Rosenberg et al., 2018). Models ranging from 1 to 10 profiles were
assessed using empirical criteria such as the Bayesian information
criterion (BIC), sample size-adjusted BIC (SABIC), and the
bootstrapped likelihood ratio test (BLRT) with 999 resamples,
which provided pvalues for model improvement (Nylund et al.,
2007). Conceptual criteria favored parsimonious models with
meaningful profiles representing at least 5% of the sample.
The 3-class model with equal variances and equal covariances
(EV/EC) was selected as optimal based on low BIC and
SABIC values and a significant BLRT (see Supplementary
Table 9). Although a 4-class EV/EC model showed slightly
better fit, it included a profile representing only 1% of the
sample. Clustering means are depicted in Figure 4, and
detailed differences are available in Supplementary Table 8.
Jewish identification and experiences of everyday, subtle, and
collective antisemitism significantly differentiated the profiles.
In contrast, vigilance against antisemitism was moderate
and similar across profiles, and perceived prevalence of
antisemitism was relatively high (over 40% on average) in all
profiles.
Frontiers in Psychology 08 frontiersin.org
fpsyg-15-1499295 December 27, 2024 Time: 16:23 # 9
Shani et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1499295
FIGURE 3
Results of multiple linear regression analyses predicting psychosocial outcomes. The plot presents standardized regression coefficients from four
multiple linear regression models, each with 15 predictors displayed on the y-axis. These models predict social participation, depression, anxiety, and
subjective wellbeing. The horizontal lines extending from each standardized beta estimate represent 95% confidence intervals. Predictors whose
confidence intervals do not cross the zero point on the x-axis are considered statistically significant (p<0.05).
The first profile, High Identity,High Antisemitism, comprised
53% of the sample. Individuals in this group (see Table 1)
were highly identified with their Jewish identity and experienced
antisemitism more frequently than those in other profiles. They
were more religious, participated more in Jewish community
activities, and 62% were born in Germany.
The second profile, Low Identity,Low Antisemitism, included
8% of the sample. Participants had significantly lower Jewish
identification and reported less perceived and experienced
antisemitism compared to profile 1. They were less religious, less
active in the Jewish community, and younger on average; 28% were
born in Israel, higher than in profiles 1 (8%) and 3 (13%).
The third profile, Average Identity,Low Antisemitism,
accounted for nearly 40% of the sample. These individuals
identified less strongly with Jewish identity than those in
profile 1 but more than those in profile 2. Their experiences
with antisemitism were similar to profile 2. About one-third
were immigrants from the former Soviet Union, and they
were less religious and less active in the Jewish community
compared to profile 1.
We then examined whether the three profiles differed in their
average scores on the study’s outcome variables (see Table 2). The
groups did not differ significantly in SWB, depression, or social
participation. Significant differences emerged only for anxiety,
F(2,341) = 10.51, p<0.001, η2= 0.07. Post hoc Tukey’s HSD tests
indicated that high identifiers experiencing frequent antisemitism
(profile 1) had higher anxiety levels (M= 2.09, SD = 0.55) than those
with average identification and low perceived antisemitism (profile
3, M= 1.82, SD = 0.53), p<0.001. Interestingly, low identifiers
with low perceived antisemitism (profile 2) and high identifiers
with high antisemitism (profile 1) had similar levels of anxiety.
4 Discussion
The study results confirm that antisemitism, in its various
forms, continues to be a major stressor for Jews in Germany—
a country that has seemingly come to terms with its past and
where antisemitism is legally sanctioned. Despite measures to
address it, Jewish communities remain vulnerable. Similar to
previous studies on exposure to antisemitism among German Jews
(European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2024;Zick et al.,
2017;Beyer et al., 2024), antisemitism remains a daily reality.
Our profiling analysis revealed that more than half of the sample
Frontiers in Psychology 09 frontiersin.org
fpsyg-15-1499295 December 27, 2024 Time: 16:23 # 10
Shani et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1499295
FIGURE 4
Standardized mean scores (profile centroids) with standard errors for the three-profile solution. AS, antisemitism. Error bars represent one standard
error above and below the mean.
reported high levels of perceived and experienced antisemitism.
Subtle forms of antisemitic experiences, such as microaggressions
and collective expressions in media and public discourse, were
more frequent than overt discriminatory acts, paralleling trends in
studies on other minority groups (Stanke et al., 2024).
This research addresses a critical gap at the intersection of
antisemitism and the psychological impact of discrimination.
Although recent years have seen growing attention to racism’s
mental health effects, research on antisemitism’s psychological toll
is limited (Altman, 2011;Rosen et al., 2018;Matheson et al.,
2019;Kosdon et al., 2021;Trilesnik et al., 2022;Bankier-Karp and
Graham, 2024). Our study contributes by showing the potential
mental health consequences of antisemitism. While previous
studies largely focused on overt discrimination, we examined
multiple forms of encounters with antisemitism, including
microaggressions (e.g., subtle racism and vicarious experiences),
and vigilance. This approach reveals the cumulative and varied
effects of perceived antisemitism across contexts. We found that
both microaggressions and overt antisemitism were linked to
poorer wellbeing and mental health, consistent with findings from
research on other groups (Jones et al., 2016). These findings
suggest that one need not be a direct victim of severe antisemitic
acts for mental health to be affected. Recurrent, mild antisemitic
experiences or the belief that antisemitism is widespread can
lead to chronic stress, predominantly anxiety. Our regression
analysis with correction for multiple comparisons underscored
that direct experiences of discrimination were stronger predictors
of negative psychosocial outcomes than microaggressions or
perceptions of antisemitism’s prevalence in society, aligning with
Schmitt et al.’s (2014) meta-analysis on discrimination. However,
it would be misleading to assume that contemporary antisemitism
is experienced only in subtle forms. Recent research suggests that
openly expressed prejudice is becoming socially acceptable again,
even in Germany (Crandall et al., 2018;Lees, 2018;Stanke et al.,
2024). Blatant antisemitic discrimination is reemerging, indicating
that Jews face both subtle and overt forms of discrimination
(Fischer and Wetzels, 2024).
Moreover, vigilance against antisemitism—proactive efforts to
avoid antisemitic encounters—was associated with reduced social
participation, although its predictive power became non-significant
when adjusting across regression models. From an exploratory
perspective, this finding may be unsurprising, as hypervigilant
behaviors, including avoiding social spaces where antisemitic
incidents might occur, often lead to isolation (Watson-Singleton
et al., 2019;Keum and Li, 2023). Hypervigilance can manifest
as constant scanning for antisemitic cues, overinterpretation
of ambiguous signals, or heightened arousal in public spaces,
prompting withdrawal from social life as a protective measure.
The relationships found in this study between everyday
antisemitism and outcomes like SWB, depression, and anxiety
appear stronger than those typically reported in meta-analytical
studies (Branscombe et al., 1999;Pascoe and Richman, 2009;
Emmer et al., 2024), as well as in prior studies on Jews (Altman,
2011;Rosen et al., 2018;Kosdon et al., 2021;Trilesnik et al.,
2022). This may reflect the particularly intense nature of antisemitic
experiences for German Jews, who may also face other forms of
discrimination, such as xenophobia, due to affiliations with groups
(e.g., Russians and immigrants), increasing their risk of depressive
symptoms (Vargas et al., 2020). Additionally, rising antisemitism
and perceptions of inadequate government response may foster
Frontiers in Psychology 10 frontiersin.org
fpsyg-15-1499295 December 27, 2024 Time: 16:23 # 11
Shani et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1499295
TABLE 1 Demographic information for the three profiles with significance tests for the difference between profiles.
Variable Profile Test
Profile 1: high identity,
high antisemitism
(n= 181)
Profile 2: low identity,
low antisemitism
(n= 29)
Profile 3: average
identity, low
antisemitism (n= 134)
M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) ANOVA/χ2
Age 38.68 (14.55) 35.10 (11.92) 42.23 (17.42) F(2,341) = 3.43,
p= 0.03,
η2= 0.02
Gender n(%) n(%) n(%) χ2(2) = 1.11,
p= 0.57
Male 75 (42%) 14 (48%) 51 (38%)
Female 103 (58%) 15 (52%) 82 (62%)
Country of birth χ2(6) = 22.02,
p= 0.011
Germany 112 (62%)a,b10 (36%)a57 (43%)b
FSU 38 (21%)a,b8 (29%)a46 (34%)b
Israel 14 (8%)a8 (29%)a,b18 (13%)b
Other 16 (9%) 2 (7%) 13 (10%)
Socio-economic status 3.72 (0.76) 3.46 (0.64) 3.82 (0.83) F(2,338) = 2.54,
p= 0.08
Political orientation 4.46 (1.86) 4.07 (2.12) 4.42 (1.84) F(2,336) = 0.51,
p= 0.60
Religiosity 5.12 (2.43)a2.00 (2.41)a3.95 (2.54)aF(2,341) = 23.66,
p<0.001,
η2= 0.12
Time spent in the Jewish
community
3.27 (1.15)a2.10 (0.98)a2.87 (1.12)aF(2,341) = 15.02,
p<0.001,
η2= 0.08
Family status χ2(2) = 1.40,
p= 0.50
Not in a relationship 68 (38%) 11 (38%) 59 (44%)
In a relationship 113 (62%) 18 (62%) 75 (56%)
Number of children 0.97 (1.16) 0.62 (0.82) 0.95 (1.13) F(2,341) = 1.25,
p= 0.29
N= 339–344. Identical row letters denote significant difference between profiles based on Bonferroni-corrected pairwise comparisons (p<0.05). FSU, former Soviet Union.
frustration and helplessness, amplifying the negative effects of
personal experiences (Zick et al., 2017).
Consistent with prior research among American Jews
(Friedlander et al., 2010;Altman, 2011;Rebhun, 2014;Chase,
2018) as well as and in European context (Enstad, 2024), our
findings show that stronger Jewish identification correlates
with more frequent experiences of antisemitism, particularly
microaggressions (measured as both subtle and collective forms
of discrimination). This is consistent with research showing that
stronger identification can increase sensitivity to discriminatory
incidents (Molina et al., 2015). Identification also played a key
role in distinguishing between profiles of experiences. However,
our LPA indicated that while antisemitic experiences varied
widely, Jewish identification remained relatively stable across
two prominent profiles. In addition, Jewish identification did
not significantly predict psychosocial health, contrasting with
studies showing positive effects of identity on wellbeing (Smith
and Silva, 2011;Cruwys et al., 2015). Accordingly, and despite
prior research suggesting that in-group identification can mitigate
the negative effects of discrimination (Branscombe et al., 1999;
Schmitt et al., 2014), our findings indicate that Jewish identity did
not significantly buffer against the harmful psychosocial impacts
of perceived antisemitism in this context. This suggests that while
identification may influence the perception of antisemitism, it
does not necessarily shield individuals from its detrimental mental
health effects. However, this discrepancy may also result from
measuring identity as an overarching construct or from varying
environmental factors, like antisemitism levels, which shape how
Jewish ethnic or religious identity protects mental health (Trilesnik
et al., 2022). Future studies should explore the nuanced role of
Jewish identity in mitigating the negative effects of perceived and
experienced antisemitism (Altman, 2011;Trilesnik et al., 2022).
Our LPA revealed three distinct profiles: Slightly more than half
of the participants exhibited high Jewish identification and frequent
experiences of antisemitism across all forms, characterized by
Frontiers in Psychology 11 frontiersin.org
fpsyg-15-1499295 December 27, 2024 Time: 16:23 # 12
Shani et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1499295
TABLE 2 Means (standard deviations) and results of one-way ANOVAs for differences between profiles in outcome variables.
Profile 1:
high
identity,
high
antisemitism
(n= 181)
Profile 2:
low identity,
low
antisemitism
(n= 29)
Profile 3:
average
identity, low
antisemitism
(n= 134)
ANOVA Cohen deffect size and significance
Profile 2
vs. profile
1
Profile 3
vs. profile
1
Profile 3
vs. profile
2
Subjective wellbeing 4.62 (1.15) 4.22 (1.22) 4.76 (1.14) F(2,341) = 2.67,
p= 0.07
0.34 0.12 0.47
Anxiety 2.09 (0.55) 2.05 (0.49) 1.82 (0.53) F(2,341) = 10.51,
p<0.001
0.07 0.50*** 0.44
Depression 1.66 (0.46) 1.66 (0.46) 1.57 (0.46) F(2,341) = 1.70,
p= 0.19
0.00 0.20 0.20
Social participation 3.16 (0.75( 3.14 (0.71) 3.15 (0.74) F(2,341) = 0.28,
p= 0.97
0.03 0.01 0.01
Pairwise comparisons were conducted using Tukey’sHSD adjustment. ***p<0.001.
higher religiosity, community involvement, and mostly German-
born individuals. About 40% showed moderate identification and
relatively low perceived antisemitism, with a notable proportion
of immigrants from the former Soviet Union. In contrast, a small
minority of participants displayed low identification and infrequent
encounters with antisemitism, typically younger, less religious, and
with a higher proportion of Israeli-born participants. Although
antisemitic experiences were strongly linked to outcomes in
regression and correlational analyses, LPA did not reveal significant
differences across most outcomes. This discrepancy may be due
to differences in analytical methods. Correlational and regression
analyses capture linear relationships across the entire sample,
while LPA identifies discrete groups, potentially obscuring subtle
variations. Extreme antisemitic experiences, as seen in the high-
identity, high-antisemitism group, might be linked to significantly
worse outcomes (e.g., anxiety), while within-group variability in
other profiles could explain the lack of significant differences in
SWB or social participation (Scotto Rosato and Baer, 2012). This
underscores the importance of examining both identity strength
and antisemitic experiences to fully understand their impact on
psychosocial health.
Finally, the characterization of the profiles revealed variations
in origin-national backgrounds across the groups. The “High
Identification, High Antisemitism” profile had a higher
proportion of German-born participants (62%) compared to
the “Low Identification, Low Antisemitism” (36%) and “Average
Identification, Low Antisemitism” (43%) profiles. The “Average
Identification, Low Antisemitism” group included a higher
proportion of participants from the former Soviet Union (34%),
while the “Low Identification, Low Antisemitism” group had a
greater representation of Israeli-born participants (29%) compared
to the other profiles. These findings suggest that ethno-national
origin may play a role in profile membership. It is possible that
differences in nationality backgrounds contribute to variations
in Jewish identification and perceptions of antisemitism. For
example, individuals from the former Soviet Union may have
different historical and cultural experiences influencing their
identification and perceptions (Dietz, 2003). Similarly, Israeli-born
participants might perceive antisemitism differently due to their
experiences in a predominantly Jewish society before immigrating
to Germany. Intergenerational trauma may also impact these
differences. The descendants of Holocaust survivors or those
who have familial histories of persecution may have heightened
sensitivity to antisemitism and stronger Jewish identification (Klar
et al., 2013). These factors could influence both the perception
of antisemitism and mental health outcomes. Future research
should explore these variables in more depth to understand their
influence on Jewish identification, perceptions of antisemitism,
and psychosocial health outcomes.
4.1 Limitations
Some limitations of this study warrant discussion. First,
the cross-sectional design precludes establishing definitive causal
relationships between perceived antisemitism and psychosocial
health outcomes. While we interpret our findings to suggest
that experiences of antisemitism negatively impact mental health,
it is also possible that pre-existing mental health conditions
or personality traits influence the perception of antisemitism.
Individuals with higher levels of anxiety or depression may be
more prone to perceive discrimination due to heightened vigilance
to threats or negative cognitive biases associated with these
conditions (Paradies et al., 2015;Schmitt et al., 2014). Moreover,
personality traits such as neuroticism might contribute to both
increased perception of discrimination and poorer mental health
outcomes (Lewis et al., 2015;Sawyer et al., 2012). While substantial
evidence supports the causal effect of perceived discrimination
on psychosocial health, including meta-analyses of experimental
studies (Schmitt et al., 2014) and longitudinal investigations
(e.g., Lavner et al., 2022;Sun et al., 2021), the limited research
available on perceived antisemitism prevents us from drawing
similar conclusions in this context. Therefore, we acknowledge that
the associations observed in our study might be bidirectional or
confounded by third variables not accounted for in our analyses.
Future research among Jewish communities worldwide should
Frontiers in Psychology 12 frontiersin.org
fpsyg-15-1499295 December 27, 2024 Time: 16:23 # 13
Shani et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1499295
employ longitudinal designs to disentangle the directionality of
these relationships and control for potential confounding factors,
such as personality traits and baseline mental health conditions.
Another important limitation of our study is that we did
not distinguish between different dimensions of Jewish identity
when assessing participants’ experiences of discrimination. Jewish
identity is multifaceted, encompassing religious, ethnic, cultural,
and national aspects, including Israeli identity. Our measures were
not designed to disentangle whether discrimination was perceived
due to one or more of these facets. Moreover, participants may
have experienced discrimination based on other intersecting social
identities, such as being immigrants (from Israel, the former
Soviet Union, or elsewhere), women, LGBTQ+ individuals, or
members of other stigmatized groups. Intersectionality theory
posits that individuals can face multiple, overlapping forms of
discrimination that interact in complex ways (Gerson, 2018;
Lewis et al., 2015). As mentioned above, the intersection of
antisemitism with other forms of oppression, such as racism,
sexism, and homophobia, may compound the psychological impact
on individuals (Smith et al., 2023). Future research should employ
an intersectional framework to examine how these multiple
identities and forms of discrimination contribute to the experiences
and outcomes of Jewish individuals (Trilesnik et al., 2022). Such
an approach would allow for a more nuanced understanding of
how antisemitism interacts with other forms of oppression and how
intersecting identities influence coping mechanisms and mental
health outcomes.
An additional limitation of our study pertains to the small size
of the “Low Identification, Low Antisemitism” group identified
in our LPA, which comprised only 8% of the sample. This small
group size may limit the generalizability of findings related to this
profile and affect the stability of the results (Nylund et al., 2007).
Caution should be exercised when interpreting the characteristics
and outcomes associated with this group, and replication with
larger samples is recommended.
Furthermore, comparative studies across countries would also
be beneficial, considering that experiences with antisemitism
may interact with contextual and situational factors. Regarding
measurement, all experiences assessed in this study were self-
reported perceptions. Future research could incorporate measures
less prone to self-report biases, such as direct or indirect
observations, or physiological indicators of stress and psychosocial
health. Additionally, our sampling technique may have introduced
bias: self-identification as Jewish and affiliation with other Jewish
individuals or organizations were prerequisites for participation,
which implies a certain level of identification. Unaffiliated Jews,
whose experiences may differ, were under-sampled. Therefore,
caution should be exercised in generalizing these findings to the
entire Jewish population in Germany or elsewhere.
4.2 Contributions and practical
implications
Despite its limitations, this study makes a notable contribution
to antisemitism research and the broader field of discrimination
studies. By exploring multiple forms of perceived antisemitism,
including antisemitic microaggressions, we extend previous
research that has predominantly focused on direct discrimination
and neglected more frequent subtle and collective experiences,
such as comments causing discomfort and online exposure to
antisemitic hate speech (e.g., Altman, 2011;Trilesnik et al., 2022).
Our findings highlight the pervasive nature of antisemitism in
Germany and its detrimental effects on mental health, particularly
anxiety and depression, aligning with broader research on racism-
related stress (Pascoe and Richman, 2009;Schmitt et al., 2014;Lui
and Quezada, 2019;Vargas et al., 2020). Using LPA, we identified
distinct groups within the Jewish community, illustrating the
nuanced and non-linear relationship between Jewish identification
and experiences of antisemitism (Nylund et al., 2007).
Furthermore, this study contributes to the understanding of
how perceived antisemitism impacts mental health in modern
contexts. It aligns with current trends that underscore the evolving
nature of anti-Jewish prejudice, particularly in online spaces where
hate speech is often more subtle but no less damaging (Schwarz-
Friesel, 2019;Waxman et al., 2022). By integrating psychological
research with antisemitism studies, we demonstrated how social
psychology can enhance our comprehension of contemporary
Jewish life, illustrating the complex relationship between identity,
societal attitudes, and individual wellbeing, especially amid rising
antisemitism (Anti-Defamation League, 2024;Fischer and Wetzels,
2024).
We view our study and similar studies as a steppingstone
toward further research not only on the effects of antisemitism
on Jewish individuals and communities but also on the factors
that foster resilience and adaptive coping strategies. While research
on coping with racism has grown significantly in recent years
(e.g., Neville et al., 2024;Holmes et al., 2024), studies focusing on
coping mechanisms in the context of antisemitism remain scarce.
Beyer et al. (2024), using a mixed-method approach, identified
strategies such as withdrawal, intentions of displacement, political
advocacy, and collective action to combat antisemitism but did
not examine their association with resilient or adaptive outcomes.
Similarly, Pearl’s (2023) qualitative study of American Jews
highlighted the potential of Jewish identity as a coping mechanism,
including benefits derived from community connection, cultural
pride, engagement with Jewish traditions, and a historical
perspective emphasizing survival as a source of strength. More
research is needed to explore engagement- and disengagement-
based coping strategies and sources of resilience, particularly as
awareness of antisemitism’s harmful impact increases, especially
in the aftermath of the October 7 attacks. On a practical
level, our findings underscore the urgent need for targeted
interventions that address the full spectrum of antisemitism,
from overt acts to microaggressions and societal prejudice. While
Jewish organizations in Germany currently focus on major hate
crime victims (Reimer-Gordinskaya and Tzschiesche, 2021), our
results highlight the importance of extending support to those
experiencing less overt forms of discrimination. Although research
specifically evaluating psychological interventions for coping with
antisemitism is limited (Moffic et al., 2020), insights can be
drawn from interventions developed for other groups experiencing
discrimination.
The link between vigilance against antisemitism and reduced
social participation emphasizes the need for safe spaces where
Jewish individuals can engage in community life without fear.
Strengthening social support networks within Jewish communities
Frontiers in Psychology 13 frontiersin.org
fpsyg-15-1499295 December 27, 2024 Time: 16:23 # 14
Shani et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1499295
could be particularly beneficial, especially since high identifiers
experience more antisemitism and are more involved in the
community. Community-based programs can foster a sense of
belonging and collective identity, which has been shown to
buffer against the negative effects of discrimination (Brondolo
et al., 2009). Such programs may empower individuals to share
experiences, reduce feelings of isolation, and develop collective
coping strategies.
Interventions that promote positive ethnic and cultural
identity—such as cultural pride reinforcement and engagement
with Jewish traditions and history—may also enhance resilience,
especially among adolescents and youth (Saleem and Lambert,
2016;Steinhardt, 2022). Engaging in cultural activities and
education can reinforce a positive Jewish identity, counteracting
the negative impacts of antisemitism. Psychoeducational
programs may increase awareness of antisemitism and its effects,
equipping individuals with knowledge and strategies to navigate
discriminatory environments (e.g., Fleming et al., 2024;Biancalani
et al., 2024). These programs may also promote advocacy and
empowerment, encouraging individuals to engage in collective
action against antisemitism, which fosters a sense of agency and
improves psychosocial health (Bartlett et al., 2022;Hope et al.,
2018). Future research should focus on developing and rigorously
testing evidence-based interventions tailored to the unique
experiences of antisemitism. Such research is crucial to inform
effective strategies that enhance coping and resilience among
Jewish individuals and mitigate the adverse psychological impacts
identified in our study. By exploring and implementing these
interventions, we can work toward alleviating the psychological
burden of antisemitism and strengthening the resilience and
wellbeing of Jewish communities.
We believe that our findings have significant implications for
a wide range of professionals who provide therapy, counseling,
and support to Jewish individuals and communities. This includes
social workers, psychologists, counselors, therapists, and other
mental health practitioners who play a crucial role in addressing the
psychological impact of antisemitism and supporting Jewish clients
in developing effective coping strategies. At the micro and mezzo
levels, professionals are encouraged to support and be sensitive to
the unique needs and concerns of Jewish clients. Practicing cultural
humility and self-reflection is essential in examining personal biases
and ensuring that services are culturally competent (Gottlieb and
Steigerwald, 2024). Mental health practitioners should be aware
of the various forms of antisemitism—including microaggressions
and societal prejudice—and understand how these experiences
can affect mental health and wellbeing. Professionals can assist
clients in addressing spiritual and cultural microaggressions by
creating a therapeutic environment that respects religious freedom
and acknowledges the significance of Jewish identity (Hodge and
Boddie, 2021). Supporting clients in reinforcing a positive cultural
identity may counteract the negative impacts of antisemitism and
contribute to improved mental health outcomes. At the macro
level, professionals are encouraged to engage in advocacy and
leadership to combat antisemitism and promote social justice.
This includes educating themselves and others about antisemitism,
challenging antisemitic narratives, and supporting policies that
protect the rights and wellbeing of Jewish communities (Gottlieb
and Steigerwald). By standing against antisemitism and supporting
Jewish individuals and communities, professionals uphold their
commitment to human rights and ethical practice.
Finally, our study may also offer valuable insights for
policymakers and educators on the widespread nature of
antisemitism and its significant psychological toll, highlighting the
urgent need for more effective prevention strategies, awareness
campaigns, and allocation of resources to increase resilience among
Jewish communities (European Union Agency for Fundamental
Rights, 2024).
In conclusion, the scarcity of research on the negative
outcomes of perceived antisemitism contrasts sharply with its
prevalence. Studying its harmful effects is crucial to dismantling
the misconception that antisemitism is marginal in Western
societies. Our study may contribute to our understanding of how
discrimination affects not only Jews but also other minority groups,
which may further facilitate efforts toward a more inclusive and
equitable society. However, it is important to emphasize that
addressing antisemitism cannot be the sole responsibility of its
victims, and affected societies should work toward eliminating
antisemitism and other forms of prejudice through intensive
interventions in all relevant areas of life. It is our hope that by
investigating the severity of antisemitic experiences, identifying
risk factors, and developing effective coping strategies, we can
advance societal efforts to eliminate prejudice and discrimination,
supporting both Jews and other minorities in thriving as individuals
and communities.
5 Conclusion
Antisemitism remains a pervasive aspect of daily life for Jews
in Germany, with over half of our sample reporting high levels of
perceived and experienced antisemitism. While microaggressions,
that is, subtle and collective forms were more frequent, everyday
discriminatory acts emerged as the strongest predictors of poor
mental health outcomes. Specifically, everyday antisemitism was
significantly associated with higher anxiety and depression, and
lower SWB and social participation, even after controlling for
demographic factors.
Latent profile analysis revealed three distinct groups based on
Jewish identification and antisemitic experiences. The largest group
(53%) had high Jewish identification and frequent antisemitism
experiences, reporting higher anxiety levels. A small group (8%)
with low identification and low antisemitism experiences also
showed high anxiety, suggesting a complex relationship between
identity, antisemitism experiences, and psychological outcomes.
The third group (40%) displayed average identification and low
perceived antisemitism.
These findings highlight that even mild, recurring antisemitic
experiences or perceiving antisemitism as widespread can
lead to chronic stress and negative mental health outcomes.
Vigilance against antisemitism was associated with reduced social
participation, indicating potential social isolation. Collectively,
these results emphasize the need for targeted interventions that
address various forms of antisemitism and consider the diverse
profiles within the Jewish community.
Frontiers in Psychology 14 frontiersin.org
fpsyg-15-1499295 December 27, 2024 Time: 16:23 # 15
Shani et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1499295
Data availability statement
The datasets presented in this study can be found in
online repositories. The names of the repository/repositories and
accession number(s) can be found below: https://osf.io/4f7s5/.
Ethics statement
The studies involving humans were approved by the Ethic
Commission of the Institute for Psychology, Osnabrück University.
The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation
and institutional requirements. The participants provided their
written informed consent to participate in this study.
Author contributions
MS: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation,
Methodology, Project administration, Software, Visualization,
Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
DG: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Project
administration, Software, Writing – original draft. MZ: Writing –
review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that no financial support was
received for the research, authorship, and/or publication
of this article.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the Jewish communities across
Germany who helped us spread the call for research and to Jewish
individuals in Germany who took the time to fill out the survey
during troubling times. Artificial intelligence was used in this work
for proofreading and readability improvement.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be
construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the
authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated
organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the
reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or
claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or
endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found
online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.
1499295/full#supplementary-material
References
Ahuja, M., and Haeny, A. (2024). Increasing our understanding of experiences of
discrimination and chronic stress. Chron. Stress 8, 24705470241268480. doi: 10.1177/
24705470241268480
Akrami, N., Ekehammar, B., and Araya, T. (2000). Classical and modern racial
prejudice: a study of attitudes toward immigrants in Sweden. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 30,
521–532. doi: 10.1002/1099-0992(200007/08)30:4< 521::AID-EJSP5<3.0.CO;2- N
Alper, B. A., and Olson, D. V. A. (2011). Do Jews feel like outsiders in America? The
impact of anti-semitism, friendships, and religious geography. J. Sci. Study Relig. 50,
822–830. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5906.2011.01599.x
Altman, A. (2011). An examination of mediating and moderating variables in the
relationship between Jewish identity, perceived discrimination, and well-being. Diss.
Abstr. Int. Sect. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 71:3538.
Anti-Defamation League (2024). Antisemitism Worldwide: Report for
2023. Available online at: https://policycommons.net/artifacts/12290922/
antisemitismworldwide_2023_final/13184961/ (Accessed August 21, 2024).
Anti-Defamation League,. (2019). Updated for 18 Countries in 2019: ADL’s Global
100 Anti-Semitism Index. Available online at: https://global100.adl.org/country/
germany/2019
Bankier-Karp, A. L., and Graham, D. (2024). Surrounded by darkness, enfolded
in light: factors influencing the mental health of Australian Jews in the October 7
aftermath. Contemp. Jew. doi: 10.1007/s12397-024- 09584-4
Bartlett, A., Faber, S., Williams, M., and Saxberg, K. (2022). Getting to
the root of the problem: supporting clients with lived-experiences of systemic
discrimination. Chron. Stress 6:24705470221139205. doi: 10.1177/247054702211
39205
Becker, J. C., and Tausch, N. (2014). When group memberships are negative: the
concept, measurement, and behavioral implications of psychological disidentification.
Self Identity 13, 294–321. doi: 10.1080/15298868.2013.819991
Becker, M. J., and Bolton, M. (2022). The decoding antisemitism project—
reflections, methods, and goals. J. Contemp. Antisemitism 5, 121–126. doi: 10.26613/
jca/5.1.105
Becker, M. J., Ascone, L., Placzynta, K., and Vincent, C. (eds) (2024). Antisemitism
in Online Communication: Transdisciplinary Approaches to Hate Speech in the Twenty-
First Century, 1st Edn. Cambridge: Open Book Publishers, doi: 10.11647/OBP.0406
Berger, M., and Sarnyai, Z. (2015). “More than skin deep”: stress neurobiology and
mental health consequences of racial discrimination. Stress 18, 1–10. doi: 10.3109/
10253890.2014.989204
Berkman, L. F., Glass, T., Brissette, I., and Seeman, T. E. (2000). From social
integration to health: Durkheim in the new millennium. Soc. Sci. Med. 51,
843–857.
Beyer, H., Herrberg, N., Reddig, M., and Goldkuhle, B. (2024). In hiding?
Multifaceted reactions of German Jews to the threat of antisemitism. J. Ethnic
Migration Stud. 1–23. doi: 10.1080/1369183X.2024.2417971
Biancalani, G., De Pasquale, G., Ronconi, L., and Testoni, I. (2024). Psychodrama
as group intervention on minority stress, identity and psychosocial well-being of
LGBTQ+ Italian young adults: a qualitative case study. Arts Health 1–23. doi: 10.1080/
17533015.2024.2402349
Bonick, M. (2021). Racism and Trust in Europe. Freiburg im Breisgau. University
of Freiburg, Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economic Policy and
Constitutional Economic Theory.
Frontiers in Psychology 15 frontiersin.org
fpsyg-15-1499295 December 27, 2024 Time: 16:23 # 16
Shani et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1499295
Branscombe, N. R., Schmitt, M. T., and Harvey, R. D. (1999). Perceiving pervasive
discrimination among African Americans: implications for group identification and
well-being. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 77, 135–149. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.77.1.135
Brondolo, E., Brady Ver Halen, N., Pencille, M., Beatty, D., and Contrada, R. J.
(2009). Coping with racism: a selective review of the literature and a theoretical and
methodological critique. J. Behav. Med. 32, 64–88. doi: 10.1007/s10865-008-9193- 0
Carter, E. R., and Murphy, M. C. (2015). Group-based differences in perceptions of
racism: what counts, to whom, and why? Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 9, 269–280.
doi: 10.1111/spc3.12181
Chae, D. H., Yip, T., Martz, C. D., Chung, K., Richeson, J. A., Hajat, A., et al.
(2021). Vicarious racism and vigilance during the COVID-19 pandemic: mental health
implications among Asian and black Americans. Public Health Rep. 136, 508–517.
doi: 10.1177/00333549211018675
Chase, E. R. (2018). Measuring the Positivity of Jewish Experiences: Scale
Development and Validation. Alhambra, CA: Alliant International University.
Cousin, G., and Fine, R. (2012). A COMMON CAUSE: Reconnecting the study of
racism and antisemitism. Eur. Soc. 14, 166–185. doi: 10.1080/14616696.2012.676447
Crandall, C. S., Miller, J. M., and White, M. H. (2018). Changing norms following the
2016 U.S. presidential election: the trump effect on prejudice. Soc. Psychol. Personal.
Sci. 9, 186–192. doi: 10.1177/1948550617750735
Crocker, J., and Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: the self-protective
properties of stigma. Psychol. Rev. 96, 608–630. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.96.4.608
Cruwys, T., South, E. I., Greenaway, K. H., and Haslam, S. A. (2015). Social identity
reduces depression by fostering positive attributions. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 6,
65–74. doi: 10.1177/1948550614543309
Cuevas, A. G., Williams, D. R., Krobath, D. M., Lyngdoh, A., Kaba-Diakité, F., and
Allen, J. D. (2024). The cost of doubt: assessing the association between attributional
ambiguity and mental health. BMC Public Health 24:126. doi: 10.1186/s12889-024-
17664-1
Diener, E. (1994). Assessing subjective well-being: progress and opportunities. Soc.
Indic. Res. 31, 103–157.
Dietz, B. (2003). Jewish immigrants from the former Soviet Union in Germany:
history, politics and social integration. East European Jewish Affairs 33, 7–19. doi:
10.1080/13501670308577998
Dubow, E. F., Pargament, K. I., Boxer, P., and Tarakeshwar, N. (2000). Initial
investigation of jewish early adolescents’ ethnic identity, stress, and coping. J. Early
Adolesc. 20, 418–441. doi: 10.1177/0272431600020004003
Elder, G. H., Johnson, M. K., and Crosnoe, R. (2003). “The emergence and
development of life course theory,” in Handbook of the Life Course, eds J. T. Mortimer
and M. J. Shanahan (Boston, MA: Springer), 3–19. doi: 10.1007/978-0- 306-48247-2_1
Emmer, C., Dorn, J., and Mata, J. (2024). The immediate effect of discrimination
on mental health: a meta-analytic review of the causal evidence. Psychol. Bull. 150,
215–252. doi: 10.1037/bul0000419
Enstad, J. D. (2023). Accounting for contemporary antisemitism: a four-dimensional
framework and a new dataset. Antisemitism Stud. 7, 4–49. doi: 10.2979/ast.2023.
a885991
Enstad, J. D. (2024). Facing antisemitism in Europe: individual and country-level
predictors of Jews’ victimization and fear across twelve countries. Soc. Forces soae091.
doi: 10.1093/sf/soae091
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2024). Jewish people’s Experiences
and Perceptions of Antisemitism:EU Survey of Jewish People. LU: Publications Office.
Available online at: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2811/058304 (Accessed August 19,
2024).
Fischer, J. M. K., and Wetzels, P. (2024). Die Verbreitung antisemitischer
Einstellungen in Deutschland: Befunde aktueller repräsentativer Befragungen
zu Trends seit 2021 und den Einflüssen von Migrationshintergrund,
Religionszugehörigkeit und Religiosität. Z. Für Relig. Ges. Polit. doi: 10.1007/
s41682-024- 00167-6
Fleming, M. C., Stevenson, H. C., Aisenbrey, E., and McWhirter, B. T. (2024). Using
RECAST theory to examine racial stress appraisal across high schools: differences in
racial threat and support. Soc. Psychol. Educ. 27, 2503–2526. doi: 10.1007/s11218-024-
09950-y
Friedlander, M. L., Friedman, M. L., Miller, M. J., Ellis, M. V., Friedlander, L. K.,
and Mikhaylov, V. G. (2010). Introducing a brief measure of cultural and religious
identification in American Jewish identity. J. Couns. Psychol. 57, 345–360. doi: 10.1037/
a0019577
Frindte, W., and Dietrich, N. (2017). Muslime, Flüchtlinge und Pegida. Berlin:
Springer.
Gee, G. C., Walsemann, K. M., and Brondolo, E. (2012). A life course perspective
on how racism may be related to health inequities. Am. J. Public Health 102, 967–974.
doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2012.300666
Geller, J. H., and Meng, M. (2020). Rebuilding Jewish Life in Germany. New
Brunswick, NJ. Rutgers University Press.
Gerson, J. M. (2018). Gender theory, intersectionality, and new understandings of
jewishness. J. Jewish Ident. 11, 5–16. doi: 10.1353/jji.2018.0002
Gottlieb, J. D., and Steigerwald, A. (2024). Editorial: social work’s role in ending
antisemitism: if not us, who? Int. J. SW Values Ethics 21, 14–27. doi: 10.55521/10-021-
103
Harrell, S. P. (2000). A multidimensional conceptualization of racism-related stress:
implications for the well-being of people of color. Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 70, 42–57.
doi: 10.1037/h0087722
Heard-Garris, N. J., Cale, M., Camaj, L., Hamati, M. C., and Dominguez, T. P.
(2018). Transmitting trauma: a systematic review of vicarious racism and child health.
Soc. Sci. Med. 199, 230–240. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.04.018
Himmelstein, M. S., Young, D. M., Sanchez, D. T., and Jackson, J. S. (2015).
Vigilance in the discrimination-stress model for Black Americans. Psychol. Health 30,
253–267.
Hodge, D. R., and Boddie, S. C. (2021). Anti-semitism in the united states: an
overview and strategies to create a more socially just society. Soc. Work 66, 128–138.
doi: 10.1093/sw/swab011
Holmes, S. C., Zare, M., Haeny, A. M., and Williams, M. T. (2024). Racial stress,
racial trauma, and evidence-based strategies for coping and empowerment. Annu. Rev.
Clin. Psychol. 20. doi: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy- 081122-020235
Hope, E. C., Velez, G., Offidani-Bertrand, C., Keels, M., and Durkee, M. I. (2018).
Political activism and mental health among Black and Latinx college students. Cult.
Divers. Ethnic Minor. Psychol. 24, 26–39. doi: 10.1037/cdp0000144
Hu, E., and Taylor, M. J. (2016). The relationship among ethnicity-related
experiences, minority mental health, and ethnic awareness in social interactions.
J. Ethn. Cult. Divers. Soc. Work 25, 193–207.
Hu, L., and Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance
structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model.
Multidiscip. J. 6, 1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118
Jikeli, G. (2020). A model for coming to terms with the past? Holocaust
remembrance and antisemitism in Germany since 1945. Isr. J. Foreign Aff. 14, 427–446.
doi: 10.1080/23739770.2020.1859247
Jones, K. P., Peddie, C. I., Gilrane, V. L., King, E. B., and Gray, A. L.
(2016). Not so subtle: a meta-analytic investigation of the correlates of subtle
and overt discrimination. J. Manag. 42, 1588–1613. doi: 10.1177/01492063135
06466
Kanter, J. W., Williams, M. T., Kuczynski, A. M., Manbeck, K. E., Debreaux,
M., and Rosen, D. C. (2017). A preliminary report on the relationship between
microaggressions against black people and racism among white college students. Race
Soc. Probl. 9, 291–299. doi: 10.1007/s12552-017- 9214-0
Kempf, W. (2015). Anti-semitism and criticism of Israel: methodology and results
of the ASCI survey. Confl. Commun. Online 14, 1–20.
Kessler, T., and Hollbach, S. (2005). Group-based emotions as determinants of
ingroup identification. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 41, 677–685. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2005.
01.001
Keum, B. T., and Li, X. (2023). Online racism, rumination, and vigilance: impact
on distress, loneliness, and alcohol use. Couns. Psychol. 51, 422–448. doi: 10.1177/
00110000221143521
Klar, Y., Schori-Eyal, N., and Klar, Y. (2013). The “Never Again” state of Israel: the
emergence of the holocaust as a core feature of israeli identity and its four incongruent
voices. J. Soc. Issues 69, 125–143. doi: 10.1111/josi.12007
Kosdon, S. M., Keller, A., Berry, J. W., Stiver, D. J., Whiteford, K., and O’Connor,
L. E. (2021). The experience of being Jewish: living with antisemitism. Psocial 7, 44–50.
Kressel, N. J., and Kressel, S. W. (2016). Trends in the psychological study of
contemporary antisemitism: conceptual issues and empirical evidence. Basic Appl. Soc.
Psychol. 38, 111–126. doi: 10.1080/01973533.2016.1164704
LaVeist, T. A., Thorpe, R. J., Pierre, G., Mance, G. A., and Williams, D. R. (2014).
The relationships among vigilant coping style, race, and depression. J. Soc. Issues 70,
241–255. doi: 10.1111/josi.12058
Lavner, J. A., Hart, A. R., Carter, S. E., and Beach, S. R. H. (2022). Longitudinal
effects of racial discrimination on depressive symptoms among black youth: between-
and within-person effects. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 61, 56–65. doi:
10.1016/j.jaac.2021.04.020
Lee, D. L., and Ahn, S. (2012). Discrimination against Latina/os: a meta-analysis of
individual-level resources and outcomes. Couns. Psychol. 40, 28–65.
Lees, C. (2018). The ‘Alternative for Germany’: the rise of right-wing populism at the
heart of Europe. Politics 38, 295–310. doi: 10.1177/0263395718777718
Lewis, T. T., Cogburn, C. D., and Williams, D. R. (2015). Self-reported experiences
of discrimination and health: scientific advances, ongoing controversies, and emerging
issues. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 11, 407–440. doi: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032814-
112728