Double Jeopardy in Coping with Discrimination: Differences between White and Visible Minority Women

Mindi Foster, Wilfrid Laurier UniversityIntroduction

Are the psychological consequences of discrimination the same for white women as they are for visible minority women?

Oppression theories note that white women experience advantages that visible minority do not, namely “white privilege” (McIntosh, 1990). In contrast, visible minority women likely experience a “double jeopardy”--discrimination due to both race and sex (Beale, 1970). However, the few studies that have examined double jeopardy, have defined it as differences in the perceived amount of discrimination perceived by both groups differs, and show inconsistent results (Dion & Kawakami, 1996; Levin et al., 2002).

However, examining the amount of discrimination that is perceived may not adequately capture the nature of double jeopardy, given that disadvantaged group members are often motivated to minimize amount of discrimination they report (e.g., Crosby, 1984; Hodson & Esses, 2002; Stangor et al., 2002). Thus, examining the perceived amount of discrimination, may not be the most comprehensive test of double jeopardy.

Perhaps an alternative conceptualization of double jeopardy lies in the responses to discrimination. The Rejection-Identification model (Branscombe et al., 1999) states that discrimination perceived to be pervasive represents feelings of rejection from the dominant group, and as such decreases individual well-being. Visible minority women’s perceived rejection from the outgroup may be more pervasive than white women’s due to their experience of being potential victims of both racism and sexism. Given the relationship between perceived pervasiveness of discrimination and decreased well-being, visible minority women may therefore experience more severe discrimination-related psychological consequences.

If differences in distress exist, then it is also likely that white and visible minority women will show differences in their coping strategies. However, few studies have examined differences in preferred coping strategies, and how they may reduce discrimination-related distress.

To that end, the goals of this study were to:1. Examine differences in discrimination-related distress2. Examine differences in coping strategies3. Examine whether the relationships between coping strategies and discrimination-

related distress differed across white and visible minority women

Results

Method Participants

• 194 women (age = 21.8, SD = 5.04; range: 18-56 years)• 55.1% White, 44.9% Visible Minority (Asian, Indian, Black, Latino, Aboriginal)

Procedure and Design• 2 (white, visible minority) x 2 (discrimination, negative experience) • Participants wrote about either a past “discrimination”, or “negative” experience• Participants then completed measures of mood and coping strategies

Measures• BriefCope (Carver, 1997)• Mood Checklist (“How does remembering this make you feel ?”) • State Anxiety (Spielberger, Gorsuch, Lushene, 1970)

Means (SD) of Positive, Negative Mood, Anxiety, Coping Strategies

Discrimination Negative Experience White Visible Minority White Visible Minority

Negative 6.56(2.41) 7.71(2.88)* 9.92(3.76) 6.71(2.80)*

Positive 13.51(3.19) 12.20(3.21)* 12.63(2.70) 14.05(3.34)

Anxiety 40.90(7.79) 46.48(8.89)* 43.38(9.66) 42.61(8.04)

BehavioralDisengagement 3.13(1.35) 4.22(1.47)* 3.94(1.56) 3.64(1.24)

Self-distraction 4.58(1.66) 5.61(1.70 * 5.53(1.58) 5.31(1.81)

Acceptance 4.88(1.49) 6.09(1.44 * 5.46(1.24) 5.74(1.20)

Substance Use 2.21(.57) 2.22(.81) 2.98(1.33) 2.23(.79)*

Substance use with discrimination-0.97 0 0.97

0

5

10

15

20

White

Visible Minority

White women's Acceptance-1 0 1

0

5

10

15

20

Discrimination

Negative Experience

Self-distraction with discrimination-1.21 0 1.21

0

5

10

15

20

White

Visible Minority

B = .30, p = .03

ns

B = .34, p = .01

ns

B = .29, p = .04

ns

Follow-up analyses (Aiken & West, 1991) of significant three-way interactions between group, condition and coping strategies showed:

•When being discriminated against, self-distraction and substance use increased White women’s positive affect

•Among White women, acceptance of discrimination increased positive affect

Conclusions• Visible minority women reported greater distress when recalling their experience of discrimination than did White women,

supporting the hypothesis that the psychological consequences of discrimination may be more severe for visible minority women.

• Visible minority women were more likely than White women to indicate using passive strategies to cope with discrimination.

• Those preferred strategies, however, were not effective in enhancing visible minority women’s positive feelings after recalling the incident, indicating the need to isolate more effective coping strategies for visible minority women.

• White women’s acceptance of their discrimination was effective at enhancing positive feelings, suggesting the risk of a dangerous cycle between accepting discrimination, feeling good about that decision, and therefore, future acceptance.

Note: Following significant 2x2 MANOVAs, comparisons were made within conditions. * indicates the two groups differed

For a copy of this poster: http://info.wlu.ca/~wwwpsych/mfoster/publications.html