Untangling racism: Stress reactions in response to variations of racism against Black Canadians

The study examines how the ambiguity versus explicitness of racist encounters affects Black Canadians’ appraisals, coping responses, and stress-related outcomes within Canada’s sociopolitical context of multiculturalism that may obscure systemic racism. The authors argue that ambiguity surrounding racist intent creates uncertainty that can undermine effective coping and harm well-being, potentially more so than blatant racism. They hypothesized that explicit racism would be linked to outward anger expression (anger-out) and potentially adaptive outcomes, whereas ambiguous racism would be linked to anger suppression (anger-in) and higher depressive affect. They further posited that beliefs about how others view Blacks (public regard) could exacerbate uncertainty and negative outcomes under ambiguity, whereas private regard (group pride) might bolster adaptive coping. A second experimental study aimed to causally assess how ambiguity and severity (mild vs. violent) of racist cues shape appraisals, emotional reactions (distress, anger), and physiological stress (cortisol) among Black and White Canadians, and whether individual differences (past discrimination for Blacks; modern racist attitudes for Whites) moderate these reactions.

Drawing on stress and coping frameworks, racism is positioned as a pervasive stressor that elicits negative affect (e.g., anger, distress) and engages neurobiological responses (HPA activation and cortisol), which under chronic exposure can lead to allostatic overload and adverse mental and physical health outcomes. Ambiguous or subtle racism (e.g., microaggressions) has been consistently linked to internalizing symptoms (depression, anxiety), sometimes equaling or exceeding the impacts of explicit racism. Ambiguity complicates attributions (intent, deservingness) and may inhibit adaptive coping. Ethnic identity dimensions differentially affect responses: private regard (group pride) can buffer harms and facilitate calling out racism, while high public regard (believing others value one’s group) may heighten uncertainty in interpreting ambiguous events. Sensitivity to racist cues varies with prior discrimination, beliefs about interracial interactions, and personality. The literature also suggests witnesses to discrimination may experience negative affect but are influenced by modern prejudice norms, potentially leading to minimization or indifference. Cortisol responses to discrimination cues have been mixed across studies, potentially depending on situational features and emotions (e.g., distress, shame).

Two studies were conducted. Study 1 (Survey): Participants were 158 Black Canadians recruited via community and online postings. Most were female (67.5%); age M=26.03 (SD=9.39). Measures included: Perceived Ethnic Discrimination Questionnaire (22 items explicit racism; 22 items ambiguous racism; 3-month timeframe; 1–7 scale; explicit α=0.93, ambiguous α=0.94); Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity assessing private regard and public regard (each 6 items; −3 to +3 scale; private α=0.77, public α=0.83); Multidimensional Anger Inventory subscales anger-out (2 items, r=0.56) and anger-in (4 items, α=0.72; 1–5 scale); Beck Depression Inventory (21 items; α=0.88). Analytic approach: multiple regressions examining unique effects of explicit and ambiguous racism on anger-out, anger-in, and depressive affect; moderation by private/public regard via PROCESS Model 1; mediation by anger coping (PROCESS Model 4) and moderated mediation by private/public regard (PROCESS Model 7) with 5,000 bootstrap resamples. Study 2 (Experiment): Participants were 99 Black and 112 White Canadians recruited at a science centre booth and a university; testing between 11:30–17:00 h; instructed to abstain from eating/drinking/smoking 30 min prior. Procedure: Baseline saliva cortisol collected; participants randomly assigned to one of five professionally produced video conditions depicting a white host interviewing a Black male employee. Segment 1 (2.5 min): identical across conditions, mild general workplace stressors. Segment 2 (6 min): introduced either no racism, ambiguous mild racism, or explicit mild racism via scripted statements. Segment 3 (3.5 min): five variants: continued no racism; ambiguous mild; explicit mild; ambiguous violent assault; explicit violent assault (same actions, explicit racist language and broader complicity). Throughout videos, participants provided second-by-second distress ratings (0–10) via a wireless dial; after each segment they appraised discrimination and confidence (−3 to +3) and seriousness of impact on career and psychological well-being (−3 to +3). Post-video, participants rated anger (5 adjectives, 0–6). Blacks reported past 6-month discrimination (8 items; 1–7; α=0.84). Whites completed a modern racism measure adapted from neo-sexism (4 items, 0–5; α=0.60). Salivary cortisol collected at baseline, and 10 and 20 minutes post-video; assayed via solid-phase RIA; area under the curve with respect to zero (AUC) computed. Time of day and oral contraceptive use were checked and not related to cortisol. Analyses: mixed ANOVAs for appraisals, seriousness, distress; ANOVAs for anger; regressions testing moderation by past racism (Blacks) or modern racism (Whites); hierarchical regressions for cortisol AUC with distress or anger and interactions with racist cue contrasts and ethnoracial group.

Study 1 (Survey): • Participants reported both explicit (M=2.58, SD=1.01) and especially ambiguous (M=3.03, SD=1.23) racism; both correlated with lower public regard (explicit r=−0.26, p=0.002; ambiguous r=−0.25, p=0.003), but not private regard. Males reported more explicit discrimination than females (F(1,140)=4.26, p=0.041). • Unique effects: Explicit racism predicted greater anger-out when controlling ambiguity (r=0.16, b=0.31, se=0.11, p=0.006), while ambiguous racism acted as a suppressor (b=−0.25, p=0.024), model R2=0.080. Ambiguous racism predicted greater anger-in (r=0.28, b=0.22, se=0.07, p=0.002), explicit racism ns; model R2=0.062. • Depressive affect: Ambiguous racism predicted higher depressive affect when controlling explicit racism (r=0.29, b=1.90, se=0.68, p=0.006); explicit racism acted as a suppressor (ns direct), model R2=0.085. • Moderation: Private regard additively predicted higher anger-out (b=0.36, se=0.12, p=0.003); explicit×private ns. Public regard moderated ambiguous racism→anger-in (b=0.11, se=0.04, p=0.010): at high public regard, ambiguous racism positively related to anger-in (b=0.34, se=0.09, p<0.001); at low public regard, relation ns. • Mediation: Anger-out mediated explicit racism→lower depressive affect (ab=−0.48, 95% CI [−1.10, −0.06]); with anger-out controlled, explicit racism showed a positive direct effect on depression (c′=1.75, 95% CI [0.20, 3.31]). Ambiguous racism→depressive affect was partially mediated by anger-in (ab=0.21, CI90 [0.02, 0.48]); moderated mediation by public regard significant (Index=0.15, 95% CI [0.002, 0.36])—mediation evident at high, not low, public regard. Study 2 (Experiment): • Appraisals: Both groups perceived more discrimination when racist cues emerged in Segment 2. Whites appraised less discrimination than Blacks overall (F(1,200)=14.34, p<0.001). In Segment 3, explicit cues were appraised as more discriminatory than ambiguous (t(200)=7.13, p<0.001), regardless of violence. Under ambiguity, violent events were less likely to be appraised as discriminatory (t(200)=−5.92, p<0.001), especially by Whites. Seriousness appraisals increased with racist cues; explicit>ambiguous in Segment 3 (t(205)=3.30, p=0.001); explicit violent had particularly serious impact (t(205)=2.36, p=0.019). • Distress (moment-to-moment): Three-way interaction (F(8,398)=2.59, p=0.009). Blacks reported greater distress to explicit vs. ambiguous cues in Segments 2 and 3 (e.g., t(93)=3.71, p<0.001), whereas Whites’ distress did not vary by ambiguity/explicitness. • Anger: Blacks > Whites overall (F(1,200)=8.84, p=0.003). Racist cues increased anger (F(4,200)=13.38, p<0.001), with explicit>ambiguous regardless of severity; no interaction with ethnoracial group. • Moderators: Among Blacks, past racism moderated discrimination appraisals (F(4,88)=2.85, p=0.028): low past racism → strongest appraisals when cues explicit; high past racism → greater recognition of ambiguous events as discriminatory. Past racism did not moderate seriousness, distress, or anger. Among Whites, modern racism moderated discrimination (F(4,99)=6.78, p<0.001) and seriousness (F(4,99)=4.36, p=0.003): lower modern racism → higher recognition across racist conditions; higher modern racism → reduced recognition of ambiguous events (especially violent) and perceived seriousness, recognizing primarily explicit violent racism. • Cortisol: Distress×ethnoracial group interaction on cortisol AUC (F(1,178)=5.57, p=0.019) and Distress×racist cues (F(4,174)=3.67, p=0.007). Among Blacks, higher distress predicted higher cortisol AUC (b=0.153, se=0.038, p<0.001), especially in violent conditions (r′ambiguous=0.68; r′explicit=0.72; ps<0.001) vs. non-violent (r=0.40, p<0.001). Among Whites, only ambiguous violence showed a positive distress–cortisol relation (r=0.65, p=0.016); explicit violence and no-violence conditions ns. Anger was unrelated to cortisol; past racism (Blacks) and modern racism (Whites) did not moderate cortisol effects.

Findings demonstrate that the ambiguity of racist encounters has distinct psychological and physiological consequences compared to explicit racism. Explicit racism was associated with outwardly expressed anger, particularly among those with high private regard, and this anger-out pathway related to lower depressive affect, suggesting an adaptive coping route that may facilitate external accountability and collective action. Yet, controlling for anger-out revealed a positive link between explicit racism and depressive affect, indicating latent vulnerability. Ambiguous racism fostered anger suppression and higher depressive affect, especially when public regard was high, likely reflecting heightened uncertainty and fear of backlash or invalidation when labeling events as racist. Experimentally disentangling ambiguity from severity showed that even violent events were discounted as discriminatory when cues were ambiguous, particularly by Whites, and were appraised as less serious than explicit violence. Blacks experienced greater moment-to-moment distress to explicit cues and, uniquely, distress tracked with elevated cortisol, especially under violence, highlighting a physiologically meaningful stress response not evident among Whites. Whites generally minimized discrimination and its impact relative to Blacks, with recognition strongly contingent on lower modern racist attitudes. The results suggest that multicultural narratives and high perceived public regard can complicate appraisals, potentially exacerbating harms from ambiguous racism, and underscore the need for open acknowledgment of systemic racism to support effective coping and allyship.

This work clarifies how explicit versus ambiguous racist experiences differentially influence appraisals, coping, mood, and physiological stress among Black Canadians, and how Whites recognize and react to such events. The survey shows explicit racism promotes anger-out linked to lower depressive affect, whereas ambiguous racism fosters anger-in and higher depressive affect, amplified by high public regard. The experiment causally demonstrates that ambiguity suppresses recognition of racism—even during violence—reduces perceived seriousness, and differentially elicits distress and cortisol responses by ethnoracial group. Policy implications include the risk that celebratory multiculturalism, without explicit discourse on systemic racism, may worsen the effects of ambiguous racism. Future work should examine how shifting sociopolitical contexts (e.g., post-2020 awareness) alter appraisals, investigate long-term HPA dynamics under recurrent ambiguous versus explicit discrimination, and develop interventions that validate ambiguity, reduce uncertainty, and translate recognition into tangible allied action.

Study 1 relied on cross-sectional self-reports, precluding causal inference. Study 2 involved vicarious exposure to scripted videos rather than direct personal discrimination, which may limit ecological validity of emotional and physiological responses. The White participants’ modern racism measure had modest internal consistency (α≈0.60), potentially attenuating moderation effects. Samples included convenience recruitment from a science centre and a university, which may limit generalizability. The work was conducted prior to the 2020 surge in public attention to anti-Black racism, so appraisals may differ in later contexts. Cortisol was measured within an afternoon window and analyzed as AUC; although time-of-day effects were checked, more extensive sampling could further characterize diurnal dynamics.