↓ Skip to main content

The What, the Why, and the How: A Review of Racial Microaggressions Research in Psychology

Overview of attention for article published in Race and Social Problems, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#21 of 159)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

1 news outlet
7 tweeters
2 Wikipedia pages


91 Dimensions

Readers on

213 Mendeley
The What, the Why, and the How: A Review of Racial Microaggressions Research in Psychology
Published in
Race and Social Problems, October 2013
DOI 10.1007/s12552-013-9107-9
Pubmed ID

Gloria Wong, Annie O. Derthick, E. J. R. David, Anne Saw, Sumie Okazaki


Since the publication of Sue et al. (Am Psychol 62:271-286, 2007a, b) seminal article, there has been an enormous scholarly interest in psychology on this construct of racial microaggressions-subtle everyday experiences of racism. In this paper, we provide a review of racial microaggressions research literature in psychology since 2007, following the publication of the first comprehensive taxonomy of racial microaggressions, which provided a conceptual framework and directions for research related to racial microaggressions. However, our review suggests that important conceptual and methodological issues remain to be addressed in the three domains: (1) what are racial microaggressions and who do they impact; (2) why are racial microaggressions important to examine; and (3) how are racial microaggressions currently studied and how might we improve the methodologies used to study racial microaggressions. We propose recommendations to further facilitate racial microaggressions research, improve the scientific rigor of racial microaggressions research, and contribute toward a more complete and sophisticated understanding of the concept and consequences of racial microaggressions-a construct that is undoubtedly salient and psychologically relevant among many members of racial minority groups.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 213 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 2%
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 207 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 65 31%
Student > Doctoral Student 41 19%
Student > Master 33 15%
Student > Bachelor 14 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 14 7%
Other 32 15%
Unknown 14 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 107 50%
Social Sciences 53 25%
Arts and Humanities 9 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 2%
Other 15 7%
Unknown 18 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 August 2019.
All research outputs
of 13,725,722 outputs
Outputs from Race and Social Problems
of 159 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 211,452 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Race and Social Problems
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,725,722 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 159 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 211,452 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.