Abstract
Women of color often endure indignities shaped by colorism and skin tone discrimination, pressuring them to adhere to racialized beauty ideals (i.e., lighter skin). In response, some women of color may internalize these standards (i.e., through internalized coping and racial self-hatred) which can foster psychological distress. Yet, these associations remain underexplored. Using minority stress theory, in our cross-sectional study we collected online survey data to examine whether internalization and racial self-hatred explained the indirect link between colorist microaggressions and psychological distress among 121 women of color at a Midwestern US historically white institution. Using path analysis, we found support for our hypothesized model. Darker skin complexion was positively associated with greater exposure to colorist microaggressions; experiences with colorist microaggressions were positively related to racial self-hatred and internalization, which in turn were associated with psychological distress. Furthermore, skin tone was indirectly associated with psychological distress through exposure to colorist microaggressions, racial self-hatred, and internalization. Our model demonstrated good fit, indicating that among women of color with darker skin tones, exposure to colorist microaggressions was associated with greater racial self-hatred and increased use of internalization to cope with discrimination, which in turn was indirectly related to heightened psychological distress. Increased attention to societal colorism is necessary to curate strategies, policies, and programs that affirm racial identity and skin tone for women of color.
Pervasive discrimination against women of color (i.e., women who self-identify as Black, Indigenous, Asian, Latiné, and Bi/Multiracial) contributes to psychological distress (e.g., stress, anxiety, and depression) that impairs daily functioning (DeBlaere et al., 2014; Velez et al., 2018). Such discrimination may include indignities, objectification (treating a person as an object rather than an individual), and devaluation based on skin tone, a racially salient feature for some women of color (Russell-Cole et al., 2013). Colorism is a systemic form of discrimination based on skin tone that preferentially values lighter skin tones over darker skin tones within the same racialized groups across social, cultural, and institutional contexts; (Hunter, 2007; Walker, 1983). Colorism shapes racialized beauty standards by positioning lighter skin as aesthetically attractive. As a result of colorism, women of color may experience insidious slights that communicate (un)desirability based on their skin tone, leading them to internalize dominant beauty ideals that are linked to greater skin tone dissatisfaction (Gruber et al., 2022; Phoenix, 2014). Few studies have examined colorism among women of color broadly, as most work has focused on Black women due to sociohistorical and anti-Black roots of colorism in Black communities and its visibility in US cultural discourse (Ellis & Destine, 2023; Hunter, 2007). This narrow representation obscures understanding of how gendered racist oppression shapes women of color's related health outcomes (Landor et al., 2024), a gap that we sought to address in this study.
Sociocultural History of Colorism Across Communities
The privileging of lighter skin is rooted in colorism, a well-documented form of discrimination with historical roots in agrarian societies, European colonial projects, and enslavement in the US that continues to shape contemporary society (Dixon & Telles, 2017; Russell-Cole et al., 2013). Lighter skin is upheld as the normative beauty standard (Carpenter, 2021; Ostfeld & Yadon, 2022), to the extent that it is disproportionately represented in health professional textbooks (Pusey-Reid et al., 2023). Colorism confers social capital advantages to individuals with lighter skin and imposes penalties on people with darker skin. Compared to darker skin, lighter skin is associated with greater educational attainment, higher salaries, and greater perceptions of intelligence, attractiveness, and respectability (Adames, 2023; Hannon, 2015; Landor & McNeil Smith, 2019; Russell-Cole et al., 2013; Sissoko et al., 2024).
Notably, although colorism operates on a continuum, the disadvantages are not equally felt. For example, colorism socially disadvantages individuals with lighter skin, as people may question one's racial authenticity. At the same time, lighter skin may also afford people privileges compared to individuals with darker skin who face greater structural disadvantages (e.g., via social exclusion, disparities in healthcare, harsher sentencing, greater lethal police killings; Hunter, 2007; Jones, 2025; Patterson & Grob, 2025; Russell-Cole et al., 2013). Darker skinned people of color bear the brunt of colorism, facing discrimination that is systemic, interpersonal, and, at the extreme, deadly (Carpenter, 2021).
Across disciplines, colorism has been extensively studied in Black communities, but has received less attention in Latiné, Asian, and Indigenous communities, likely due to the well-documented connection between US chattel slavery and anti-Black racism, which positioned whiteness, and lighter skin, as an indicator of social superiority (Dixon & Telles, 2017; Maddox & Gray, 2002; Ryabov, 2013). Colorism research has shown how skin tone discrimination maintains race and color-based hierarchies both within and beyond Black communities, privileging lighter skin and penalizing any features with proximity to Afrocentricity (Dixon & Telles, 2017). Although the focus on Black communities highlights the impact of white supremacy, it can unintentionally frame colorism as affecting only one racial group in the United States. This omission obscures how colorism shapes intragroup dynamics, experiences and the psychological well-being of communities of color, both historically and in contemporary contexts.
Although the privileging of lighter skin occurs across many societies, colorism manifests uniquely outside the United States. For example, colorism in Asian societies has a varied history. Some Asian societies have been influenced by European colonial projects (e.g., Philippines, Vietnam, India), and therefore value lighter skin that mirror European characteristics. Other Asian societies have been influenced by classist norms (e.g., China), and value lighter skin in connection to nobility and purity (Sissoko et al., 2024). Importantly, colorism affects Black populations outside the United States (Brazil, South Africa, and Caribbean), where lighter skin carries social, economic, and beauty-related advantages (Charles, 2003, 2021; Hunter, 2007). In short, although research on colorism largely focuses on Black communities, colorism can best be understood as an enduring form of oppression that transcends across racial groups in various societies, shaping social opportunities and livelihoods.
Colorism is Gendered for Women of Color
Colorism is gendered and racialized for women of color. Beauty standards epitomize white women's features as feminine, while denigrating and regarding Afrocentric features as more masculine (Ghavami & Peplau, 2013; Rosario et al., 2021). Existing studies on colorism experienced by Black women document that lighter skin is often associated with attractiveness, intelligence, and femininity, with these messages frequently communicated by peers, love interests, and family members (Davis Tribble et al., 2019; Hall & Crutchfield, 2018; Newton et al., 2024; Rosario et al., 2021). Although few in numbers, studies and personal accounts of skin tone bias provide evidence of colorism experienced by Latina (e.g., favoritism and perceived racial ambiguity with lighter skin; Moraga, 1981; Quiros & Dawson, 2013), Asian (e.g., messages to stay out of the sun, paler skin as beautiful; Ahn et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2018), and Indigenous women (e.g., racial authenticity linked to darker skin; Chalmers et al., 2022; Dixon & Telles, 2017). However, although lighter skin and darker skin is objectified and/or penalized for women of color, colorism differs across these groups due to racially salient features. For example, large bodies, straight hair, and European facial features are fetishized for lighter skinned Indigenous, Latina, and Black women, but are seen as unhealthy and defeminizing for their darker skinned counterparts (Awad et al., 2015; Chalmers et al., 2022). However, for Asian women, thin bodies, straight hair, and bigger eyes are fetishized for those with lighter skin (Ahn et al., 2022; Keum et al., 2023).
Colorism and Minority Stress
Minority stress, or the additional stress encountered by marginalized groups because of societal stigma, has been used to understand the link between discrimination and health among people of color (Meyer, 2003). Clark et al.'s (1999) biopsychosocial model of racism is one of the oldest models of minority stress and posits that chronic exposure to external (microaggressions) and internal (subjective interpretations of discrimination, internalization) racial discrimination engenders stress responses. This model suggests that stress responses compromise the health and wellbeing for people of color, placing them at risk for chronic health conditions and ongoing psychological distress (e.g., cardiovascular disease, hypertension, depression, anxiety, stress; Brownlow, 2023; Lei et al., 2022).
According to Clark et al.'s (1999) model, colorism may be conceptualized as a chronic stressor that engenders stress reactions among people of color. Like racism, colorism exposes people of color to discrimination where they must decide how to mitigate stress and navigate these discriminatory incidents (Landor & McNeil Smith, 2019). Additionally, people of color must consider the immediate environment and sociocultural context when navigating minority stressors, which may affect the availability and utility of various coping resources (Partow et al., 2021). For example, compared to lighter skinned respondents, the use of confrontational coping (i.e., saying something as a response to racial discrimination) was helpful in the moment for darker skinned respondents, but was associated with greater psychological distress (i.e., anxiety and anger) following exposure to racial discrimination (Brown et al., 2022). These researchers reasoned that the social position of darker skinned people of color exposes them to routine discrimination within and outside their racial community to the point that it overwhelms their coping resources and increases their vulnerability to stress.
Although health outcomes occur across a skin tone continuum, disparate health outcomes for people of color with darker skin are extensively documented, including poorer physical health (e.g., higher mortality rates, greater physical dysregulation, cardiovascular conditions), poorer mental health (e.g., depression, anxiety), lower self-esteem, and greater unhealthy behaviors (e.g., Craddock et al., 2023; Monk, 2021; Patterson & Grob, 2025; Perreira & Telles, 2014). Along with the harmful effects of colorism on health outcomes among people of color with darker skin, colorism intersects with sexism to yield unique experiences for women of color (Hunter, 2007), given physical health deterioration, lower self-esteem, and depression among women of color compared to men of color (Alexander & Carter, 2022; Sharif & Siddique, 2020; Tran et al., 2017).
Colorism as Minority Stress for Women of Color
At the intersection of racism and sexism, colorism objectifies women of color (Hunter, 2023). Objectification theory, a well-established feminist theory, links objectification (i.e., the act of treating a person to an object rather than whole individuals) to adverse psychological outcomes for women and especially for women of color (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). Women's skin tone is routinely objectified and appraised based on proximity to Whiteness (e.g., lighter skin framed as beautiful, exotic, and classy in media and advertisements), granting social and structural privileges. For example, although women of color remain underrepresented in beauty standards and are underpaid compared to White women, lighter skin operates as social capital for women of color, given associations with higher educational attainment, better wages, greater representation in beauty, and increased likelihood of marriage to suitors with economic resources (American Association of University Women, 2023; Diette et al., 2015; Dixon & Telles, 2017; Hunter, 2002, 2007; Jankowski et al., 2017; Mitchell et al., 2023). On the other hand, darker skinned women of color are perceived as undesirable, as evidenced by systemic underpayment, marginalization, and underrepresentation in the beauty standard (Diette et al., 2015; Jankowski et al., 2017). Thus, colorism objectifies women of color, linking their racialized lives to beauty norms. Altogether, colorist beauty norms objectify skin tone to the point that it influences the livelihoods and experiences for women of color.
Coping With Colorist Microaggressions Among Women of Color
Gendered racial microaggressions are indignities enacted toward women of color that devalue their gendered racial identity (Lewis et al., 2017; Sue et al., 2007). These transgressions are well documented distal stressors for women of color. In fact, exposure to these microaggressions is associated with psychological distress among women of color (e.g., anxiety, depression, and stress; Keum et al., 2018; Lewis & Neville, 2015). For women of color, colorist microaggressions, or subtle slights, invalidations, or denigrations regarding one's skin color, convey that womanhood is contingent upon Eurocentric standards of beauty (Hall & Crutchfield, 2018; Sissoko et al., 2024). These include skin tone-specific insults (e.g., “You’re so dark, I couldn’t see you at night”), exoticizing skin color (e.g., “she's pretty for being dark skinned”, “pretty brown thing”), or communicating behaviors that encourage standards of beauty (e.g., staying out of the sun to avoid getting darker, getting sun to not look so pale).
The process by which women of color cope with colorist microaggressions may influence the degree to which they experience psychological distress following these interactions. Women of color actively manage stress resulting from these microaggressions (Criss et al., 2024), with adaptive (e.g., social support, spirituality) and maladaptive coping (internalization, disengagement) mitigating and exacerbating stress, respectively (Lewis et al., 2017; Remedios & Snyder, 2015). Researchers argue that examining maladaptive coping (e.g., internalization) may be more relevant for the discrimination-distress link (Clark et al., 1999; Wei et al., 2010). In fact, internalization, or blaming oneself for the discriminatory experience, has been well-documented as a key mechanism in the link between discrimination and mental health among women of color (Moody et al., 2023; Szymanski & Lewis, 2016), and a key component of objectification theory (Buchanan et al., 2008; Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997; Moradi & Huang, 2008). From an objectification theory framework, women of color may internalize beauty ideals to cope with a society that routinely valorizes lighter skin and other Eurocentric features (Calogero & Jost, 2011; Lowy et al., 2021), including blaming oneself for their appearance (“Maybe I am too light to join this organization,” “Maybe my skin is too dark to be in the picture,” “My hair is not professional for this job”). On the other hand, empirical studies document women of color actively resisting Eurocentric beauty ideals, including accepting their appearance in connection to their racial identity, decentering the lighter skin ideal, and using social support to bolster confidence (Ahn et al., 2022; Chalmers et al., 2022; Rosario et al., 2021; Williams & Lewis, 2021). Although internalization is a potential response to colorist microaggressions, it is not the only response utilized among women of color.
However, internalization may functionally allow women of color to actively manage such valorization. One study found that Black American women living in the United States and Indian women living in India who perceived their discrimination as fair and minimized racism reported less dissatisfaction with their skin tone (Choma & Prusaczyk, 2018). However, these findings conflict with other literature, which has suggested that the internalization of colorist and other hegemonic beauty norms among women of color is associated with disliking, monitoring, and considering lightening their skin color (Harper & Choma, 2019; Ward et al., 2023). Furthermore, as objectification of racially salient markers (e.g., facial features, hair texture, and body size) is distinct, internalizing societal beliefs that objectify certain beauty markers can amplify minority stress for different groups of women of color (Landor et al., 2024). Particularly, women of color may feel the need to police their appearance within their racialized groups, and may worry about appearing racially authentic and experience pressure to change their appearance (e.g., straightening hair, eyelid surgery; Ahn et al., 2022; Awad et al., 2015; Brady et al., 2017; Hwang, 2021). Thus, internalization of racially salient markers, such as skin tone, clarifies the pathway for how colorism may shape distress and other self-objectifying behaviors among women of color.
Colorism, Internalized Racism, and Racial-Self Hatred Among Women of Color
Internalized racism may also explain the indirect link between colorist microaggressions and psychological distress (e.g., Gale et al., 2020; Keum et al., 2023). Indeed, previous scholarship has linked colorist discrimination to internalized racism among women of color (Alexander & Carter, 2022; Hwang, 2021). One qualitative study revealed that colorist microaggressions (e.g., darker skinned girls being disadvantaged and perceived as intimidating, unattractive, and militant) experienced by Black women negatively affected their feelings about their racial identity (Hall & Crutchfield, 2018). Another study found that lighter skin Latina women with higher socioeconomic statuses reported higher levels of internalized racism compared to their counterparts with darker skin (Uzogara, 2019).
Rooted in internalized racism, racial self-hatred, or dislike of one's ethnic-racial group (Charles, 2003; Worrell et al., 2023), may help explain the relation between colorist discrimination and psychological distress among women of color. Existing studies among Black women document the association of racial self-hatred with negative psychological health (e.g., depression, anxiety), internalized Eurocentric beauty standards, and negative beliefs about one's appearance (Awad et al., 2020; Jones et al., 2007; Williams et al., 2025; Williams & Lewis, 2021). To date, few studies have examined the association between colorism and racial self-hatred among Black women, and even fewer have examined this relation among women of color more broadly. Although recent scholarship suggests that internalizing racist ideals shapes distress among women of color (Chalmers et al., 2022; Keum et al., 2023; Williams & Lewis, 2021), few studies have attended to the concurrent roles of internalizing as means of coping and racial self-hatred in relation to psychological outcomes. Similar to objectification, women of color may use internalization to deal with routine discrimination to the point that they may turn emotional pain inwards and blame themselves for their discriminatory experiences (Ayala & Chalupa Young, 2022; Carr et al., 2014; Sanchez et al., 2018). Although this may help in the short-term, studies document that internalized coping compromise the health and wellbeing of women of color later (Azhar & Gunn, 2021; Szymanski & Lewis, 2016). Accordingly, we sought to fill this gap in the literature by examining the indirect link from colorist microaggressions to psychological distress through racial self-hatred and internalized coping.
The Current Study
Colorism routinely objectifies and/or penalizes women of color according to their proximity to whiteness (Awad et al., 2015; Craddock et al., 2023). As a result, women of color may internalize these dominant messages, potentially affecting their self-perception as women of color and increasing their risk for psychological distress (Harper & Choma, 2019; Ward et al., 2023). Grounded in the tenets of biopsychosocial models of minority stress, objectification theory, and the colorism literature, we examined the relations among skin tone, racial self-hatred, coping via internalization, and psychological distress (Clark et al., 1999; Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997; Landor & McNeil Smith, 2019; Meyer, 2003).
Given that women of color with darker skin tones (in contrast to those with lighter skin) are more likely to experience discrimination at the intersection of racism and colorism (Hall & Crutchfield, 2018), we proposed a model where skin tone would positively relate to exposure to colorist microaggressions. Given literature suggesting that racially minoritized people may internalize feelings of racism and colorism and use maladaptive coping strategies like internalization (Alexander & Carter, 2022; Hwang, 2021; Williams & Lewis, 2021), we conceptualized racial self-hatred and internalization as two potential coping responses to these transgressions, which in turn may relate to psychological distress. We focused on internalization over other coping strategies because colorism, at all levels of society, encourages women of color to blame themselves for their appearance, particularly in contexts where they police their own behavior and looks. Since there is no evidence that skin tone is directly associated with psychological distress, we hypothesized that these variables would be indirectly related through exposure to colorist microaggression, racial self-hatred, and internalization as a coping mechanism (see Figure 1):
H1: Skin tone would be positively associated with exposure to colorist microaggressions, such that individuals with darker skin complexions would experience more colorist microaggressions. H2: Exposure to colorist microaggressions would significantly relate to racial self-hatred and coping via internalization, such that greater exposure to colorist microaggressions would be associated with greater ratings of racial self-hatred and a tendency to internalize discriminatory experiences. H3: Racial self-hatred and coping via internalization would be associated with psychological distress, as greater internalization as a coping strategy would be associated with heightened psychological distress. H4: Skin tone, through (a) exposure to colorist microaggressions and (b) racial self-hatred and coping via internalization, would be indirectly associated with psychological distress, as individuals with darker skin tones would experience greater psychological distress.
Proposed Model with Skin Tone, Exposure to Microaggression, Racial Self-Hatred and Internalized Coping Predicting Psychological Distress.
Method
Positionality Statement
Our team was comprised of four women of color, including Black, Afro-Latina, and Vietnamese identities with brown and lighter skin tones. Given our experiences with gendered racism and colorism as women of color with varied skin shades, we see our work as important, personal, and aligned with the desire to challenge racism and colorism. We also entered this work with an understanding of how our dominant identities as scholars in higher education provided us access to engage in this work. Despite our commonalities with and specific focus on colorist experiences, our perspectives cannot fully represent all women of color. As such, we acknowledge that our commonalities and differences with participants shaped the research process, including development of research questions, analyses and interpretation of data, and drawn implications. The first and second authors collaboratively conceived, designed, and executed the study. Both are well versed in employing culturally sensitive research design for quantitative methodologies through their training and work as psychological researchers. Upon completion of data analysis, the authors reviewed the data, discussed reactions, compared individual thoughts, and dialogued collective interpretation until all agreed on final interpretation. All authors contributed to the drafting and revisions of the manuscript.
Participants
We recruited 121 participants (i.e., students, faculty or staff, at a Midwestern historically white institution) who ranged in age from 18 to 59 years (M = 23.80, SD = 7.79). To ensure that we recruited enough participants to power our analyses, we used G*Power to conduct a post-hoc power analysis testing four predictors in a regression model. Using a moderate effect size (f2 = .15) and .90 power, we identified a sample size of 108, indicating that we had an adequate number of participants to power our analyses. Participants responded to eligibility items that assessed their race (i.e., “do you identify as a person of color) and gender (i.e., multiple choice item assessing gender as woman, man, or gender nonconforming/gender queer). All participants self-identified as a woman of color, as race and gender were the only restrictions placed on participation. It should be noted that four participants endorsed being woman presenting while also identifying as gender nonconforming, nonbinary, or gender queer. Of the 121 participants, 58 (47.93%) identified their race as Black, African, or African American, 22 (18.18%) Brazilian, Mexican, Guatemalan, Latina/o/x or Hispanic, 26 (21.49%) Asian, Burmese, Chinese, Filipino/a, Korean, South Asian, or Indian, and 15 (12.40%) multiracial/ethnic. Self-reported skin tone ratings ranged from 2 to 8 (M = 4.22, SD = 1.44), with lower ratings indicating lighter skin tone and higher ratings indicating darker skin tones. Most of the sample identified as heterosexual or straight (n = 91, 75.20%), whereas the remaining reported identifying as bisexual, gay, lesbian, or pansexual (n = 28, 23.14%). Two participants (1.65%) did not report their sexual orientation. Additional details surrounding the demographic makeup of the sample are listed in Table 1.
Sample Demographic Data.
Measures
Skin Color
We used the New Immigrant Survey (NIS) Skin Color Scale (Massey and Martin, 2003), a skin color palette measure, to identify participants’ skin tone. The measure is an 11-item scale that displays pictures of hands representing different skin tones. Ratings of zero represent albinism with the remaining items representing shades of skin tone that range from lighter skin (i.e., lower scores) to increasingly darker skin (i.e., higher scores). Participants were asked to view the pictures and select the hand depicting the skin tone that was most like their own. Because this measure only includes one item, reliability data were not available in the extant literature, nor relevant to the current study. Prior research has established use of the NIS as a sound way to measure skin tone. For example, Dixon and Telles (2017) described the NIS as a prominent guide for measuring skin tone, and Kim and Calzada (2019) developed their own measure based on the NIS to specifically assess skin tone in Latino children in a study of academic achievement. However, most related studies employed interviewer observation of skin tone using the NIS as opposed to self-report (Dixon & Telles, 2017; Hannon & DeFina, 2016). Thus, ours is the first known study using the NIS to ask that participants directly rate their own skin tone. Although our methodology reflects a shift, our election to employ self-report instead of observer report, was necessary, relevant, and cost-effective given the survey-based design of our study.
Colorist Microaggressions
We assessed colorist microaggression through an adapted version of the Racial Microaggression Scale (RMAS; Torres-Harding et al., 2012). The original 32-item measure assesses the frequency with which respondents experience race-based microaggressions. Original items included: “I receive poorer treatment in restaurants and stores because of my race” and “I feel invisible because of my race.” Pursuant to colorist microaggressions, we adapted items to reflect experiences with microaggressions based on skin tone (e.g., I receive poorer treatment in restaurants and stores because of my skin tone). Participants responded to items on a 4-point scale ranging from 0 (never) to 3 (frequently/often). The RMAS includes six subscales: Foreigner/Not Belonging, Criminality, Sexualization, Low Achieving/Undesirable Culture, Invisibility, and Environmental Invalidation. However, for this study, we used a total scale score. Torres-Harding et al. (2012) also found convergent validity with other established measures. The RMAS demonstrated good construct validity and reliability in measuring race-based microaggressions and connection with adverse health outcomes across diverse samples (Williams et al., 2023). In the initial study, internal consistency statistics for each subscale were strong (α = .79–.89). Consistency across item responses provided evidence of the scale's reliability in our sample (α = .93).
Internalized Racism
We used the Cross Ethnic Racial Identity Scale–Adult Form (CERIS-A; Worrell et al., 2019), which included 29 items on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). The measure included seven subscales: Assimilation, Miseducation, Self-Hatred, Anti-Dominant, Ethnocentricity, Multiculturalist Inclusive, and Ethnic-Racial Salience that were determined using a confirmatory factor analysis. For the current study, we were interested in the Self-Hatred subscale, as research suggests that this aspect of identity is grounded in internalized racism (Worrell et al., 2023). The Self-Hatred subscale included items such as: “When I look in the mirror, sometimes I do not feel good about the ethnic/racial group I belong to” and “I sometimes have negative feelings about being a member of my group.” We conducted reliability analyses for the Self-Hatred subscale on the current sample revealed (α = .78) and these data were consistent with coefficients identified from other studies (α = .85; Worrell et al., 2019).
Coping by Internalization
Coping with microaggressions by internalizing was assessed through the Internalization subscale of the Coping with Discrimination Scale (CDS, Wei et al., 2010). The 25-item scale assessed the degree to which participants engaged in coping to manage stress and exposure to discrimination on a 6-point scale ranging from 1 (never like me) to 6 (always like me). Though the measure includes five subscales (i.e., Education/Advocacy, Internalization, Drug and Alcohol Use, Resistance, and Detachment), we were interested in the five-item Internalization subscale given our focus on attributing blame to oneself as a means of managing discrimination. Internalization subscale items included the following examples: “I wonder if I did something to provoke this incident” and “I believe I may have triggered the incident.” We examined the Internalization subscale as a mediator like other studies with women of color (Szymanski & Lewis, 2016). Data from our sample suggested this subscale had questionable reliability (α = .63), lower compared to reliability coefficients from the initial validation of the measure (α = .72–.90; Wei et al., 2010).
Psychological Distress
The Hopkins Symptoms Checklist (HSC–21; Green et al., 1988) is a widely used 21-item measure to assess psychological distress. It is an abbreviated version of the 58-item measure of the Hopkins Symptoms Checklist (Derogatis et al., 1974). Participants indicated how much a problem bothered them or distressed them during the past week (e.g., “Feeling lonely,” “Trouble remembering things,” “Pains in the lower part of your back”) on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 4 (extremely). In terms of validity, HSC scores correlated with minority stressors faced by women of color (e.g., DeBlaere et al., 2014; DeBlaere & Bertsch, 2013). The present study used the overall scale score to assess psychological distress. Data from our sample suggested consistency of responses across items (α = .92), similar to the initial validation (α = .75–.90; Green et al., 1988)
Procedure
Upon receiving approval from Illinois State University's Institutional Review Board, we circulated a recruitment email to students, faculty, and staff. The email stated the purpose of the study and specified that we were only recruiting women of color. Interested individuals followed a hyperlink that took them to the survey that we created in Qualtrics, an online survey platform. Participants first viewed eligibility items to assess their gender and racial identities. Interested individuals who did not pass eligibility items (i.e., did not endorse “yes” for the item assessing race and “woman” for the item assessing gender) were thanked for their interest and were informed that they were ineligible. Individuals who responded affirmatively to these items then viewed the consent form and survey items. Participants responded to demographic items regarding gender, age, year in school, sexual orientation, and race. We counterbalanced the measures to manage order effects. Participants completed our revised version of the racial microaggressions scale, as we prompted them to consider microaggressions related to the color of their skin tone instead of their race. We included attention check items throughout each of the measures to ensure participants intentionally attended to survey items. We omitted incomplete survey responses and those that failed attention check items. These missing data were at random (χ2 = 280.101, p = 1.00), so we did not conduct any missing data analyses. At the end of the study, participants could enter a raffle for 1 of 4 $25 gift cards.
Results
Preliminary Analyses
Before conducting analyses for our primary research questions, we completed preliminary analyses to examine the dataset (see Table 2). Ratings of exposure to colorist microaggressions ranged from 1.00 to 3.88 (M = 2.49, SD = 0.59) with a slight negative skew (−0.25, SE = 0.22), demonstrating a high level of exposure to colorist microaggressions. Ratings of racial self-hatred, ranged from 1.00 to 6.00 (M = 2.93, SD = 1.41) with a slight positive skew (0.38, SE = 0.22), meaning participants generally provided low ratings of racial self-hatred. Ratings regarding the degree to which participants endorsed coping with discrimination via the Internalization subscale of the Coping with Discrimination Scale were also low, ranging from 1.00 to 5.00 (M = 2.79, SD = 1.22) with a slightly positively skew (1.22, SE = 0.22). Finally, psychological distress ranged from 1.00 to 3.67 (M = 2.11, SD = 0.59) and was slightly positively skewed (0.34, SE = 0.22), indicating low levels of psychological distress. Most measures were significantly positively correlated, except for the measure of skin tone. Specifically, skin tone ratings were only significantly correlated with exposure to colorist microaggressions (r = .33, p < .001). Exposure to colorist microaggressions was associated with greater racial self-hatred (r = .36, p < .001), engagement in internalizing coping (r = .24, p = .01), and greater psychological distress (r = .42, p < .001).
Descriptive Data and Correlations for Predictor and Outcome Measures.
Note. NIS = New Immigrant Survey: Skin Color Scale; RMAS = Racial Microaggressions Scale; SH = Self-Hatred subscale of the Cross Ethnic Racial Identity Scale; INT = Internalization subscale of Coping with Discrimination Scale; HSC = Hopkins Symptom Checklist.
Using JASP (i.e., Jeffreys' Amazing Statistics Program), an open-source statistical software for data analysis, we conducted a parallel mediation analysis to examine direct and indirect relations among our variables of interest, with no control variables entered into the model. Figure 2 represents our identified path diagram with standardized coefficients, and Table 3 lists all relevant data for the model. We found support for Hypothesis 1, as there was a significant direct effect of skin tone on exposure to colorist microaggressions, suggesting that darker skin tone is associated with greater exposure to colorist microaggressions. Hypothesis 2 was also supported, as we found that exposure to colorist microaggressions significantly positively predicted racial self-hatred and internalization as a coping mechanism. For Hypothesis 3, self-hatred and internalization were significantly associated with psychological distress. Lastly, we found a significant indirect effect for skin tone on psychological distress through exposure to colorist microaggressions and feelings of self-hatred. Because internalization did not surface as a significant mediator, and given the direct effect of exposure to colorist microaggression on psychological distress was not significant, we found full mediation support for self-hate, as well as well as a strong effect size (R2 = .32). These findings demonstrate that for women of color at historically white institutions, one's skin tone may affect experiences of psychological distress though exposure to colorist microaggressions and racial self-hatred.
Path Analysis Model with Skin Tone, Exposure to Microaggressions, Racial Self-Hatred and Internalized Coping Predicting Psychological Distress.
Direct and Indirect Effects for Mediation Analysis.
Note. NIS = New Immigrant Survey: Skin Color Scale; RMAS = Racial Microaggressions Scale; SH = Self-Hatred subscale of the Cross Ethnic Racial Identity Scale; INT = Internalization subscale of Coping with Discrimination Scale; HSC = Hopkins Symptom Checklist.
Discussion
We conceptualized colorism as a form of objectification because it reduces women of color to their appearance and exposes them to colorist microaggressions that they must contend with, which may negatively affect their mental health. Informed by Clark et al.’ (1999)'s model of biopsychosocial model of racism and objectification theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997), we examined the associations among skin tone, colorist microaggressions, and psychological distress. Moreover, we extended previous knowledge regarding colorist microaggressions and psychological distress by concurrently examining the roles of racial self-hatred and coping by internalization in the links from skin tone and psychological distress.
Consistent with our first hypothesis, we found that darker skin tones were associated with greater colorist microaggressions among women of color. Our findings are in line with the well-documented association between darker skin and discrimination among people of color, generally (Brown et al., 2022; Clark et al., 1999; Landor & McNeil Smith, 2019), and women of color, specifically (Hall & Crutchfield, 2018; Russell-Cole et al., 2013; Sissoko et al., 2024). Supporting our second hypothesis, exposure to colorist microaggressions was associated with greater racial self-hatred and coping via internalization, corroborating other research on the link between microaggressions and internalization among women of color (Lowy et al., 2021; Moody et al., 2023; Szymanski & Lewis, 2016). Consistent with our third hypothesis, darker skin tones was associated with greater racial self-hatred and coping via internalization, which in turn was linked with greater psychological distress, a finding aligned with previous literature on racial self-hatred, internalization, and distress among women of color (Alexander & Carter, 2022; Hwang, 2021).
For our last hypothesis, we expected an indirect link from skin tone to psychological distress through colorist microaggressions and internalizing processes; we found partial support for our proposed model. Skin tone was linked to greater exposure to colorist microaggressions and feelings of racial self-hatred, which in turn was linked with greater psychological distress among women of color. That is, darker skin tones exposed women of color to greater colorist microaggressions, which in turn was connected to greater racial self-hatred; racial self-hatred was significantly positively associated with psychological distress. Our findings complement previous research that has found that greater racial self-hatred is associated with distress for women of color (Hall & Crutchfield, 2018; Keum et al., 2023). Although we found support for our previous hypothesis on coping via internalization, we did not find evidence of parallel mediation, as the indirect effect through coping via internalization was not significant (although on the threshold). These findings suggest that, although these variables are connected, coping by internalization (following exposure to colorist microaggressions) does not fully explain the relation between skin tone and psychological distress, which is inconsistent with prior research (Moody et al., 2023; Sanchez et al., 2018; Szymanski & Lewis, 2016).
One reason for this nonsignificant finding could be attributed to the strength of racial self-hatred compared to coping via internalization (see Table 3). In other words, it could be that colorist microaggressions may have a more pronounced effect on self-identity (e.g., dislike for one's racial group) compared to blaming oneself. Indeed prior research has yielded mixed effects on the role of coping via internalization. One meta-analysis suggests that the effects of internalization (e.g., internalization racism) are limited despite being linked to health outcomes (James et al., 2025). In another nationally representative sample of African Americans and Afro-Caribbeans, internalized racism did not statistically mediate the relations between discrimination and depression (Molina & James, 2016). Prior research has found that colorism plays a role in how WoC feel about themselves, especially when communicated by racial community members (Ahn et al., 2022; Davis Tribble et al., 2019; Hall & Crutchfield, 2018; Moraga, 1981). Given the pervasive and objectifying nature of colorism, these microaggressions may activate internalized and emotional responses, such as dislike for one's racial group, particularly for women of color with darker skin. Dislike for one's racial group becomes an emotional injury that relates to greater distress, as microaggressions communicate inferiority about women of color's identities through their appearance (Lewis & Neville, 2015; Sue et al., 2007). Consistent with the biopsychosocial model of racism and objectification theory, women of color with darker skin tones may process colorist microaggressions through an objectified lens, where the belief about inferiority is turned inward, creating distress for them later. Relatedly, our findings highlight that exposure to these microaggressions does engender coping by internalization, as proposed by the biopsychosocial model, but this method of coping does not necessarily explain distress—at least not when in the context of racial self-hatred.
It is imperative to acknowledge that, although colorism affects many minoritized racial groups, it is not similarly experienced among all for women of color. Eurocentric ideals create, enforce, and maintain pressures for women of color collectively, yet their sociohistorical legacies of colorism are unique (Hunter, 2007). For example, Black women's experiences may be shaped by the legacy of slavery and anti-Black racism, Indigenous women by colonialism and systemic erasure, Latina women by immigration pressures and colorist beauty standards, and Asian women by cultural ideals around skin tone and assimilation (Chalmers et al., 2022; Dixon & Telles, 2017; Hunter, 2007; Sissoko et al., 2024). Thus, although women of color may respond to colorist microaggressions by blaming themselves and possessing disdain for their racial groups, they have unique sociocultural locations in the United States that shape their experiences.
Limitations and Future Directions
Our study is not without limitations. Although our investigation of colorism focused on skin color, future research must consider colorist microaggressions in conjunction with other racially salient features of women of color (e.g., facial features, eyes, and hair texture; Ahn et al., 2022; Watson et al., 2019). Given that lighter skin functions as a form of social capital for women of color (Adames, 2023; Hunter, 2007; Landor & McNeil Smith, 2019; Sissoko et al., 2024), it is important to investigate how structural variables associated with colorism (e.g., wealth inequality indices) also shape coping responses and psychological distress (Bowleg & Bauer, 2016; Landor et al., 2024). Additionally, variables known to buffer the effects of discrimination on distress, such as womanist (Walker, 1983) or feminist attitudes, are also worthy of additional exploration. Our nonsignificant finding on the mediating role of coping via internalization needs to be further explored. Qualitative and mixed methods research may investigate the contextualized nature of internalization to further clarify their influence on distress for women of color, particularly those with dark skin.
Given the diverse histories of appearance-based discrimination across women of color (Hunter, 2007; Ward et al., 2023), future research may consider comparative analyses to evaluate varying levels of exposure to colorist microaggressions and subsequent effects on psychological distress among the different racial groups (Bowleg & Bauer, 2016). An expansion of such research may be imperative, given that Black women may endure harsher penalties for violating Eurocentric beauty norms compared to Latina, Asian, and Indigenous women (Ghavami & Peplau, 2013; Rosario et al., 2021). As research documents intragroup diversity among women of color, future studies should also explore to what extent colorist experiences are shared and differ across national, cultural, and historical backgrounds.
For example, prior research suggests that Black women in the United States experience colorism as shaped by anti-Black racism whereas Black women outside of the United States (e.g., Caribbean, Africa, Brazil) experience colorism as influenced by colonialism and class-based beauty hierarchies (Charles, 2003, 2021; Hunter, 2007). For non-Black women of color, colonialism and class-based hierarchies also intersect with colorism. Given that studies link ethnic identity to mental health among Indigenous communities (Fetter & Thompson, 2023; Walls et al., 2025), and skin color is linked with feelings of racial authenticity for Indigenous women (e.g., Chalmers et al., 2022), future research might explore how colorist microaggressions affect Indigenous women's feelings about their ethnic identity and their mental health. Given growing calls to attend to colorism in Asian communities (Bettache, 2020; Sissoko et al., 2024), we encourage further investigation to examine how colorist discrimination shapes how Asian women feel about their ethnic identities and the associated distress. As such, respective investigations would contextualize how colorism uniquely affects various women of color.
Measurement is another limitation of the current study, with the most notable including our adaptation of measures aimed to study racism and related experiences (i.e., colorist microaggressions) and self-hatred (i.e., measuring racial self-hatred instead of gendered racial self-hatred). Although colorism and racism are similar, these are distinct and should be measured as so (Hunter, 2007; Landor & McNeil Smith, 2019). We echo similar sentiments regarding racial self-hatred, as decades of research document that women of color think about their identity at the intersection of their gender and race, especially with internalized ideals around their appearance (e.g., Williams & Lewis, 2021). Furthermore, given the structure of the NIS as a single-item measure, we were limited in our ability to assess reliability. The NIS is a commonly used tool, but a more comprehensive or multi-item measure of skin tone may have provided us better precision to capture a wider range of skin tone diversity among women of color in our study. Although previous research employs self-report questions of one's skin tone, it is imperative to have skin tone identification measures that are valid and reliable. Thus, we call for greater instrumentation that explicitly measures colorism, specifically for women of color.
Lastly, the cross-sectional nature of our study limits our ability to determine causality between and among variables. Future researchers may employ experimental methods to examine the potential causal role that exposure to colorist microaggressions may have on the psychological distress of women of color, and further, how interventions can buffer this effect. Qualitative and mixed methodologies lend themselves to better explore the contextualized nature of colorism and coping with such discrimination, and may also elicit counternarratives of women of color with implications for systemic change (Davis Tribble et al., 2019; Landor & McNeil Smith, 2019).
Implications for Clinical Practice, Training, and Social Policy
Practice Implications
Clinical interventions must intentionally target colorist microaggressions, internalization, and racial self-hatred among women of color, particularly for those with darker skin tones. As racial self-hatred plays a role in the relation between colorist microaggressions and psychological distress, clinicians can help women of color to identify coping strategies that not only support their wellbeing but also affirm their racial identity and skin tone. For example, psychoeducation illuminates the short-and long-term consequences of internalization (e.g., maintenance of psychological distress attributed to discrimination) and emphasize coping strategies that revitalize oneself and affirm one's features (Mercier et al., 2025).
Storytelling may offer women of color an opportunity to give testimony to colorist experiences in their lives, reflect how they shaped their racial identity, and (re)envision possibilities of beauty across skin tone (Landor & McNeil Smith, 2019; Mercier et al., 2025). In particular, clinicians may explore how colorism manifested in the history of client's racialized groups, including how legacies of enslavement, colonialism, and/or class-based discrimination politicized skin tone. Clinicians can also encourage clients to seek positive imagery, media representation, and public campaigns that critique colorist ideals, but promote skin tone acceptance and affirmation, especially for darker skin (e.g., Webb, 2022). Lastly, it is imperative that clinicians are aware of the widespread impact of colorism at the intersection of racism and sexism on women of color (Crutchfield & Webb, 2020; Landor & McNeil Smith, 2019). Cultural humility, or the nonjudgmental stance that values the client's cultural experience, is imperative to meaningfully explore colorist microaggressions in and outside psychotherapy (DeBlaere et al., 2023; Mosher et al., 2017).
Education and Policy Implications
Colorism remains scarce in professional literature and training. We call for training programs to raise awareness of colorism and skin tone diversity among emerging clinicians. We see this as an opportunity for trainers to use self-reflective assignments to evaluate colorist biases, raise awareness of colorism in the histories of women of color, and foster difficult dialogues on the impact of colorism. Relatedly, training programs can integrate skin tone diversity and anti-colorist scholarship within course content and pedagogical practices (Crutchfield & Webb, 2020; Davis Tribble et al., 2019). Given the pervasiveness of colorism, we encourage the integration of skin tone diversity and anticolorism in antiracist advocacy for women of color in psychological science. Namely, inclusion of empirical studies that investigate colorism and racism, as well as federal data that incorporates skin tone could further support social policies to explicitly address dominant colorist beliefs and skin tone stratification within the US society (Sissoko et al., 2023).
Conclusion
To our knowledge, our study is one of the first quantitative studies to apply a minority stress framework to explore colorist microaggressions faced by women of color. Our findings suggest that women of color with darker skin tones are exposed to greater colorist microaggressions, which engender more racial self-hatred and coping via internalization. In turn, racial self-hatred is associated with greater levels of psychological distress. Given our findings, practitioners and educators must strengthen their awareness of how colorism at the intersection of racism and sexism persists in the lives of women of color to foster holistic interventions and attend to their needs in psychotherapy. Although our findings advance existing knowledge on colorism, research on this topic remains limited within psychological science. Thus, it is imperative that psychologists better integrate colorism in their effort to promote holistic attention to the needs of women of color across research, professional practice, and social policy.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
