Abstract
In this rejoinder, I respond to the comments from three sets of eminent scholars regarding my critique of the microaggression research program (MRP). I concur with Haidt (2017, this issue) that a significant shortcoming of the MRP is its insufficient emphasis on the subjective appraisal of microaggressions. I concur with Ong and Burrow (2017, this issue) that intensive longitudinal studies of microaggressions should enhance our knowledge of their short-term and long-term impact, although I urge researchers to assess microaggressions in conjunction with personality traits using a multi-informant framework. In contrast to Sue (2017, this issue), I argue that psychological science is our best hope for understanding microaggressions and that well-intentioned but untested interventions designed to reduce microaggressions may do more harm than good. I conclude that the MRP would benefit from greater modesty in its assertions and more open acknowledgment of its marked scientific limitations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.