Through a Glass, Darkly

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.