A Continuum or a Categorical Framework

The authors of the focal article propose that discrimination varies along several continuums including subtlety, formality, and intentionality. The conceptualization that discriminatory behavior exists on a continuum could be generalized a bit further to include an integrative framework that considers all three dimensions simultaneously. That is, assessing these dimensions within a process model would provide an organizing framework for examining subtle and overt discrimination as well as the role of intentionality in discrimination. Although the definition of, and framework for, subtle discrimination advocated by the authors is timely, the authors of the focal article are encouraged to broaden the perspective to include more social minorities who experience subtle discrimination (e.g., pregnant women, LGBT, Muslims, overweight job applicants).

Implicit in the authors’ review of subtle discrimination is the assumption that research in this domain is viewed primarily through a categorical framework, and for a more comprehensive understanding of subtle discrimination, scholars should consider looking at them on a continuum. This assumption suggests that research in this domain has ignored the use of continuums. However, there is research that suggests that studies may have examined variables that can be put into categories (e.g., subtle and overt discrimination), but the research has not necessarily treated them as true categories.

Researchers would benefit from having a multidimensional process model of discrimination. As the authors noted, organizational scholarship should shift to a more dynamic perspective of discrimination to build knowledge on predictors, process mechanisms, and outcomes. The authors mention three “continuums” but do little to connect the three, and they provided a 2 × 2 matrix that does not visually or conceptually capture how the dimensions of discrimination fit into one comprehensive framework. For example, formality might include two facets: formal and interpersonal (Hebl, Foster, Mannix, & Dovidio, Reference Hebl, Foster, Mannix and Dovidio2002). We question how interpersonal discrimination is viewed on the opposite end of the continuum as formal discrimination. It is reasonable to believe that these can clearly occur together and should not be considered a continuum. For example, a manager scowls at an overweight subordinate, publically embarrasses the subordinate, and does not promote the subordinate. This includes both interpersonal and formal discrimination.

Moreover, with respect to the focal article, the authors argue that intentionality is on a continuum; however, intentionality is absent from their matrix. Further, intentionality may lead to discriminatory behaviors that can be subtle or overt. For example, one may intend to discriminate, but because this person has excellent political skill, the discrimination is subtle and ambiguous. Politically skilled individuals have the ability to combine their social astuteness with their capacity to adjust their behavior to different and changing situational demands in a manner that appears to be sincere, inspires support and trust, and effectively influences and controls the responses of others (Ferris, Treadway, Perrewé, Brouer, Douglas, & Lux, Reference Ferris, Treadway, Perrewé, Brouer, Douglas and Lux2007). Thus, politically skilled individuals may be able to discriminate against others with subtlety and without detection.

Lack of Theoretical Perspective

Cortina (Reference Cortina2008) argued that subtle forms of discrimination are not new; rather, they are more visible, now that overt discrimination no longer overshadows them. Research has identified various factors that fuel discrimination, including cognition, affect, and the organizational and societal context. Jones and colleagues discuss in the focal article that there are several constructs (e.g., ambivalent sexism, incivility, modern racism, microaggressions) in the discrimination literature that reflect subtlety, formality, and intentionality. Instead of providing a theoretical lens for understanding the underpinnings of the relationship between the dimensions and the relevant outcomes, the authors proposed a model to view the relationships on a continuum.

Unfortunately, the biggest disappointment was a lack of a theoretically derived process model for the connections between the dimensions of subtle discrimination. In other words, the focal article falls well short of what is needed because the authors do not develop a theoretically sound conceptual model. For example, the authors argue for a cyclical and reciprocal process. They also argue that discrimination can develop and change. These statements imply a process model. Moreover, the authors mention stress and coping but do not use any stress theories as a conceptual backdrop. Similarly, Dipboye and Halverson (Reference Dipboye, Halverson, Griffin and O'Leary-Kelly2004), using a power perspective, identified the processes underlying the experience of subtle discrimination. They demonstrated that subtle discrimination is ambiguous because it combines disempowerment with apparent empowerment and that experiences of subtle discrimination are influenced by the broader context, reproducing societal power inequalities.

The authors discuss “repeat exposure” to discrimination, and they examine research that indicates some may be able to adapt and develop a “thick skin” to discrimination. What are the variables that lead to someone becoming resilient to discrimination? The authors also argue that the opposite may occur with repeat exposure but really do not develop this line of reasoning. For example, could repeat exposure to discrimination lead one to become helpless and hopeless? If so, what outcomes occur as a result? Lower performance (e.g., why bother trying) and more experienced stress are two potential outcomes. The authors simply do not take their arguments far enough, and as a result, their conceptualization is underdeveloped.

We have included an organizing framework from which to view the discrimination process (see Figure 1). The development and discussion of a process model of discrimination is beyond the scope of this commentary; however, we felt an organizing framework might be helpful. We argue that the culture or context in which one operates coupled with the individual characteristics of the perpetrator (e.g., strongly held stereotypical beliefs) affect the perceptions of the target. Clearly, target characteristics (e.g., weight, sex, race) affect these perceptions also.

Figure 1.

Organizing Framework for the Process of Discrimination

Perceptions of the target and the characteristics of the perpetrator are argued to lead to discrimination intent, which leads to discriminatory behaviors. Whether the behaviors are subtle or overt depends on the intention but also the political skill of the perpetrator. Individuals may intend to discriminate but are able to discriminate so skillfully that their intention is not detected. If the discrimination is subtle and ambiguous, the target reactions (e.g., anger, experienced stress, helplessness) may not be as severe. Being exposed to discriminatory behaviors may lead one to develop a thick skin and a resilience to discrimination. However, it is also possible that the target becomes helpless and depressed. Target reactions to discrimination (e.g., deviance, anger, stress) might vary depending on the targets’ dispositions (e.g., hardiness) as well as the frequency of exposure. Last, the cyclical and dynamic nature of discrimination suggests that experiencing discrimination can lead to future expressions of discrimination. We provide a very preliminary organizing framework that includes relevant constructs from which to view discrimination.