“Invisible” Discrimination: Divergent Outcomes for the Non-Prototypicality of Black Women

Abstract

By integrating the intersectional invisibility hypothesis with the BIAS (behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes) map framework, we examine the extent to which Black women’s dual-subordinated identities render them non-prototypical victims of discrimination, relative to White women and Black men, and the corresponding consequences. We predicted that Black women’s categorical non-prototypicality would reduce the believability of their discrimination claims, but that their non-prototypical attributes would lead to divergent treatment, depending on the type of discrimination alleged. Our predictions were supported across six experimental studies (Studies 1–4b). Specifically, Black women’s gender and racial discrimination claims were believed less than those made by White women and Black men, respectively. Moreover, after they alleged discrimination, Black women received less financial remedy than White women, but more financial remedy than Black men. Mediation testing revealed that the mechanisms underlying the believability and treatment of Black women were their non-prototypical categorization and attributes. Using discrimination data from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Studies 5a and 5b replicated the effects observed on believability and financial remedy. By focusing on non-prototypicality at both the categorical and attribute levels, we thus help to disentangle when Black women’s intersectional invisibility may result in either intersectional advantages or disadvantages.