Experiences of COVID-19-related anti-Asian discrimination and affective reactions in a multiple race sample of U.S. young adults

The current study seeks to examine qualitative descriptions of COVID-19-related discrimination experiences among A/AA and non-Asian young adults from the U.S. through the COVID-19 Adult Resilience Experiences Study (CARES) [20]. We seek to explore two research questions: 1) What types of discrimination did U.S. young adults, across races, experience during the COVID-19 pandemic? And 2) What type(s) of affective reactions were elicited by these discriminatory experiences? We used thematic analysis of open-ended survey responses. To our best knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the impacts of COVID-19 anti-Asian discrimination in a multi-race sample, including A/AA and non-Asian young adults in the U.S.

This study uses data from Wave I (April through September 2020) of the COVID-19-CARES [21], a longitudinal study examining the psychosocial experiences of individuals ages 18–30 years across three time points from 2020 to 2021. The purpose of CARES is to assess a range of COVID-19-related experiences, including discrimination, psychiatric symptoms, and physical and mental health functioning among young adults. Subjects were recruited through social media, email listservs, and word of mouth to complete a 30-min online survey (Supplementary File 1) which included two open-ended qualitative response questions: 1) “Are there experiences we missed in the survey so far that you wish to describe?,” and 2) “What are your thoughts about the current social climate?”

All participants were either currently living in the U.S. or attending U.S.-based educational institutions. To ensure data quality, the online survey embedded various attention checks and human verification questions. Every 10th participant who enrolled received a $25 gift card. This study was reviewed and approved by the Boston University Institutional Review Board (IRB). The current analysis is focused on the subset of study participants who responded to the open-ended qualitative response questions collected during Wave I of the study.

Our analysis focused on open-ended responses to open-ended questions, and the terms racism and discrimination were used interchangeably because participants tended not to make specific distinctions. Qualitative analyses were conducted by three members of the research team (HCH, KG, AC) who independently read and sorted the comments. Out of 1331 participants, 611 participants provided a response for two open-ended survey questions. “Are there experiences we missed in the survey so far that you wish to describe?” and “What are your thoughts about the current social climate?” into four major themes: discrimination/racism (n = 113), college relocation (n = 167), political climate (n = 54), family (n = 32), work (n = 20), relationships (n = 12) as well as other concerns. Discrimination was the second most common theme among the five themes that were discovered based on 611 responses. Given our goal to examine discrimination- or racism-related content, we restricted the analysis to discrimination-related comments (n = 113), reported by 95 respondents. We organized and analyzed the open-ended survey response data into a matrix-based system according to themes [22], following the five stages of thematic analysis--the Framework Methods [23]. First, each qualitative research team member read the data independently. Second, each member read the text, line by line, and coded the responses describing discrimination-related comments. Third, the team members worked together to develop an analytic framework. They compared individual codes and agreed on the standardized set of codes to be applied to all subsequent comments. Any differences in individual coding were reconciled through a group meeting, in which the standardized set of codes were created as a whole, providing reasoning for each code to ensure intercoder reliability. Codes were then grouped into categories resulting in the development of a tree diagram. Fourth, this analytic framework was then applied to the rest of the responses, whereby a spreadsheet was used to generate a matrix. The data was then charted into the matrix by summarizing the categorized data from each transcript. Finally, team members identified the characteristics and differences within the data to discover theoretical concepts and map the connections between the categories. From this, the following themes were identified: types of discrimination, manifestations of discrimination (direct experience or vicarious), and reactions to discrimination (Fig. 1). Reliability among the coders was maintained through a consensus approach of comparing codes across the same data by multiple members of the research team in order to resolve ambiguities. Resolution was achieved through the agreement of a standardized code that encompassed all three coders’ findings.

Participants commented about witnessing COVID-19-related discrimination within social and political contexts through various platforms, including the news, newspapers, and social media. Participants made remarks pertaining to how U.S. political leaders have reinforced racial discrimination against the Chinese through the COVID-19 crisis. Comments also referred to the fractured current political system, contentious foreign policy, belligerent trade negotiations with China, and the anti-immigrant policy justifying the blame of China and A/AA for the cause and spread of COVID-19. This included the coining and repetition of culturally ethnocentric phrases such as “China Flu.”

We define the interpersonal level of discrimination as either direct or vicarious discrimination. First, direct discrimination has two manifestations: overt or blatant acts of prejudice (e.g., verbal or physical abuse, slurs, or threats); and covert or microaggressions, the unintentionally offensive acts of prejudice including subtle, derogatory slights, demeaning acts, or insults [24]. Second, vicarious discrimination was experienced both in-person and online. Participants reported being indirectly exposed to blatant acts of racism or discrimination targeted towards A/AA, such as witnessing or hearing about overt or covert incidents of direct discrimination. Based on our data, it appears that vicarious discrimination was witnessed by participants of all races, as both A/AA and non-Asian participants reported vicarious forms of discrimination.

We classified internalized discrimination as discrimination at the intrapersonal level. Internalized racism was described as the acceptance of negative attitudes, beliefs, and stereotypes perpetuated by the society level and interpersonal level of discrimination [25].

Participant accounts of internalized racism frequently portrayed conflicting experiences of A/AA struggling with, accepting, and at times perpetuating anti-Asian stereotypes. A commonly reported example was the avoidance of A/AA businesses by those who were also A/AA who feared they might contract the virus through contact with other patrons. Participants reported feeling troubled that they were rejecting their own culture that they once embraced. This included feeling conflicted about their A/AA backgrounds.

Table 2 indicates the four different types of anti-Asian discrimination based on societal, interpersonal, and intrapersonal levels and the affective reactions from the discrimination reported by both A/AA and non-Asians. Out of 113 comments, 57.5% (n = 65) described the types of discrimination and 15.5% (n = 18) described an affective reaction to anti-Asian discrimination. A total of 5.3% (n = 6) comments were related to anti-Black discrimination (themes pertaining to non-Asian forms of discrimination were excluded given the focus of this analysis).

Within the 113 open-ended responses, 49.6% of discrimination-related comments referenced interpersonal discrimination. Common excerpts included racial slurs and negative stereotypes towards the A/AA community in the form of jokes and direct slander. Within the discrimination-related comments, 11 comments (16.9%) were coded as covert microaggressions. Common themes within the microaggression responses included but were not limited to staring, avoidance by employees, and racial stereotyping. Numerous non-Chinese Asians also wrote that their nationality and race were questioned, despite not being Chinese and felt that the questioning was unnecessary and invasive. Those who did claim to be of Chinese descent perceived their identities to be negatively linked to the origin and spread of the virus by others.

Among the responses, vicarious discrimination (67.7%) was more commonly reported than direct discrimination. Both A/AA (n = 8, 12.3%) and non-Asians (n = 36, 55.4%) reported witnessing or hearing reports of anti-Asian discrimination such as physical attacks, verbal attacks, or harassment against friends, family, and strangers who are or are assumed to be Chinese. In particular, participants noted a surge in online vicarious racial discrimination against A/AA, which was described as rampant, ignorant, blunt, politically divisive, and distorted.

Table 2 indicates that out of 113 comments, 15.9% were about affective reactions in relation to anti-Asian discrimination. Two of the most common reactions were: fear and anxiety/distress. Due to the widespread reports of physical and verbal assaults heard on the media and reported by friends and family, A/AA reported that they feared leaving home even for routine tasks such as grocery shopping in fear that they may encounter direct discrimination.

These affective reactions to anti-Asian discrimination were also reported by non-Asian young adults. Although these respondents reported that they were not the likely target of anti-Asian racism or discrimination, their vicarious experiences resulted in a negative mental toll despite their non-Asian status. Non-Asian participants reported being afraid for their spouses, friends, or extended family members who are A/AA due to increasing anti-Asian racism. They also reported strong affective reactions both for themselves and for those in their close family or social circles. The comments, heavily influenced by highly publicized political racism, were shocking, and many participants reported feeling hopeless and exhausted about the inevitability of future encounters and frustrated by the lack of intervention towards the tense racial climate.

The study’s limitations should be noted in the interpretation of the present study. Participants in response to open-ended questions volunteered experiences, however, such questions were not designed to elucidate detailed accounts. Future studies should employ more in-depth qualitative methods such as qualitative interviews to collect in-depth accounts of the social processes described in this analysis, including potential coping mechanisms through which people address the harmful effects of anti-Asian discrimination. In addition, this study focused on young adults ages 18–30. Therefore, like other qualitative studies, the results of this study are not generalizable to different age groups of individuals.