The purpose of this study was to evaluate the prevalence, distribution, and mental health correlates of perceived discrimination in the United States. The hypothesis tested was that greater exposure to perceived discrimination accounts for part of the associations consistently documented between disadvantaged social statuses and measures of mental health. Data for this study were obtained from the MIDUS survey, a national telephone-mail survey carried out in 1995-6.

One-third (33.5%) of the respondents reported the occurrence of at least one of eleven major discriminatory experiences in their lifetime. Higher prevalence was reported by the lower age groups, the never-married group, non-Hispanic blacks or other race/ethnic groups, and the higher education groups.

The majority of respondents reported experiencing at least one of the nine types of discrimination on a day-to-day basis (6.5% often, 24.1% sometimes, and 30.3% rarely). The most striking difference found in age/gender/race stratification was that 44.4% of non-Hispanic whites versus only 8.8% of non-Hispanic blacks and 19.5% of others reported never experiencing day-to-day discrimination. It is also noteworthy that marital status and income were inversely related to day-to-day perceived discrimination.

The joint effects of lifetime major discrimination and day-to-day discrimination were found to be additive in predicting both major depression and nonspecific psychological distress. The four most common reasons for perceived discrimination were race-ethnicity (37.1%), gender (32.9%), various aspects of appearance (predominantly weight, 27.5%), and age (23.9%). Major life discrimination significantly predicted non-specific distress and major depression, but not generalized anxiety disorder. With regard to day-to-day discrimination, there was a linear relationship with increased discrimination and major depression and generalized anxiety disorder reports. The reason for discrimination did not change the associations between disorder and perceived discrimination, meaning that the emotional effects of perceived discrimination based on being, for example, a black women were not greater than the effect of the same type of perceived discrimination based on only being black or on only being a woman.

The associations of perceived discrimination with mental health did not vary consistently across sub-samples defined on the basis of social status (age, race, gender, education, income, and marital status). For example, although women had higher rates of major depression than men, this was not due to women experiencing more discrimination than men. Additionally, there was no gender difference in the impact of discrimination on major depression. Similar findings were reported for race/ethnicity and educational attainment. With regard to income effects, perceived discrimination was important in explaining higher levels of distress among low-income respondents.

The authors conclude that the results do not support the hypothesis that differential exposure to discrimination plays an important part in explaining the associations between disadvantaged social status and mental health problems. It is important to note that, in this sample, the associations between exposure to discrimination and disadvantaged status were weak, and the variation in the strength of association between discrimination and mental health statuses across social status groups was inconsistent and weak. However, perceived discrimination is a major stressor in this population as a whole. Given its strong association with mental health, perceived discrimination should be treated more seriously in future studies of stress and mental health.