Racial and Ethnic Microaggressions Scale (REMS)

Abstract

The Racial and Ethnic Microaggressions Scale (REMS) is an empirically validated, 45-item self-report psychometric instrument designed to assess the incidence and perceived frequency of racial microaggressions experienced by racial and ethnic minority individuals across diverse societal domains. Developed by Kevin L. Nadal in 2011, the scale operationalizes the multi-tiered taxonomic model of microaggressions conceptualized by Derald Wing Sue and colleagues, translating subtle, ambiguous, and interpersonal manifestations of covert racism into a standardized quantitative metric. The REMS assesses experiences across six distinct, empirically derived subscales: (a) Assumptions of Inferiority, (b) Second-Class Citizen and Assumption of Criminality, (c) Microinvalidations, (d) Exoticization and Assumptions of Similarity, (e) Environmental Microaggressions, and (f) Workplace and School Microaggressions. Items are evaluated on a 6-point behavioral frequency continuum ranging from 1 (none of the time) to 6 (all of the time), anchored to experiences occurring within the preceding six months, or alternatively scored dichotomously to assess absolute lifetime or episodic exposure. The scale demonstrates robust psychometric properties, exhibiting strong internal consistency across its subscales (Cronbach’s α coefficients ranging from .850 to .894) and overall instrument (α > .90), well-replicated factor structures via exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, and verified construct, convergent, and criterion-related validity with measures of perceived racial discrimination, depressive symptomology, general psychological distress, self-esteem, and trauma-related affect. The REMS has emerged as a cornerstone assessment tool in counseling psychology, multicultural mental health research, social epidemiology, and higher education assessment, providing clinicians, institutional leaders, and behavioral scientists with an indispensable empirical mechanism for elucidating the insidious toll of modern covert racism on marginalized populations.

Keywords

Racial and Ethnic Microaggressions Scale, REMS, racial microaggressions, everyday racism, covert discrimination, multicultural psychology, psychometrics, psychological distress, minority stress, Kevin L. Nadal

Authors

The Racial and Ethnic Microaggressions Scale was developed by Kevin L. Nadal, Ph.D., Distinguished Professor of Psychology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and The Graduate Center of the City University of New York (CUNY). Dr. Nadal is an internationally recognized scholar in the fields of counseling psychology, multicultural competency, ethnic minority mental health, and the systematic investigation of microaggressions targeting racial, ethnic, sexual, and gender minority communities. He served as the President of the Asian American Psychological Association (AAPA) and has authored numerous pioneering texts and peer-reviewed articles evaluating interpersonal discrimination, historical trauma, and social justice interventions.

Inquiries regarding the scale, scoring adaptations, or non-commercial research utilization may be directed to Dr. Kevin L. Nadal at the Department of Psychology, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, 524 West 59th Street, New York, NY 10019, USA.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Racial and Ethnic Microaggressions Scale (REMS) is to provide a comprehensive, psychometrically rigorous, and standardized instrument that captures the subtle, pervasive, and often ambiguous manifestations of contemporary racism experienced by People of Color (POC) in the United States and globally. Historically, empirical research on institutional and interpersonal racism relied predominantly on measures reflecting overt, explicit bigotry, hate crimes, institutional segregation, or legally actionable acts of discrimination (such as the Schedule of Racist Events or the Perceived Racism Scale). While those measures captured severe discriminatory incidents, they systematically failed to register the everyday, mundane exchanges, implicit slights, patronizing comments, invalidations of lived experiences, and culturally hostile environments that characterize modern covert prejudice.

The REMS bridges this critical diagnostic and empirical divide by establishing a quantifiable index of microaggressive exposures occurring across distinct contextual domains. The instrument was intentionally engineered to serve several clinical, theoretical, and practical functions:

• Empirical Investigation of the Minority Stress Pathway: The REMS allows researchers in counseling psychology, social epidemiology, and psychiatric epidemiology to map the precise relational pathways through which chronic, cumulative microstressors elevate physiological allostatic load, exacerbating health disparities such as cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome, and systemic inflammation among racialized populations.
• Diagnostic and Clinical Formulation: Mental health clinicians utilize the REMS during intake evaluations and cross-cultural psychotherapy to contextualize psychological distress, persistent low self-worth, generalized anxiety, hypervigilance, and trauma responses within clients' systemic socio-ecological realities rather than mispathologizing appropriate distress as endogenous affective disorders.
• Institutional Climate and Diversity Assessment: Academic institutions, healthcare systems, corporate workplaces, and municipal bodies deploy the REMS to quantitatively baseline organizational climate, diagnose covert institutional hostility, identify professional barriers experienced by underrepresented faculty, staff, or healthcare providers, and gauge the longitudinal efficacy of structural anti-racism initiatives.
• Cross-Racial Comparative Analysis: Because the REMS was constructed and standardized across diverse racial and ethnic minority cohorts—including Black/African American, Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI), Latina/o/Hispanic, Indigenous/Native American, and Multiracial individuals—it provides a shared metric to assess how different racial groups experience shared and distinct topologies of racial microaggressions.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct operationalized by the REMS is racial microaggressions, defined as brief, everyday interpersonal, nonverbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, slights, snubs, or insults that communicate derogatory, hostile, or negative racial messages toward People of Color. These actions can be either intentional or unintentional and are often rooted in subconscious biases and structural privilege. Within the REMS, this overarching construct is operationalized as a multidimensional phenomenon comprising six distinct, correlated psychological dimensions:

1. Assumptions of Inferiority

This dimension captures microaggressive experiences where individuals are presumed to possess substandard intellectual capability, lower academic aptitude, deficient professional competence, or inferior socioeconomic status solely on the basis of their racial or ethnic categorization. Examples include receiving patronizing surprise when exhibiting advanced articulateness or scholastic success (e.g., being praised for speaking “articulate” English), or having an employer, educator, or peer automatically assume that one holds an entry-level, menial, or impoverished background. The psychological toll of this construct includes the chronic activation of stereotype threat, imposter phenomenon, and diminished academic and occupational self-efficacy.

2. Second-Class Citizen and Assumption of Criminality

This subscale captures behaviors and nonverbal cues that signal to racial minorities that they are inherently untrustworthy, dangerous, prone to criminality, or undeserving of the fundamental respect and public rights granted to dominant-group members. Manifestations include individuals clutching bags or personal belongings in elevators or public streets, pedestrians crossing the street to avoid contact, security personnel tracking customers in commercial retail establishments, and receiving substandard, dismissive service in consumer settings. The persistent experience of this construct engenders hypervigilance, social avoidance, chronic sympathetic nervous system arousal, and elevated feelings of alienation.

3. Microinvalidations

Microinvalidations represent communicative statements or nonverbal expressions that dismiss, negate, minimize, or dismantle the psychological thoughts, feelings, perceptions, or historical realities of People of Color. Prominent exemplars include colorblind racial assertions (e.g., “I don't see color,” “We are all just human beings”), accusations that individuals of color are “too sensitive” or “complaining about race too much,” and dogmatic assertions that meritocracy is wholly functional and that equal obstacle-free opportunity exists for all racial demographics. The cognitive-affective impact of microinvalidations is disorienting, inducing attributional ambiguity, self-doubt, gaslighting effects, and psychological silencing.

4. Exoticization and Assumptions of Similarity

This construct encompasses microaggressions characterized by the dehumanizing homogenization, sexual objectification, or foreign-alien status imposition on individuals from minoritized backgrounds. It includes monolithic stereotyping (e.g., assuming all members of an ethnic collective share identical languages, diets, and values), exoticizing physical or cultural attributes, unsolicited inquiries demanding individuals explain their “native language,” and the “perpetual foreigner” stereotype (e.g., refusing to accept that an Asian American or Latino/a individual was born in the United States). This construct threatens identity individuation, reinforces marginalization, and fosters feelings of alienation from the cultural mainstream.

5. Environmental Microaggressions

Unlike exclusively interpersonal slights, environmental microaggressions capture the systemic, institutional, and spatial manifestations of racial exclusion and dominance within an individual's macro-level socio-physical ecosystem. Assessed through items tracking the visible absence of racial representation, this dimension reflects settings where individuals observe an utter dearth of same-race peers or leaders in prestigious leadership roles (such as corporate executive boards, school leadership, and state governance) and an absence of balanced, dignified portrayals in mainstream media, film, literature, and news. The psychological sequelae of high environmental microaggression exposure include pervasive institutional demoralization, lack of organizational belonging, and secondary vicarious trauma.

6. Workplace and School Microaggressions

This final subscale isolates targeted institutional hostility occurring within formalized occupational and educational environments. It measures specific interpersonal marginalization occurring in professional or academic contexts, such as being ignored or silenced during committee discussions, receiving differential and substandard treatment relative to White coworkers or students, and encountering unwelcoming attitudes from managers, administrators, or colleagues. The construct reflects contextual institutional barriers that hinder career development, performance appraisal parity, and professional well-being.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture underpinning the REMS synthesizes three foundational paradigms in social, psychological, and critical legal theories: Critical Race Theory, Chester Pierce's initial microaggression formulation, and Derald Wing Sue's tripartite taxonomy of racial microaggressions, reinforced by Ilan Meyer's Minority Stress Model.

Pierce's Conceptual Genesis and Critical Race Foundations

The term microaggression was originally coined in 1970 by Harvard psychiatrist Chester M. Pierce, who observed that the most devastating manifestations of racism targeting African Americans were not solely overt, dramatic acts of physical violence, but rather subtle, unrelenting, kinetic, and verbal assaults delivered incessantly in daily life. Pierce posited that these micro-insults exerted a cumulative, corrosive effect on the physical longevity and mental stability of victims. Concurrently, Critical Race Theory (CRT) scholars, including Derrick Bell and Richard Delgado, asserted that racism is an ordinary, deeply embedded feature of American legal and institutional structures, rather than an aberrant anomaly committed exclusively by pathological extremists. The REMS operationalizes this CRT tenet by presuming that microaggressions are omnipresent, normalized elements of societal socialization.

The Sue et al. (2007) Taxonomical Synthesis

The definitive conceptual scaffold for the REMS was established by Derald Wing Sue and colleagues (2007) in their seminal theoretical paper published in the American Psychologist. Sue et al. systematized microaggressions into three distinct operational classifications:

• Microassaults: Explicit, conscious, derogatory verbal or nonverbal attacks meant to hurt, intimidate, or discriminate (e.g., using racial slurs or displaying white supremacist symbols). These align closely with traditional overt racism.
• Microinsults: Subtle, often unintentional behaviors or verbal remarks that convey rudeness, insensitivity, or demean a person's racial heritage, identity, or intellect (e.g., asking a person of color how they got their job, implying affirmative action favoritism).
• Microinvalidations: Communications that exclude, negate, or nullify the psychological realities of people of color (e.g., claiming that “America is a melting pot” or denying systemic inequities).

While Sue's framework organized microaggressions by intent and cognitive structure, Nadal (2011) realized that measurement required an empirical structure based on the recipient's lived thematic experience. Consequently, Nadal's psychometric modeling restructured these dynamics into context-based dimensions (workplace, environmental) and theme-based dimensions (criminality, inferiority, exoticization, invalidation).

Minority Stress and Attributional Ambiguity Paradigms

Theoretically, the REMS rests upon Minority Stress Theory, which posits that marginalized populations encounter chronic, unique, and socially conditioned stressors above and beyond the normative stressors common to all human beings. A central cognitive component of this process is attributional ambiguity. When a Person of Color experiences a subtle slight (e.g., a colleague failing to make eye contact or dismissing an idea), an internal cognitive tax is immediately incurred: the individual must determine whether the slight was racially motivated, accidental, personality-driven, or imagined. This rumination, termed racial battle fatigue, expends executive functioning, depletes emotional resources, and stimulates chronic physiological stress pathways.

Validity

The psychometric development and subsequent empirical validation of the REMS demonstrate robust construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity across heterogeneous racial and ethnic populations.

Content and Construct Validity

Content validity was established through a multi-stage development protocol. Nadal generated an initial item pool derived from comprehensive literature reviews, focus groups, and qualitative narrative reports from racial minority individuals. This pool was subjected to rigorous evaluation by an expert panel of multicultural counseling psychologists who scrutinized each item for thematic relevance, cross-cultural applicability, semantic clarity, and representativeness of Sue's taxonomy. The preliminary 72-item iteration was empirically refined down to the final 45-item instrument using factor loading criteria (≥ .35, cross-loadings ≤ .25).

Convergent and Concurrent Validity

Convergent validity has been repeatedly documented across numerous psychometric investigations:

• Perceived Racism and Explicit Discrimination: The REMS demonstrates robust, statistically significant positive correlations with legacy measures of explicit racial discrimination, such as the Schedule of Racist Events (SRE) (r values typically ranging between .55 and .72, p < .001) and the Everyday Discrimination Scale (EDS) (r ≈ .60 to .68, p < .001). These strong correlations confirm that the REMS assesses racialized mistreatment while retaining unique variance associated with covert, micro-level encounters.
• Depression and Depressive Symptoms: Nadal (2011) and subsequent independent investigators (e.g., Nadal et al., 2014; Rivera, 2012) identified moderate to strong positive associations between REMS subscales and standardized inventories of depressive symptoms, such as the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) and the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) (r ≈ .32 to .48, p < .01).
• Psychological Distress and Anxiety: Global REMS scores and specific subscales (notably Workplace and School Microaggressions and Assumptions of Inferiority) exhibit significant positive correlations with general psychological symptom severity as assessed by the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) and the Mental Health Inventory (MHI).
• Self-Esteem: In accordance with theoretical expectations, REMS scores demonstrate statistically significant negative correlations with the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) (r ≈ -.25 to -.41, p < .01), illustrating the detrimental toll of cumulative microinvalidations on global self-worth.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity has been demonstrated by showing that the REMS does not merely mirror generalized neuroticism, transient negative affectivity, or positive impression management. When controlling for social desirability using scales such as the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MCSDS), correlations between the REMS and health outcome metrics remain virtually unchanged (attenuation < .05), verifying that self-reported microaggression frequency is not a byproduct of social desirability bias or generalized somatic complaining.

Predictive and Criterion-Related Validity

In epidemiological and psychophysiological research, REMS scores have successfully predicted objective physiological markers of stress, including elevated ambulatory blood pressure, blunted cortisol awakening responses, and elevated markers of systemic inflammation (such as C-reactive protein). Furthermore, hierarchical multiple regression analyses consistently show that REMS scores account for unique variance in psychological distress, academic burnout, and workplace attrition intentions after controlling for general life stress, socioeconomic status, and overt discrimination.

Reliability

The Racial and Ethnic Microaggressions Scale exhibits outstanding internal consistency reliability and temporal stability across diverse validation cohorts and clinical samples.

Internal Consistency Reliability

In the seminal psychometric validation study by Nadal (2011), administered to a diverse multiethnic sample of 438 People of Color across the United States, internal consistency analyses for the six subscales yielded high Cronbach's alpha (α) coefficients:

• Assumptions of Inferiority (8 items): α = .894
• Second-Class Citizen and Assumption of Criminality (7 items): α = .883
• Microinvalidations (9 items): α = .888
• Exoticization and Assumptions of Similarity (9 items): α = .852
• Environmental Microaggressions (7 items): α = .850
• Workplace and School Microaggressions (5 items): α = .850

The total instrument demonstrates an overall internal consistency coefficient typically exceeding .92 (α = .92 to .94 across subsequent independent replications), reflecting exceptional item homogeneity and low measurement error.

Subgroup Reliability Invariance

Crucially, high internal consistency reliability is preserved when the REMS is disaggregated across specific racial and ethnic groups:

• African American / Black Participants: Subscale α coefficients range from .83 to .91; total score α = .93.
• Asian American / Pacific Islander Participants: Subscale α coefficients range from .81 to .89; total score α = .91.
• Latina/o / Hispanic Participants: Subscale α coefficients range from .82 to .90; total score α = .92.
• Multiracial Participants: Subscale α coefficients range from .84 to .89; total score α = .93.

Test-Retest Stability

Temporal stability evaluations conducted across two- to four-week intervals demonstrate robust test-retest reliability intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) ranging from .78 to .86 across the subscales, indicating that while microaggressive encounters are subject to environmental fluctuations over time, the subjective reporting of experiential frequency remains stable over intermediate intervals.

Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the REMS was derived and confirmed through rigorous exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and subsequent confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) protocols.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During scale construction, Nadal (2011) administered a preliminary 72-item version to a calibration sample. Data suitability for factor analysis was established via the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy (KMO = .92, well exceeding the .60 threshold) and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity (χ² = 11,432.8, p < .001). Initial factor extraction was executed using Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) with an oblique promax rotation, accounting for anticipated inter-factor correlations among racial stress dimensions.

Examination of the scree plot alongside Kaiser's eigenvalue-greater-than-one rule and parallel analysis definitively favored a six-factor solution. Items exhibiting factor loadings < .35, severe cross-loadings (> .25 on secondary factors), or ambiguous thematic clarity were systematically eliminated, reducing the scale to 45 items across six stable dimensions. The six factors accounted for approximately 52.8% of the total shared variance, a substantial proportion for multidimensional psychological instruments in social epidemiology.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Subsequent psychometric investigations (e.g., Nadal et al., 2014; Torres-Harding et al., 2012) conducted confirmatory factor analyses on independent validation samples to test the fit of the six-factor correlated model against competing unidimensional and orthogonal structures. Maximum Likelihood (ML) and Robust Maximum Likelihood (MLR) estimation demonstrated that the correlated six-factor model yielded superior goodness-of-fit indices:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .91 to .94 (exceeding acceptable psychometric benchmark of ≥ .90)
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .90 to .93
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .048 to .056 (90% CI [.042, .061], fulfilling the ≤ .06 criterion for good fit)
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .051 to .058 (fulfilling the ≤ .08 criterion)

All standardized factor loadings (λ) for the retained 45 items were statistically significant (p < .001), ranging between .42 and .84 across their respective primary latent factors, providing empirical evidence of construct coherence and factorial validity.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Tool Name: Racial and Ethnic Microaggressions Scale (REMS)
• Primary Author: Kevin L. Nadal, Ph.D.
• Publication Year: 2011
• Target Population: People of Color (African American/Black, Asian American/Pacific Islander, Latina/o/Hispanic, Indigenous/Native American, and Multiracial individuals); adolescents (ages 14+) and adults.
• Administration Format: Self-report questionnaire (available in paper-and-pencil, computer-assisted, or online web-based survey formats).
• Completion Time: Approximately 10 to 15 minutes.
• Total Number of Items: 45 items.
• Subscales (6 Dimensions):
  • Assumptions of Inferiority: 8 items (Items 5, 9, 17, 21, 22, 32, 36, 38)
  • Second-Class Citizen and Assumption of Criminality: 7 items (Items 2, 6, 8, 11, 31, 34, 40)
  • Microinvalidations: 9 items (Items 4, 7, 10, 14, 26, 27, 30, 33, 39)
  • Exoticization and Assumptions of Similarity: 9 items (Items 3, 13, 20, 23, 29, 35, 42, 43, 45)
  • Environmental Microaggressions: 7 items (Items 12, 18, 19, 24, 28, 37, 41)
  • Workplace and School Microaggressions: 5 items (Items 1, 15, 16, 25, 44)
• Recall Timeframe: Experiences encountered within the past six months.
• Response Continuum (6-Point Frequency Scale):
  • 1 = none of the time
  • 2 = a little bit of the time
  • 3 = some of the time
  • 4 = a good bit of the time
  • 5 = most of the time
  • 6 = all of the time
• Scoring and Computational Procedures:
  • Frequency Scoring (Standard): Calculate mean subscale scores by summing the numerical ratings (1–6) of items within that factor and dividing by the total number of items in that subscale. A total composite REMS frequency score is obtained by calculating the arithmetic mean of all 45 items. Higher scores indicate greater exposure and frequency of microaggressions.
  • Dichotomous Incidence Scoring (Alternative): In certain epidemiological applications, items can be rescored dichotomously (0 = item answered 1 [none of the time]; 1 = item answered 2 through 6 [experienced at least once]). Subscale and total incidence scores represent the sum of distinct types of microaggressions experienced within the past 6 months (Total Score Range: 0–45).
  • Note on Environmental Items: Items 12, 18, 19, 24, 28, 37, and 41 describe the *presence* of positive representation; in calculating microaggression exposure, these items are scored to reflect the *absence* or lack of such representation in one's environment as specified in Nadal's scoring protocols.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Racial and Ethnic Microaggressions Scale was formally published in 2011 by the American Psychological Association in the Journal of Counseling Psychology. The instrument is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association (APA) and the scale author, Dr. Kevin L. Nadal.

Permissions and Accessibility: The scale is open and freely accessible for educational, academic, clinical non-profit training, and non-commercial scientific research purposes. Researchers and institutional practitioners are permitted to reproduce and administer the REMS without royalty fees, provided that appropriate formal academic citation is provided to Dr. Kevin L. Nadal and the original 2011 validation article. Any commercial deployment, inclusion within commercial diagnostic software platforms, or fee-for-service consulting packages requires formal copyright permission from the American Psychological Association and the primary author.

References

• Nadal, K. L. (2011). The Racial and Ethnic Microaggressions Scale (REMS): Construction, reliability, and validity. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58(4), 470–480. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025193
• Nadal, K. L., & Davidoff, K. (2012). The impact of racial microaggressions on the physical health of people of Color. In K. L. Nadal (Chair), The impact of racial microaggressions on physical and mental health: A review of quantitative research. Symposium presented at the 29th Annual Winter Roundtable on Cultural Psychology and Education, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY.
• Nadal, K. L., Griffin, K. E., Wong, Y., Hamit, S., & Rasmus, M. (2014). The impact of racial microaggressions on mental health: Counseling implications for clients of color. Journal of Counseling & Development, 92(1), 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2014.00130.x
• Pierce, C. M. (1970). Offensive mechanisms. In F. B. Barbour (Ed.), The Black seventies (pp. 265–282). Porter Sargent.
• Rivera, D. P. (2012). Microaggressions and health outcomes for Latina/o Americans: Understanding the influences of external characteristics and psychological resources (Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University). Academic Commons. https://hdl.handle.net/10022/AC:P:14491
• Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., Holder, A. M. B., Nadal, K. L., & Esquilin, M. (2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical practice. American Psychologist, 62(4), 271–286. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.4.271
• Torres-Harding, S. R., Andrade, A. L., Jr., & Romero Diaz, C. E. (2012). The Racial Microaggressions Scale (RMAS): A new measure for analyzing racial microaggressions in everyday life. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 18(2), 153–164. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027658

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)