Repairing Racial Ruptures After Racial Microaggressions

On Repairing Racial Ruptures After Racial Microaggressions: A Mixed Methods Study With Black Graduate Students

Steven Stone-Sabali; Department of Educational Studies, The Ohio State University

Kristen J. Mills; Department of Educational Studies, The Ohio State University

E. Alexander; School of Social Welfare, The University of Kansas

Kiara Devese; Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University

Matthew Tippit; College of Social Work, The Ohio State University

Sarah E. Makari; Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University

Anna Jonét Mitchell; Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University

“Racially insensitive remarks and racial microaggressions often cause racial ruptures—instances of relational strain,” yet “little is known about how these ruptures can be effectively repaired, particularly in the experiences of Black individuals.” The authors argue that DEI efforts have “remained largely prevention-oriented, focusing on educating individuals about microaggressions in order to avoid racial ruptures,” but that “racial ruptures are, to some extent, inevitable.” As a result, “it is crucial for the current paradigm of DEI strategies to address how relational repair is navigated.” Because Black STEM graduate students “routinely encountered racially charged and hostile interpersonal dynamics,” and because racial ruptures contribute to “mistrust, isolation, anxiety, impostorism, and depressive symptoms,” the study sought to identify “how Black graduate students perceive and evaluate repair strategies.” Specifically, Study 1 explored “how Black STEM graduate students’ perceptions of strategies used—or that could have been used—by faculty to repair racial ruptures,” while Study 2 examined “what repair strategies are most preferred or effective” (p. 317-319).

Study 1 used “constructivist grounded theory” to examine “the perspectives of Black STEM students regarding strategies non-Black faculty implemented, or could have implemented, to repair relationships following a racial rupture.” Twelve Black graduate students participated in “one 60- to 90-min semistructured interview,” and researchers analyzed the data using “open and axial coding.” The goal was to understand “(a) experiences of faculty members creating racial ruptures, (b) faculty members’ repair strategies to address racial ruptures, and (c) Black students’ suggested strategies to repair racial ruptures.” Study 2 used a “randomized-assignment experimental vignette design” with 165 Black graduate students. Participants read a vignette in which a faculty member made “a racially insensitive remark,” and were randomly assigned to one of four response conditions: “No Apology,” “Apologize,” “Acknowledge,” or “Accountability.” Participants then rated the faculty response on “satisfaction” and “future guidance” (p. 319-320).

Study 1 identified three components of the “Racial Rupture and Repair Process”: “Causes of Racial Ruptures,” “Barriers to Repair,” and the “Pyramid of Repair Strategies.” Participants reported that ruptures commonly occurred through “Insensitive Remarks” and “Differential Treatment.” Examples included being told “these things are going to happen, so you just have to kinda get over it,” having concerns dismissed, being labeled “hypersensitive,” or being singled out because “something racial just happened in society.” Barriers to repair included situations in which “incidents were not addressed,” and faculty responded with “negative or unproductive reactions,” such as “defensiveness, deflection, criticizing the student, or ignoring the student’s complaint.” Participants described how these responses “further deepened and prolonged ruptures in the relationship” (p. 320-322).

The interviews identified a hierarchy of repair strategies. Participants recommended that faculty “listen,” acknowledge the student’s “perspective,” “admit that they probably screwed things up,” and provide “a simple sorry to acknowledge that he understood that I was being treated unfairly.” However, participants emphasized that meaningful repair required more than an apology. They explained that faculty should “acknowledge what was said and how it was said and the effects of what was said.” The highest level of repair was “Accountability via Future Actions,” which involved demonstrating change through concrete behavior. One participant stated, “people can apologize. But what do they do with the information that you’ve given them; I think is really important.” Another recommended that faculty ask, “‘What can we do to support you? How can we be better?’” and then demonstrate “these are the things we’re working on in the future to be better for other students.” Participants emphasized that “true repair requires not just words but sustained action and follow-through that show a commitment to learning and change” (p. 320-322).

Study 2 supported the ordering of the Pyramid of Repair Strategies. Mean satisfaction scores increased from “No Apology” to “Apologize,” “Acknowledge,” and “Accountability,” and participants reported “the highest satisfaction with the Accountability repair strategy.” The findings showed that “only the Accountability via Future Actions strategy was significantly associated with an increased likelihood of participants seeking future guidance.” In contrast, “the Apology and Acknowledgment repair strategy had the same effect as not apologizing,” meaning they “were not sufficient to reestablish trust or repair the alliance.” The authors conclude that the findings support “expanding prevention-focused DEI strategies to include approaches that focus on repairing racial ruptures,” emphasizing that “Acknowledgment of harm and demonstrated accountability through future actions” represent the most effective forms of repair. Effective repair requires “concrete follow-up actions—not just verbal apologies or Acknowledgment,” with participants viewing “this kind of sustained, action-oriented response as essential to meaningful and credible repair” (p. 322-325). 

“Overall, the Racial Rupture and Repair Process model (Figure 1) provides practical guidance for non-Black individuals seeking to enhance their relationships with Black students. The three model components—Causes of Racial Ruptures, Barriers to Repair, and the Pyramid of Repair Strategies—highlight specific areas where learning and behavioral change are needed. First, understanding the causes of racial ruptures helps clarify what behaviors to avoid (racial microaggressions, inappropriate jokes, and dismissiveness and differential treatment), which can be further emphasized in prevention-focused DEI strategies or independent or peer-facilitated reflections. Doing so may increase awareness of and help dismantle microaggressions and implicit racial biases. Incorporating practices, such as mindful awareness of automatic reactions (Lueke & Gibson, 2015) and humility in cross-racial conversations (Hook et al., 2016), may help prevent harm and facilitate the repair of racial ruptures. Second, recognizing barriers to repair—especially unaddressed ruptures and defensive responses—is crucial. Rather than expecting Black individuals to initiate the repair process, non-Black individuals must learn to recognize signs of relational strain (e.g., withdrawal, silences, frustration) and resist tendencies toward defensiveness, guilt, or anger. Working with culturally competent professionals may help offenders increase their emotional awareness and regulation (Gaztambide, 2012; Nelis et al., 2009), enhancing their ability to respond without retraumatizing others. With the guidance of a professional, individuals can practice using a scale of 1 to 10 to identify shifts in their emotional states (e.g., anger, defensiveness) that result from confronting their biases. They can then identify physiological cues that signal when their emotional state increases or decreases (e.g., a tight abdomen or clenched jaw) and practice emotional regulation strategies, such as deep breathing, to manage these reactions.

Nevertheless, it is essential to note that the repair strategies highlighted in this framework were developed in relation to the types of ruptures that participants most often reported, such as dismissive or minimizing remarks, invalidation of research interests, and differential treatment in mentoring. Thus, the Pyramid of Repair Strategies may be most applicable to contexts where relational strain emerges from subtle but meaningful racialized harms. In contrast, more overt and egregious racist offenses (e.g., racial slurs or explicit hostility) may require additional or different approaches to repair that go beyond the scope of what participants described in this study.

Third, the Pyramid of Repair Strategies identifies a range of repair approaches and clarifies that not all ruptures are repairable. For relationships that do continue, the most effective repair strategies— Acknowledgment of harm and demonstrated accountability through future actions—require non-Black individuals to do more than apologize. Offenders must take specific, sustained steps that repair trust and support the well-being of the Black individuals harmed. These may include public correction, educational follow-through, or structural actions such as revising policies or institutional practices” (p. 326).

“The findings and implications of the current investigation are promising; however, limitations exist. The investigation intentionally included Black STEM and Black graduate students—a group known to experience frequent and intense racial microaggressions (Miles et al., 2020), thereby offering a window into racial rupture and repair within a high-stakes, underexamined environment. While this specificity strengthens the depth of insight, it also can arguably limit transferability. Furthermore, meaningful variations within the Black community must also be acknowledged. Strategies that resonate with some individuals may be less effective for others. Additionally, the sociopolitical context of data collection—Fall 2019, amid heightened racial tensions following several high-profile police killings of Black individuals and just before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic—may have heightened participants’ awareness of racial injustice, shaping how they recalled or evaluated ruptures. However, Black individuals have long endured racism and microaggressions (e.g., Pascoe & Smart Richman, 2009; Pierce, 1970), suggesting that the rupturing patterns described in this study may not be unique to that moment but reflect broader and enduring dynamics of racial harm and repair. In addition, Studies 1 and 2 primarily reflected microaggressions and relational invalidations. The repair strategies identified here may not generalize to contexts involving more explicit and severe racist offenses (racial slurs and physical violence). Last, satisfaction and future guidance outcomes in Study 2 were modest; even the most preferred strategy (Accountability) received average ratings near the midpoint of the 1–7 scale (m_satisfaction=4.87; m_guidance= 3.36). These results suggest that repair, although possible, may be met with ambivalence and requires significant relational work to be perceived as credible or sufficient” (p. 326).“The findings and implications of the current investigation are promising; however, limitations exist. The investigation intentionally included Black STEM and Black graduate students—a group known to experience frequent and intense racial microaggressions (Miles et al., 2020), thereby offering a window into racial rupture and repair within a high-stakes, underexamined environment. While this specificity strengthens the depth of insight, it also can arguably limit transferability. Furthermore, meaningful variations within the Black community must also be acknowledged. Strategies that resonate with some individuals may be less effective for others. Additionally, the sociopolitical context of data collection—Fall 2019, amid heightened racial tensions following several high-profile police killings of Black individuals and just before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic—may have heightened participants’ awareness of racial injustice, shaping how they recalled or evaluated ruptures. However, Black individuals have long endured racism and microaggressions (e.g., Pascoe & Smart Richman, 2009; Pierce, 1970), suggesting that the rupturing patterns described in this study may not be unique to that moment but reflect broader and enduring dynamics of racial harm and repair. In addition, Studies 1 and 2 primarily reflected microaggressions and relational invalidations. The repair strategies identified here may not generalize to contexts involving more explicit and severe racist offenses (racial slurs and physical violence). Last, satisfaction and future guidance outcomes in Study 2 were modest; even the most preferred strategy (Accountability) received average ratings near the midpoint of the 1–7 scale (m_satisfaction=4.87; m_guidance= 3.36). These results suggest that repair, although possible, may be met with ambivalence and requires significant relational work to be perceived as credible or sufficient” (p. 326).