Aviram Nessim

A Psychological Approach to Understanding and Addressing the Implications of Discrimination

sbubrooklogueLeave a comment

By Aviram Nessim, May 12, 2025


“Our future survival is predicated upon our ability to relate within equality.” 

– Audre Lorde

Discrimination, in both its overt and covert forms, has been shown to negatively impact individuals and society alike. Beyond its immediate effects, such as increased stress and negative emotions, discrimination affects physical and mental health, reduces productivity, and deepens systemic inequalities. These effects are also often internalized by individuals and can ripple outward to affect entire communities, weakening social cohesion and reducing trust between and within communities (Heiserman & Simpson, 2023; Lei et al., 2021; Yeh & Tung, 2021). The primary objective of this essay is to examine how discrimination affects human psychology and contributes to a less cohesive society. A secondary objective is to propose evidence-based solutions that may help in resolving this issue.

It is first essential to clarify the definition of discrimination and address how it most commonly appears in society, particularly given the term’s frequent misuse and oversimplification (Feagin & Eckberg, 1980). The American Psychological Association (2025) defines discrimination as “the unjust and differential treatment of the members of different age, gender, racial, ethnic, religious, national, ability, identity, sexual orientation, socioeconomic, and other groups at the individual level.” In everyday life, discrimination most frequently arises in interpersonal settings, particularly in workplaces, and disproportionately affects people of color, women, and individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds (Murphy et al., 2018; Perry et al., 2013).

From a psychological standpoint, the effects of discrimination can be devastating for both the mind and body. It has been linked to increased rates of depression, disease, economic and social marginalization, and psychological distress (Brown et al., 2000). Krieger (1999) illustrates how perceiving racial discrimination can trigger a physiological stress response: fear and anger activate the “fight-or-flight” response, mobilize lipids and glucose to increase energy supplies, heighten sensory vigilance, and produce transient elevations in blood pressure. When this response becomes chronic, it can lead to sustained hypertension and other long-term health consequences. This stressful reaction serves as one way that discrimination provokes a general state of distress. Beyond physical effects, chronic discrimination can also reduce motivation, diminish overall well-being, and, even worse, lead to complete social withdrawal (Williams et al., 2019). Finding ways to create inclusion and a sense of belonging, then, becomes of utmost necessity, as a fair and inclusive society will only benefit us all. 

One solution to this problem comes through strategically debiasing establishments in a way that both majority and minority individuals feel included. Inclusion is psychologically vital, as research shows that feeling included increases one’s self-esteem, confidence, and sense of self-worth (Boeldt, 2017; Brouge, 2023). One effective approach is perspective-taking, in which individuals from different backgrounds are encouraged to understand one another’s experiences. This can include viewing the world from multiple lenses, practicing active listening, and expressing empathy. Perspective-taking has been shown to reduce stereotype threat among stigmatized groups and decrease in-group favoritism, likely by signaling that the same situation can be perceived and experienced in different ways (Galinsky & Moskowitz, 2000). 

At the organizational level, one effective strategy involves promoting norms of group-based respect, including actively acknowledging, accepting, and valuing differences between and within groups, which has been shown to increase perceived inclusion (Jansen et al., 2015). These effects are amplified when the majority group members who are motivated to be non-prejudiced take an active role in creating inclusive environments (Murphy et al., 2018). Another important strategy involves educating people about the sources of discrimination and identifying structural inequalities in policies and workplace procedures. By doing so, both approaches have been shown to broaden people’s understanding of the factors that contribute to prejudice. For example, Son Hing et al. (2002) found that individuals with aversive racist attitudes, once made aware of their biases, were more willing to support policies designed to address systemic discrimination and promote equality.

Today, America is more racially and ethnically diverse than ever before. With this growing diversity comes a greater need to mutually respect, cooperate with, and include everyone at both the individual and organizational levels. Failing to do so risks exacerbating social divisions and perpetuating cycles of unsupported, unhappy, and unproductive individuals. However, by choosing to respect and include, we have an incredible opportunity to let our diversity become one of our greatest collective strengths.

Works Cited

American Psychological Association. (2025). APA dictionary of psychology. https://dictionary.apa.org

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191   

Banerjee, M., Meyer, R. M. L., & Rowley, S. J. (2014). Experiences with discrimination and depression. Journal of Family Issues, 37(6), 833–854. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513×14555765 

Boeldt, M. (2017). How engaged workers are safe employees. EHS Today. https://www.ehstoday.com/safety/article/21919203/how-engaged-workers-are-safe-employees  

Brown, T. N., Williams, D. R., Jackson, J. S., Neighbors, H. W., Torres, M., Sellers, S. L., & Brown, K. T. (2000). Being black and feeling blue: The mental health consequences of racial discrimination. Race and Society, 2(2), 117-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-9524(00)00010-3   

Brouge, N. (2023). Exploring the benefits of inclusion. https://getofficely.com/blog/exploring-the-benefits-of-inclusion

Feagin, J. R., & Eckberg, D. L. (1980). Discrimination: Motivation, action, effects, and context. Annual Review of Sociology, 6,1–20. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.06.080180.000245 

Galinsky, A. D., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2000). Perspective-taking: Decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 708–724. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.708

Heiserman, N., & Simpson, B. (2023). Discrimination reduces work effort of those who are disadvantaged and those who are advantaged by it. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(12), 1890–1898. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01703-9 

Jansen, W. S., Otten, S., & van der Zee, K. I. (2015). Being part of diversity: The effects of an all-inclusive multicultural diversity approach on majority members’ perceived inclusion and support for organizational diversity efforts. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 18(6), 817–832. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430214566892

Krieger N. (1999). Embodying inequality: a review of concepts, measures, and methods for studying health consequences of discrimination. International journal of health services: planning, administration, evaluation, 29(2), 295–352. https://doi.org/10.2190/M11W-VWXE-KQM9-G97Q  

Lei, Y., Shah, V., Biely, C., Jackson, N., Dudovitz, R., Barnert, E., Hotez, E., Guerrero, A., Bui, A. L., Sastry, N., & Schickedanz, A. (2021). Discrimination and Subsequent Mental Health, Substance Use, and Well-being in Young Adults. Pediatrics, 148(6), e2021051378. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2021-051378

Murphy, M. C., Kroeper, K. M., & Ozier, E. M. (2018). Prejudiced Places: How Contexts Shape Inequality and How Policy Can Change Them. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5(1), 66-74. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732217748671

Pardede, S., & Kovač, V. B. (2023). Distinguishing the Need to Belong and Sense of Belongingness: The Relation between Need to Belong and Personal Appraisals under Two Different Belongingness-Conditions. European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education, 13(2), 331–344. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe13020025 

Perry, B. L., Harp, K. L., & Oser, C. B. (2013). Racial and Gender Discrimination in the Stress Process: Implications for African American Women’s Health and Well-Being. Sociological perspectives : SP : official publication of the Pacific Sociological Association, 56(1), 25–48.

Showers, C. J., Ditzfeld, C. P., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2015). Self-Concept Structure and the Quality of Self-Knowledge. Journal of personality, 83(5), 535–551. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12130 

Son Hing, L. S., Li, W., & Zanna, M. P. (2002). Inducing hypocrisy to reduce prejudicial responses among aversive racists. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(1), 71–78. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.2001.1484

Williams, D. R., Lawrence, J. A., Davis, B. A., & Vu, C. (2019). Understanding how discrimination can affect health. Health services research, 54 Suppl 2(Suppl 2), 1374–1388. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.13222

Yeh, M. C., & Tung, H. J. (2021). Stigma Is Associated With Widening Health Inequities: Challenges From the Current COVID-19 Pandemic. American journal of public health, 111(6), 1022–1023. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306265

Plato’s Unloving Lover

sbubrooklogueLeave a comment

By Aviram Nessim, March 9, 2024

Plato’s masterpiece, Phaedrus, contains two rather intricate definitions of love. On one hand, the concept of love is tainted by the prominent Athenian orator, Lysias, during his dialogue with Phaedrus, a young, impressionable student of rhetoric. As we will see, Lysias’ declamation places the “non-lover” on a pedestal while regarding the lover as inferior, thereby jeopardizing Phaedrus’ growth by portraying love in a damaging light. On the other hand, Socrates delivers a speech disagreeing with the words of Lysias by attempting to redefine love, and, in turn, emphasize the emancipation of Phaedrus’ soul. In this essay, my objectives are threefold. First, I will explain how Lysias’ speech was inherently destructive through its attempts to denounce the very essence of love. Second, I will explore how such a speech jeopardized both Phaedrus’ philosophical and divine potential, specifically through its attempts to hinder both. Lastly, I will explain how Socrates’ amendment of the definition of love attempts to redeem Phaedrus from the ruinous nature of Lysias’ words.

Lysias turns the concept of love into a denunciation by vehemently suggesting that it is best to avoid it altogether. However, he believes that the “non-lover” can still derive pleasurable benefits, proposing that “favors should be granted to a man who is not in love rather than one who is” (Plato, 3). Favors, in this circumstance, are a euphemism for intercourse. Lysias asserts that sexual pleasures can only be reserved for those who disregard any devotion they might have for one another. Yet, such an opinion is rooted in Lysias’ belief that those in love continuously experience negative emotions such as remorse for having engaged in a relationship; according to Lysias, for this very reason, the “non-lover” must not affiliate themself with such emotions. Moreover, Lysias claims that those in love “think they have long since given return enough to the objects of their love; whereas those unloved cannot allege neglect of their own interests because of it, nor reckon up their past labours” (Plato, 7). Here, the narrative of love is perceived with a negative connotation, illustrating how lovers continuously display regret after separating from their partner (whereas their counterparts are unable to associate themselves with any sentiment). Moreover, this quote illustrates Lysias’ perception of love as an exchange of favors while denying its inherently selfless and giving nature. Thus, the theme of entering into relationships as a “non-lover” while still indulging in romantic circumstances is the overarching theme of Lysias’ argument. In his efforts to reinforce it, Lysias repeatedly condemns the longing of love, asserting that it results in intolerable emotional repercussions.

The degree to which Phaedrus embraces Lysias’ speech is, simply put, concerning. This is because, immediately following Lysias’ speech, Phaedrus eagerly reports to Socrates about how “extraordinarily well done” and well-formulated Lysias’ speech was (Plato, 11). Socrates calmly and promptly acknowledges that a vulnerability is present in Phaedrus’ novel perception of love and, as a reply, delivers his own definition of love. Socrates begins his proclamation by insisting that throughout time “there were two kinds of madness, the one caused by sickness of a human sort, and the other coming about from a divinely caused reversal of our customary ways of behaving…and belonging to Aphrodite and Love” (Plato, 49). Socrates interprets such “madness” as a phenomenon occurring on both a human and divine level. According to him, “madness” on a divine level originates from the gods and influences both the lover and the beloved with the intention of shaping their behavior and emotions in romantic relationships. Socrates’ explanation is crucial in surmounting the harmful words of Lysias to allow the growth of Phaedrus’ soul. Ultimately, it is Socrates’ portrayal of love as a purposeful, spiritual “madness” that allows Phaedrus to embrace Socrates’ concept fully while recognizing the illegitimacy of Lysias’ argument.  

Additionally, Socrates posits that a soul situated within the human body on Earth will dramatically grow its wings upon encountering beauty. Specifically, the soul will “become winged, fluttering with an eagerness to fly upwards”; it is this very occurrence that transforms one’s soul into “a lover” (Plato, 30). Socrates reiterates, explaining that the innocent soul of Phaedrus can do the same – observe beauty and soar upwards. The speech of Lysias only succumbs itself to the human benefits of what is seen to be an objectively non-loving relationship. According to Socrates’ speech, love stems from divinity, containing something far more innate and spiritually significant than casual pleasure-generating relationships. Therefore, the arguments of Lysias bitterly drag down Phaedrus, keeping his soul confined to Earth by stunting the growth of his “wings” and limiting his ability to admire the divine beauty that love can offer on both a human and divine level. Ultimately, upon Phaedrus observing this far more authentic interpretation of love, he spares his physical body of lackluster relationships, and, more importantly, his soul from withering away.

Today’s world holds many contemporary viewpoints for approaching love. One may even see a dichotomy between viewing love as merely a human emotion and having its roots in divinity and spiritual significance, which are akin to the aforementioned beliefs held by Lysias and Socrates. In this same context, however, there are many people who resemble Phaedrus: lost yet voraciously searching for a sense of direction. Hearing the wise words of astute philosophers may help them find their way.

Works Cited

Plato (2005). Phaedrus. Penguin Books.