Why Anti-Asian Discrimination Is Often Overlooked at Work

Based on research by Sora Jun (Rice Business), Junfeng Wu (University of Texas, Dallas), and Dejun Tony Kong (University of Colorado)

Key takeaways:

• People rely on mental prototypes when deciding whether an incident counts as discrimination.
• Asian Americans are less likely to fit observers’ prototypes of racial discrimination targets.
• This cognitive mismatch may allow anti-Asian discrimination in the workplace to go unrecognized, hindering allyship toward Asian American employees.  
   

If you were asked to close your eyes and think of a bird, what would you picture? A cardinal? A crow? An owl?

For many people, it’s unlikely that a penguin would be the first image that comes to mind, or a flamingo. That’s because most of us picture a “typical” bird in roughly the same way. 

We carry mental prototypes for racial discrimination, too. Those mental shortcuts shape how we interpret events in everyday life — including at work. When a promotion is denied or a job offer rescinded for vague reasons, people compare that decision — often unconsciously — to their internal image of what bias looks like and who is most likely to be affected.

New research suggests that because Asian Americans are not widely viewed as prototypical targets of racial discrimination in the United States, bias against them is less likely to be recognized.

A recent survey found that 75% of Asian Americans report experiencing racial discrimination across contexts. Yet formal workplace complaints and charges remain comparatively low. That gap is the focus of a paper published in Organization Science and co-authored by Sora Jun of Rice Business. 

If anti-Asian discrimination is prevalent in the workplace, why does it so often go unrecognized by coworkers, managers and institutions? According to the research, one answer lies in who is seen as a typical target of discrimination. That mental shortcut may shape who receives support, and who does not, when bias occurs at work.

How racial hierarchy shapes perceptions of discrimination

The paper draws on scholarship describing a U.S. racial status hierarchy, which places racial groups along a continuum of relative power, resources and social status. Within this framework, Black Americans are often positioned at the lower end of the hierarchy and white Americans at the higher end, with Asian Americans situated in between. 

Being positioned “in between” does not imply protection from bias. Indeed, Asian Americans have faced extreme discrimination throughout U.S. history. Instead, it signals a complicated social location — one shaped by both advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand, Asian Americans are often seen as competent or academically successful, stereotypes that confer higher status. On the other, they are often typecast as foreign or socially distant. That blend of perceptions makes it harder for observers to place Asian employees neatly into familiar narratives of racial discrimination.

“People rely on mental shortcuts when interpreting events,” Jun explains. “If someone doesn’t fit their image of a typical target of discrimination, outside observers may overlook racial bias as an explanation for what is happening.”

As a result, workplace incidents involving Asian employees may be treated as isolated disputes rather than signals of bias. Instead, they may be framed as personality conflicts, cultural misunderstandings or performance issues. The underlying pattern becomes harder to see, and corrective action becomes less likely.

“If someone doesn’t fit their image of a typical target of discrimination, outside observers may overlook racial bias as an explanation for what is happening.”

How recognition changes workplace decisions

The researchers began by asking a deceptively simple question: When people picture workplace discrimination, who comes to mind? 

Across six studies, the authors measure who people picture as a “typical” target of discrimination, then test whether identical workplace scenarios are interpreted differently depending on whether the target is Asian or Black. They also examine downstream consequences, from allyship behaviors to outcomes in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) cases. 

In open-ended questions, participants were far more likely to describe Black employees as targets of discrimination than Asian employees. Even when prompted to imagine an incident, Asian targets appeared far less frequently.

And in a controlled hiring scenario that heavily insinuated discrimination (based on “lack of fit”), professionals evaluated a rejected job candidate whose qualifications and treatment were identical across conditions. The candidates were all described as highly competent and well-suited — the only difference was race. When the applicant was Black, observers were significantly more likely to attribute the rejection to racial discrimination. When the applicant was Asian, the same facts were interpreted as less discriminatory. The gap was not explained by differences in qualifications or context; it traced back to whether the candidate fit the observer’s internal image of who is typically targeted.

The researchers also examined whether the pattern differed across Asian subgroups, including East, South and Southeast Asian candidates. Although these communities have distinct histories and experiences in the United States, the same recognition gap emerged across groups.

The pattern extended beyond judgment to action. In a follow-up experiment, participants who were less likely to interpret the decision as discriminatory were also less inclined to recommend organizational reforms or sign a petition supporting equitable hiring practices. 

Finally, the researchers examined a data set containing 578,820 EEOC discrimination charges that were filed during the years 2011–2017. Complaints filed by Asian claimants were less likely to result in favorable outcomes than those filed by Black claimants. Although the legal system involves many factors, the pattern mirrors the experimental findings: when discrimination is less readily recognized, institutional remedies may also be harder to secure. 

Why allyship depends on recognition

We tend to assume that allyship is about courage or conviction. But this research suggests it may begin even earlier — at perception. 

“Organizations often assume that if discrimination is happening, someone will recognize it,” Jun says. “Our findings suggest that assumption may not always hold.”

If our mental image of discrimination is too narrow, some experiences will fall outside it. Broadening that image does not just change how we think about bias. It can change whether we see it at all. 

Written by Scott Pett

Jun, et al (2026). “The Failure to Recognize Anti-Asian Discrimination,” Organization Science.