Rethinking the Black-White Mental Health Paradox Through Intersectionality

For decades, researchers have been grappling with what’s known as the Black-White Mental Health Paradox (BWMHP): Black Americans consistently report lower rates of depression and anxiety than White Americans, despite enduring significantly greater social and structural stressors.

A recent study by Megan E. LaMotte and colleagues, published in Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, digs deeper into this paradox, exploring whether religiosity, racial identity, or other psychosocial resources might buffer the effects of systemic oppression.

Their findings challenge long-standing assumptions about the role of protective factors like religion and self-esteem while calling for a broader, intersectional lens to understand how race, gender, and socioeconomic status shape mental health outcomes.

“Low rates of mental disorders among Black Americans relative to White Americans have puzzled researchers for decades,” the authors write.

“Black Americans report more central racial identity and higher levels of religiosity than White Americans, yet these psychosocial resources often yield mixed effects on mental health, varying by gender and outcome type.”

While this study provides valuable insights into the Black-White Mental Health Paradox (BWMHP), it has notable limitations. Perspectives from critical, philosophical, and Black psychology might critique its reliance on diagnostic categories shaped by Western psychiatric models and its focus on narratives of deficiency. By attempting to reduce rich, complex sociocultural experiences into measurable factors like religiosity and racial identity, the study risks oversimplifying the deeper systemic and structural forces that shape mental health.

Additionally, the very framing of the paradox—as if Black resilience is an unusual exception—can unintentionally reinforce harmful assumptions rooted in Eurocentric norms, framing resilience as abnormal rather than a response to oppression.