In this issue, Williams (pp. 3-26) responds to my 2017 critique in this journal of the scientific status of the microaggression research program (MRP). In some cases, she presents helpful data that partially address several of my recommendations for enhancing the MRP's rigor. Nevertheless, because she appears to misconstrue many of my arguments regarding the MRP, many of her rebuttals are not relevant to my criticisms. Furthermore, her assertions notwithstanding, Williams does not effectively address my concerns regarding the (a) excessively fuzzy boundaries of the microaggression construct, (b) psychometric hazards of relying exclusively on subjective reports when detecting microaggressions, and (c) hypothesized causal impact of microaggressions on mental health. In other cases, Williams appears to draw causal inferences from correlational data and conflate within-group with between-group differences. Although several of Williams's recommendations for MRP research are worth considering, I contend that some others are unlikely to be conducive to a scientific approach to microaggressions. The MRP remains a promising but provisional research program that would benefit from greater openness to outside criticism. I conclude with a discussion of areas of potential common ground in microaggression research and application.

中文翻译：

---

微攻击研究与应用：澄清，更正和共同点。

在本期杂志中，威廉姆斯（第3-26页）在本刊中回应了我2017年对微侵略研究计划（MRP）的科学状况的评论。在某些情况下，她提供了有用的数据，这些数据部分地满足了我在增强MRP严格性方面的一些建议。但是，由于她似乎误解了我有关MRP的许多论点，因此她的许多反驳与我的批评无关。此外，尽管有她的断言，威廉姆斯还是没有有效地解决我对以下问题的关注：（a）微攻击构造的边界过于模糊；（b）检测微攻击时仅依靠主观报告的心理风险；以及（c）微攻击的假设因果影响关于心理健康。在其他情况下，威廉姆斯似乎从相关数据中得出因果推论，并将组内差异与组间差异混为一谈。尽管威廉姆斯关于MRP研究的一些建议值得考虑，但我认为其他一些建议不太可能有助于采取科学方法进行微侵略。MRP仍然是一个有前途但临时的研究计划，它将受益于对外界批评的更大程度的开放。最后，我将讨论微攻击研究和应用中潜在的共同点。MRP仍然是一个有前途但临时的研究计划，它将受益于对外界批评的更大程度的开放。最后，我将讨论微攻击研究和应用中潜在的共同点。MRP仍然是一个有前途但临时的研究计划，它将受益于对外界批评的更大程度的开放。最后，我将讨论微攻击研究和应用中潜在的共同点。