Despite a general shift toward secularity, very few people of color in the United States identify as atheist. Further, atheists of color are underrepresented in studies of atheists, and the experiences of atheists of color specifically have, to date, not been captured in the extant scholarship. Addressing this gap in the literature, we interviewed 17 self-identified adult atheists of color, predominantly from Christian backgrounds, residing in the United States using a critical feminist phenomenological approach. Six broad themes emerged from the data: (a) atheist identity development; (b) experiences of discrimination; (c) isolation; (d) violations of cultural expectations; (e) strategic outness; and (f) benefits of atheist identification. Experiences consistent with previous literature and novel and unique experiences specific to atheists of color are reported. Implications for training, practice, and research are discussed. Public Significance StatementThis study is the 1st to explore the experiences of atheists of color and found their trajectory to atheism to be similar to previously proposed models of identity development. Atheists of color experience antiatheist discrimination, navigate atheism as a violation of cultural expectations, use strategic outness, and benefit from a sense of connection and freedom associated with their atheist identity.

Cultural humility is an important component of psychotherapy and training in applied psychology in recent years (Davis et al., 2018). To date, cultural humility has not been applied to education in psychology. Guided by broad multicultural, multicultural orientation, and cultural humility literature, we provide support and recommendations for developing and utilizing cultural humility in psychology education. Specifically, we provide the following recommendations for facilitation of cultural humility by educators and researchers in psychology: (a) participating in self-reflection and evaluation of personal power, privilege, and marginalization; (b) engagement in lifelong cultural learning; (c) allowing students to determine which identities are salient; (d) cultivating a classroom in which cultural humility can occur and encouraging a developmental approach to understanding culture; (e) developing assignments and course content in the interest of fostering cultural humility among students; (f) providing mentorship that honors students' cultural identities; and (g) demonstrating awareness of limitations of traditional research methods.

Using a critical race theory framework and a convergent mixed-method design, this study examined the relationship between coping with stress and psychological distress among Black U.S. Americans ( N = 155) during the COVID-19 pandemic in the context of race-based stressors (e.g., anti-Black racism). Path analysis revealed mixed support for hypotheses; avoidant coping was positively related to all measured facets of psychological distress, whereas socially supported coping was associated with none. Self-sufficient coping was negatively associated with only depressive symptoms. Qualitative analysis revealed four salient themes: (a) Race and the COVID-19 Pandemic, (b) Complex Pandemic Related Changes to Life, (c) Emotional Responses to the Pandemic, and (d) Coping with the COVID Pandemic. These themes suggested the pandemic disrupted participants’ ability to engage in, or effectively use, typically adaptive coping strategies and distress was exacerbated by fears for the safety of other Black U.S. Americans. Implications for training, practice, research, and advocacy are discussed.

Much research related to individual coping following human-made and natural disasters suggests religious and spiritual coping is associated with positive outcomes (Aten et al., 2019). The presentation of this positive relationship may erroneously infer that nonreligious individuals' outcomes are negatively impacted by the absence of religious coping. Rather, studies of psychological well-being suggest a curvilinear relationship between (non)religiosity and well-being, such that low, as compared to high, levels of identification with a religious or nonreligious identity are associated with lower well-being (Galen & Kloet, 2011). Studies of the relationship between religiosity and mental health, including in the context of disaster, often exclude participation of nonreligious individuals through omission (Hwang et al., 2011) or utilize measures of religiousness that fail to capture nonreligious people (e.g., atheists, agnostics, religious nones; Cragun et al., 2015). Thus, studies of coping with natural disasters that are inclusive of a wide range of (non)religious orientations and examine differences, if any, among people of varying levels of reli-giousness and spirituality, are needed, a problem the current investigation sought to address. Of note, the terms (non)religious and (non)spiritual are used throughout the manuscript to refer to the full spectrum of systems of belief and nonbelief, ranging from atheism to high religiosity, whereas nonreligious/nonspiritual are used to refer to people without a religious and/or spiritual orientation. Natural Disasters and Trauma Natural disasters are sudden, potentially traumatic, often weather-related events (e.g. tornados, hurricanes) that generally occur locally but require national or international assistance due to the far-reaching impact of the resulting destruction (Kilmer et al., 2019). Much scholarship has focused on the psychological impact of natural disasters and the established link between exposure to disasters and the development of mental health problems, especially post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD; Goldmann & Galea, 2014). However, a wide range in the prevalence of PTSD rates (i.e., 3% to 60%) after a natural disaster suggests that factors other than mere exposure to the traumatic aspects of a disaster determine whether mental health problems develop (Neria et al., 2008). Many such factors have been identified, including peri-traumatic distress, disruption distress, social support, and coping strategies (Baral & Bhagawati, 2019; McGuire et al., 2018).

No abstract