OBSERVED ETHNIC-RACIAL SOCIALIZATION AND
EARLY ADOLESCENT ADmSTMENT
by
MIWA YASUI
A DISSERTATION
Presented to the Department of Psychology
and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
June 2008
11
University of Oregon Graduate School
Confirmation of Approval and Acceptance of Dissertation prepared by:
Miwa Yasui
Title:
"Observed Ethnic-Racial Socialization and Early Adolescent Adjustment"
This dissertation has been accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree in the Department of Psychology by:
Thomas Dishion, Chairperson, Psychology
Jeffrey Measelle, Member, Psychology
Sanjay Srivastava, Member, Psychology
Elizabeth Stormshak, Outside Member, Counseling Psychology and Human Services
and Richard Linton, Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies/Dean of the
Graduate School for the University of Oregon.
June 14,2008
Original approval signatures are on file with the Graduate School and the University of
Oregon Libraries.
©2008, Miwa Yasui
III
in the Department ofPsychology
Miwa Yasui
An Abstract of the Dissertation of
for the degree of
to be taken
IV
Doctor ofPhilosophy
June 2008
Title: OBSERVED ETHNIC-RACIAL SOCIALIZATION AND EARLY
ADOLESCENT ADJUSTMENT
Approved: _
Thomas, J. Dishion
This dissertation examined how cultural influences transmitted within the familial
context impact the psychological adjustment of ethnic minority youth through the
development of an observational measure of ethnic-racial socialization. Specifically, a
behavioral observational paradigm and companion coding system were developed to
examine ethnic-racial socialization processes among 140 American Indian, African
American and European American adolescents and their families. Despite its
interactional nature, to date there are no observational measures of ethnic-racial
socialization, highlighting the important contributions of this study.
This study was conducted in a series of phases. Phase I consisted of measurement
development through use of qualitative data. Qualitative information from cultural
informants was incorporated to develop two observational paradigms (observed family
discussions on Family Culture and Coping with Discrimination) and an accompanying
vcoding system. Phase II examined the underlying factor structure of this observational
measure through confirmatory and exploratory factor analytic techniques. The
Discrimination Paradigm derived the ethnic-racial socialization dimensions: a) Proactive
Preparation, b) Racial Awareness, c) Promotion of Mistrust, and d) Other Group
Orientation. The Family Culture paradigm derived: a) Cultural Socialization, b) Ethnic
Heritage Exploration, c) Family Centeredness, and d) Spiritual Involvement. In Phase III
correlational analyses supported convergent and ecological validity of the observed
dimensions for American Indian and African American youth, but not European
American youth. Phase IV examined the mediational effects of the observed measures,
suggesting that among American Indian and African American youth, observed ethnic-
racial socialization is central to the relationships between family context, discrimination,
ethnic identity and youth adjustment. In Phase V, moderation effects indicated that only
for American Indian youth, observed ethnic-racial socialization significantly reduced the
impact of discrimination on youth adjustment. Last, Phase VI analyses revealed that
observed dimensions uniquely contributed to adolescent problem behavior above and
beyond the effect of discrimination and familial contextual factors among American
Indian and African American youth. In sum, these findings support the reliability and
validity of the observed ethnic-racial socialization measures, and suggest its promising
capability to efficiently capture important, observable, transactional familial processes of
ethnic-racial socialization that are integral to the development of cultural resilience.
VI
CURRICULlJM VITAE
NAME OF AUTHOR: Miwa Yasui
GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOLS ATTENDED:
University of Oregon
Sophia University, Tokyo
DEGREES AWARDED:
Doctor ofPhilosophy, Psychology, 2008, University of Oregon
Master of Science, Psychology, 2003, University of Oregon
Bachelor ofArts, Psychology, 2001, University of Oregon
Bachelor ofArts, Comparative Culture Studies, 1999, Sophia University
AREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST:
Child Clinical Psychology, Developmental Psychopathology, Ethnic Minority
Mental Health, Cultural Psychology, Prevention and Intervention Science
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:
Psychology Intern. Institute of Juvenile Research. University of Illinois at
Chicago. July 2007-present
Direction Service Counselling Center: Therapist. June 2006 - June 2007
Graduate Teaching Fellow. Psychology 459 Cultural Psychology, Instructor:
Summer 2006
Oregon Social Learning Center Community Programs: Therapist. May 2006-
June 2007
University of Oregon Psychology, Brain Development Lab: Behavioral Testing
Assessor. September 2005 - Jtme 2007
Southside Psychological Services: Therapist. September 2005- June 2007
University of Oregon Psychology Clinic Therapist. September 2004 - June 2007
Child and Family Center, University of Oregon: Therapist. September 2003 -
June 2007
VB
Lane County Mental Health: Therapist. December 2004- March 2005
Graduate Teaching Fellow. Psychology 459 Cultural Psychology, Instructor:
Summer 2003
Graduate Research Assistantship/ Data Analyst: Child and Family Center,
University of Oregon, September 2002 - June 2004
Data Analyst: Child and Family Center, University of Oregon, August 2001-
August 2002
Research Assistant: Department ofPsychology, University of Oregon. Sept 1999-
June 2001
GRANTS, AWARDS AND HONORS:
Predoctoral Fellow, Ruth L. Kirschtein National Research Service Award,
National Institutes of Mental Health, Cultural Resilience and Positive Youth
Adjustment, September 2005-July 2007
Predoctoral Fellow, National Institutes of Mental Health Institutional Training
Grant, Development and Psychopathology Research Training Grant
Department ofPsychology, University of Oregon. June 2005-September 2005
Recipient, First Annual Sundberg Graduate Fellowship Clinical, Community and
Culture Award
PUBLICATIONS:
Yasui, M., & Dishion, T. J. (under review). Teacher ratings and screening for
high-risk youth: Differential predictive validity as a function of student ethnicity.
School Psychology Review.
Dishion, T. J. & Yasui, M. (in press). The application of developmental models
to the design of effective family centered interventions: Trials and tribulations.
Chapter in the Blackwell Handbook ofDevelopmental Psychology in Action.
Yasui, M., & Dishion, T. J. (in press). Direct observation of adolescent family
interaction: Validity and reliability as a function of coder ethnicity and training.
Behavior Therapy.
Yasui, M, & Dishion, T.J. (2007). The ethnic context of child and adolescent
problem behavior: Implications for child and family interventions. Clinical Child
and Family Review, 10, 137-179.
V111
Connell, A. Dishion, T. 1., Yasui, M. & Kavanagh, K. (2007). An adaptive
approach to family intervention: Linking engagement in family-centered
intervention to reductions in adolescent problem behavior. Journal ofConsulting
and Clinical Psychology, 4, 568-79.
Stormshak, E. A., Dishion, T. J., Light, J., & Yasui, M. (2006). Implementing
family- centered interventions within the public middle school: Linking service
delivery change to change in problem behavior. Journal ofAbnormal Child
Psychology. 33, 723-33.
Dishion, T. J., & Nelson, S. E., & Yasui, M. (2005). Predicting early adolescent
gang involvement from middle school adaptation. Journal ofClinical Child and
Adolescent Psychology, 34, 62-73.
Yasui, M., Dorham, C. R. & Dishion, T., J. (2004). Ethnic identity and
psychological adjustment: A validity analysis for European American and African
American adolescents. Journal ofAdolescent Research, 19,807-825.
IX
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to express sincere appreciation to the members of my dissertation
committee, Drs. Thomas Dishion, Beth Stormshak, JeffMeaselle and Sanjay Srivastava
for their assistance during the dissertation process. I especially would like to thank my
mentor, Tom Dishion, for his continued guidance during the preparation of this
manuscript as well as throughout graduate school; always providing the opportunities, the
encouragement, and continued support for pursuing my ideas and translating them into
research. I would also like to convey my gratitude to Drs. Beth Stormshak and Alison
Ball who not only graciously allowed my dissertation study to be incorporated as part of
their intervention, and provided encouragement and support. I am very thankful for the
high level of commitment and effort of the Project Alliance and the Shadow Project
teams. Further, I cannot give enough thanks to my coding team members, in particular,
Calvin Liffick, Constance Henderson and Patrick McDaniel, who continued coding of
tapes until the end of this study. And the Child and Family Center staff, in particular,
Charlotte Winter, Shannon McGill and Jenene Peterson who helped me in so many ways
to process my data and use the videotaped interactions for my coding trainings.
Importantly, I want to acknowledge the support provided by my family, friends,
and colleagues. I am eternally grateful to have an amazing network of people to work and
enjoy life with. I'd like to thank my parents, who believed me in regardless of the
challenges that I faced, and continued to support me in my pursuit of a graduate degree;
my dear husband, Steve Ogo, who has been the greatest support throughout my years in
xgraduate school, always encouraging me to pursue my dreams while providing a
perspective and balance throughout life; the Ogo family who has stood by me supporting
me in every way as a family would; my dear friends Cindy Liu, Georgina Parra, Lisa
Cromer, Courtney Stevens, and Timothy Piehler who have made graduate school one of
the most memorable and happiest years of me life.
This dissertation was supported by a Ruth L. Kirschstein Predoctoral National
Research Service Award granted to the author (NIMH grant lF3lMH075247-0lAl), and
NIDA grant 1 ROI DA018374 (principal Investigator, Elizabeth Stormshak) and NIAAA
grant 5 ROlAA012702 (Principal Investigator, Alison Ball).
I
I Xl
For my parents who believed in me and my husband, Steve who has always supported my
dreams.
XlI
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Current Gaps in the Literature on Ethnic-Racial Socialization 4
Impact ofRacial Discrimination on Ethnic Minority Youth Functioning 5
The Protective Effects of Ethnic-Racial Socialization................................... 8
Cultural Socialization...... 10
Status Differentiation Awareness............................................................. 13
Preparation for Bias 14
Promotion of Mistrust 16
Directions for Ethnic-Racial Socialization Research..................................... 18
Current Methodological Limitations in Assessment of Ethnic-Racial
Socialization............................................................................................. 19
Research Aims and Questions....................................................................... 21
II. METHOD............................................................................................................................. 25
Overview........................................................................................................ 25
Phase 1: Measurement Development 26
Stage 1: Development and Selection ofEthnic-Racial Socialization
Constructs........................................................................................... 27
Stage 2: Development and Piloting of the Observational Paradigm:
The Observational Paradigm for Ethnic -Racial Socialization
(OPERS) 28
Stage 3: Recruitment and Conducting Focus Groups 28
Stage 4: Development and Refinement of the Companion Coding
System: The Observational Measure of Ethnic-Racial
Socialization (OMERS) 32
Methods for Phase II-VI........................................................................... 36
Participants......................................................................................... 36
Recruitment of Sample 38
Chapter
American Indian Adolescents and Their Families: Sample 1 .
European American and African American Adolescents and
Their Families: Sample 2 .
Xlll
Page
38
39
Family Assessment: Procedures for Sample 1 and 2......................... 39
Youth Report Measures..................................................................... 40
Ethnic Identity.............................................................................. 40
Spiritual Invo1vement......................... 40
Unfair Treatment/Experiences ofDiscrimination........................ 41
Antisocial Behavior 41
Deviant Peer Association............................................................. 41
Depression.................................................................................... 41
Family Conflict 42
Positive Family Relations 42
Parental Monitoring.. 42
Observational Paradigms: Parent-Child Interactions......................... 42
Paradigm 1: Cultural Transmission Within the Family.... 43
Paradigm 2: Cultural Transmission of Coping with
Discrimination...... 43
Observational Coding Procedures......... 43
Coder Recruitment....................................................................... 44
Coder Training............................................................................. 44
The Observational Measure for Ethnic-Racial Socialization
(OMERS) 48
III. RESULTS (PHASES II-VI) 50
Phase II: Determining Factor Structure 50
Confirmatory Factor Analyses: Three Factor ModeL... 51
Exploratory Factor Analyses.................................................................... 51
Confirmatory Factor Analyses: Four Factor ModeL............................... 55
Internal Consistency ofEthnic-Racial Socialization Codes 60
XIV
Chapter Page
Phase III: Examining Convergent and Ecological Validity: Comparisons
by Ethnicity 61
Descriptive Statistics................................................................................ 61
Correlational Analyses............................................................................. 63
Adolescent Cultural Experiences 63
Adolescent Family Experiences......................................................... 64
Adolescent Outcomes 64
Phase IV: Mediational Effects of Observed Ethnic-Racial Socialization...... 68
Mediational Effects of Ethnic-Racial Socialization Codes on Ethnic
Identity Deve1opment.... 69
Mediators of Positive Family Relations and Et1mic Identity
Achievement 70
Mediational Effects on the impact of Discrimination on Adolescent
Adjustment......................................................................................... 73
Mediational Effects of Promotion ofMistrust................................... 73
Mediational Effects of Cultural Socialization........... 77
Phase V: Testing the Moderational Effects of Ethnic-Racial
Socialization............................................................................................. 80
Phase VI: Testing the Unique Effects of Ethnic-Racial Socialization........... 84
Unique Effects of Cultural Socialization. 84
Adverse Effects of Promotion ofMistrust............................................... 86
IV. DISCUSSION 89
Measurement Development 90
Factor Structure.............................................................................................. 92
Convergent and Ecological Validity: Comparisons by Ethnicity... 93
Convergent Validity................................................................................. 94
Ecological Validity: Associations with Youth Outcome 96
xv
Chapter Page
Correlations with Promotion of Mistrust and Proactive
Preparation 96
Correlations with Cultural Socialization and Family
Centeredness 97
Ecological Validity: Associations with Family Context....................... ... 98
Correlations with Parental Monitoring.............................................. 98
Correlations with Family Conflict 99
Correlations with Positive Family Relations 100
Summary: Convergent and Ecological Validity...................... 101
Mediational Models....................................................................................... 102
Mediational Effects on Family Contextual Variables and Ethnic
Identity............................................................................................... 102
Mediational Effects on the Association Between Discrimination and
Youth Outcome.................................................................................. 103
Mediational Effects of Cultural Socialization....... 104
Moderation Effects of Ethnic-Racial Socialization......................... 105
Unique Effects of Ethnic-Racial Socialization.............................................. 106
Limitations................................................................................ 107
Conclusion and Future Directions 109
APPENDICES......................................................................................................................... III
A. CODING MANUAL FOR FAMILY CULTURE PARADIGM........................ 111
B. CODING MANUAL FOR DISCRIMINATION PARADIGM 121
BIBLIOGRAPHy.................................................................................................................... 143
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1. Confinnatory Factor Analysis: Discrimination Paradigm- Parent Codes .
2. Confinnatory Factor Analysis: Discrimination Paradigm- Child Codes .
3. Confinnatory Factor Analysis: Family Culture Paradigm- Parent Codes .
4. Confinnatory Factor Analysis: Family Culture Paradigm- Child Codes .
5. Model of Mediation .
6. Mediational Effects of Proactive Preparation for American Indian
youth .
7. Mediational Effects of Proactive Preparation for African American
youth .
8. Mediational Effects of Cultural Socialization for African American
youth .
9. Mediational Effects of Promotion of Mistrust on Antisocial Behavior for
American Indian '{outh .
10. Mediational Effects ofPromotion of Mistrust on Antisocial Behavior for
African American Youth .
11. Mediational Effects ofPromotion of Mistrust on Deviant Peer
Association for American Indian youth .
12. Mediational Effects ofPromotion of Mistrust on Deviant Peer
Association for African American Youth .
13. Mediational Effects ofPromotion of Mistrust on Depression for
American Indian youth .
14. Mediational Effects of Cultural Socialization on Deviant Peer
Association for American Indian Youth .
15. Mediational Effects of Cultural Socialization on Antisocial Behavior for
African American youth .
16. Plot of Discrimination X Promotion of Mistrust Interaction for American
Indian Youth .
17. Plot of Discrimination X Cultural Socialization Interaction for American
Indian youth .
XVI
Page
56
57
58
59
69
71
71
72
73
74
75
76
76
78
79
81
83
XVll
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Example Focus Group Responses on Family Culture Paradigm 30
2. Example Focus Group Responses on Discrimination Paradigm 30
3. Example Questions Asked of Focus Groups 32
4. Common Aspects of Family Culture among American Indians, African
Americans, and European Americans in the North West 34
5. Common Experiences of Discrimination among American Indians,
African Americans, and European Americans in the North West............ 35
6. Ethnic-Racial Socialization Dimensions Derived from the Discrimination
Paradigm: Retained Items and Factor Loadings by Source 53
7. Ethnic-Racial Socialization Dimensions Derived from the Family
Culture Paradigm: Retained Items and Factor Loadings by Source 54
8. Confirmatory Factor Analyses: Overall Fit of Models 60
9. Means and Standard Deviations of Observational Codes by Ethnicity 61
10. Means and Standard Deviations of Adolescent Survey Data by Ethnicity.... 63
11. Correlations among Behavior Observation Ethnic-Racial Socialization
Dimensions and Cultural Experience Variables....................................... 65
12. Correlations among Behavior Observation Ethnic-Racial Socialization
Dimensions and Family Context Variables 66
13. Correlations among Behavior Observation Ethnic-Racial Socialization
Dimensions and Adolescent Outcomes 67
14. Moderation Effects of Promotion of Mistrust on American Indian Youth
Depression................................................................................................. 80
15. Moderation Effects of Cultural Socialization on American Indian Youth
Deviant Peer Association. 82
16. Unique Effects of Cultural Socialization on African American Youth
Antisocial Behavior above and beyond Effects of Ethnic Identity and
Parental Monitoring 85
17. Unique Effects of Cultural Socialization on African American Youth
Antisocial Behavior above and beyond Effects of Ethnic Identity
and Positive Family Relations.. 85
18. Unique Effects of Promotion of Mistrust on American Indian Youth
Antisocial Behavior above and beyond Effects ofDiscrimination
and Family Conflict.... 86
XV111
Table Page
19. Unique Effects ofPromotion of Mistrust on American Indian Youth
Deviant Peer Association above and beyond Effects of Discrimination
and Family Conflict 87
1CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The ecological context of the ethnic minority child includes many challenges
associated with ethnic minority status and being part of a culture that differs from the
mainstream. Societal stressors such as restricted opportunities in employment, housing,
services, discrimination, and cultural misunderstandings place ethnic minority families at
a greater risk compared to mainstream families (Brooks-Gunn, Guo, & Furstenberg,
1993; Bursik & Grasmick, 1996; Sampson & Groves, 1989). In particular, ethnic
minority youth and families experience acts of racism and discrimination ranging from
subtle to violent, sometimes individually or as minority groups as a whole. These
experiences have been associated with increased psychological dysfunction in
communities, and especially in ethnic minority youth (Prelow, Danoff-Burg, Swenson, &
Pulgiano, 2004; Rosenbloom, & Way, 2004).
In response to the long standing focus in the developmental literature on "deficits"
or "risks" related to ethnic minority youth and family functioning, emerging evidence has
suggested cultural variation in what is considered "optimal" parenting practices when
comparing the developmental trajectories of ethnic minority to mainstream European
American children (Garcia-ColI, Lamberty, Jenkins, McAdoo, Crnic, & Wasik, 1996).
Recent findings on ethnic minority parenting indicates that ethnic minority families may
have a set of set of adaptive parenting styles that somewhat differ from those practiced by
2mainstream European American families. Ogbu (1981) suggests that childrearing
attitudes and practices can be heavily influenced by the ethnic and cultural backgrounds
of their parents, extended family and neighborhood. Cultural variability in parenting
practices, family values and childrearing attitudes are often the product of the methods
developed by culture which promotes and fosters a child's competence and adaptability in
that particular culture (Garcia ColI, 1990).
Ethnic minority families bring to their family context internal and external
cultural elements such as cultural beliefs, attitudes, values, family roles, cultural
expectations, and coping with issues of discrimination that are central in the development
of ethnic minority children. Both external (e.g. experiences of discrimination) and
internal cultural influences (e.g. ethnic identity, cultural pride) affect parenting processes
and family functioning of ethnic minority families in ways that deviate from processes
reported in mainstream American families.
Recently, Hughes and colleagues (2006) have coined ethnic-racial socialization as
an example of culturally embedded familial socialization processes that are unique to,
and promote healthy adjustment particularly among youth of color. Ethnic-racial
socialization is a construct that encompasses socialization processes surrounding issues of
race (racial socialization) and ethnicity (ethnic socialization), in particular, the
socialization of culture and the minority experience. Historically, racial socialization and
ethnic socialization have originated from separate literatures. Specifically, racial
socialization has emanated from research examining African American parents' efforts to
prepare their children to understand and cope with existing racial barriers that are
3reflective of the stratification of society by race (Boykins & Toms, 1985; Peters, 1985).
On the other hand, ethnic socialization has emerged from literature focusing on the
experiences of immigrant populations, (e.g. Latino and Asian American groups) which
includes socialization processes surrounding cultural retention, ethnic identity
achievement and affiliation towards one's ethnic group in the face of mainstream
pressures to assimilate (Knight, Bernal, Cota, Garza, & Ocampo, 1993; Ou & McAdoo,
1993). However, current literature on racial socialization and ethnic socialization suggest
considerable overlap (Hughes et aI, 2006), in which scholars have incorporated within the
definition of racial socialization, the transmission of cultural practices and ethnic/racial
pride, whereas the term ethnic socialization is frequently applied to cultural socialization
processes among multiple ethnic groups including African Americans. Thus, both racial
socialization and ethnic socialization processes are considered applicable across ethnic or
racial groups since most parents from ethnic and racial backgrounds share messages on
cultural heritage and ethnic/racial group status (i.e. discussions on discrimination).
Regardless, the distinction of whether racial or ethnic socialization is the most applicable
term to describe these socialization processes is complex, since across both ethnic and
racial groups, discussions may pertain to issues of ethnicity (e.g. socialization of culture)
as well as race (e.g. discussions on racial discrimination). Thus, here we will use the term
"ethnic-racial socialization" to refer to overarching processes of racial and ethnic
socialization, while applying specified terms "Cultural Socialization" for the transmission
of culture (Hughes et aI, 2006), and "Status Differentiation Awareness" to refer to
discussions on issues pertaining to racial or ethnic group status. Derived from
4Matsumoto's (2007) definition of status differentiation "the degree to which cultures
differentiate their behaviors toward others on the basis of the status differences that exist
between them and their interactants", we applied the term "Status Differentiation
Awareness" to encompass Hughes and colleagues' (2006) dimensions of Preparation for
Bias, Promotion of Mistrust and Silence About Race.
Current Gaps in the Literature on Ethnic-Racial Socialization
Current literature highlights that ethnic-racial socialization is a critical aspect of
ethnic minority parenting that focuses on protecting and teaching their children how to
navigate a society where ethnic, racial, and cultural features may lead to discrimination
and racism, which in turn can be detrimental for the positive adjustment of ethnic
minority youth (Stevenson, Reed, Bodison, & Bishop, 1997). The protective influence of
ethnic-racial socialization has been documented, for example, socialization messages on
family culture and coping with discrimination has been associated with ethnic identity
achievement (Demo & Hughes, 1990), better socioemotional adjustment and academic
achievement (Caughey, O'Campo, Randolph & Nickerson, 2002). However, in regards to
Status Differentiation Awareness (i.e. discussions on issues of race, ethnicity and
discrimination), empirical findings have reported both favorable (Bowman & Howard,
1985; Stevenson, et aI, 1997) as well as unfavorable (Marshall, 1995; Ogbu, 1988)
outcomes for ethnic minority youth. Moreover, the discrepancies in findings appear to
vary across studies, based on type of assessment (self report, interview methods) as well
as reporting agent (Hughes, 2003).
These findings suggest that it IS still unclear as to whether ethnic-racial
5socialization messages are promotive or adverse for ethnic minority youth adjustment.
Further, because it is conceptually understood as largely an ethnic minority phenomenon,
little is known whether ethnic-racial socialization applies, if at all, to mainstream
European American youth. Literature is sparse in regards to specifying the varying
influences different ethnic-racial socialization messages (e.g. Status Differentiation
Awareness, Cultural Socialization) may have on the development of youth of various
ethnicities. Moreover, current research on ethnic-racial socialization has largely utilized
self report or participant interviews that are often constrained to the definitions specific to
that individual. Very little research has utilized observational methods that capture the
lucid family transactions and behaviors which occur during ethnic-racial socialization
processes - information that is often hard to obtain through self-report, interviews, and
other sources. In response to these limitations, this exploratory study aims to examine
differential influences of specific ethnic-racial socialization messages through a newly
developed behavioral observational measure of ethnic-racial socialization among
American Indian, African American and European American youth and their families.
Impact of Racial Discrimination on Ethnic Minority Youth Functioning
On top of the normative stressors related to adolescent development and
socialization, ethnic minority youth and families encounter as part of their daily lives the
negative experiences of discrimination. Ethnic or racial discrimination may occur in
various contexts of their lives, such as among peers, school, neighborhood and
community (Rosenbloom & Way, 2004). For example, Broman, Mavaddat, and Hsu
(2000) reported that 77% ofAfrican American youth reported experiencing racial
6discrimination, with African American males experiencing the most discrimination by
police and in finding jobs. Among American Indians, perceived discrimination is
associated with depression, substance use and externalizing problems (Whitbeck, Hoyt,
McMorris, Chen, & Stubben, 2001; Whitbeck, Mcmorris, Hoyt, Stubben, &
LaFromboise, 2002).
Several studies have documented negative mental health outcomes associated
with experiencing acts of discrimination. Among ethnic minority youth, a positive
association between perceived discrimination and an adolescent's engagement in problem
behavior has been reported. For example, Wong and colleagues (2003) found in their
sample of 629 African American adolescents, perceived discrimination by peers and
teachers was associated with increases in problem behaviors such as shoplifting, skipping
class, lying to parents, cheating, stealing cars and bringing drugs or alcohol to school.
Nyborg and Curry (2003) found that adolescent report of their experiences of racism were
related to both adolescent and parent report of child externalizing symptoms. Similarly,
Prelow, Danoff-Burg, Swenson, and Pulgiano (2004) reported that perceived
discrimination exacerbated ecological risk for African American youth, resulting in
higher engagement in delinquent behaviors, whereas no association was found for
European American youth.
The psychological toll of racial discrimination is also reported to be associated
with internalizing problems such as depression, somatic symptoms and anxiety. In a study
by Simons and colleagues (2002), individual experiences of racial discrimination among
African American children predicted child depressive symptoms. Schmader, Major and
7Gramzow (2001) found that beliefs about ethnic injustice were associated with greater
devaluing of one' academic success and distrust in academic feedback among African
American students. Rumbaut (1994) found in a multiethnic sample of 1st and 2nd
generation immigrant adolescents, that perceived discrimination was significantly
associated with depressive symptoms and low self-esteem. Among American Indians,
perceived discrimination was strongly associated with higher depressive symptoms
(Whitbeck, et aI, 2002). These results reflect the negative psychological impact
discrimination can have on ethnic minority youth development - a common theme
experienced by many ethnic minority groups.
The stressors related with racial discrimination also indicate system level
influences, in particular, the family context. The Mundane Extreme Environmental Stress
model (MEES; Peters & Massey, 1983) describes the living conditions of ethnic minority
families as an environment where there is "constant threat and actual periodic
occurrences of intimidation, discrimination, or denial because of race. The stresses which
families face - sometimes subtle, sometimes overt-are pervasive, continuous and
debilitating." (p.196). Daily encounters with overt and covert racial discrimination can
exacerbate the effects of contextual stressors on family functioning and relationships.
Gibbons, Gerrard, Cleveland, Wills and Brody (2004) found that parental experiences of
racial discrimination were directly associated with parental distress and substance use. As
such, for ethnic minority families, encounters with chronic, unpredictable acts of racial
discrimination not only impact the individual, but also the family system and
relationships within that system (Peters & Massey, 1983).
8Overall, empirical evidence highlights the deleterious consequences of exposure
to discrimination and socioeconomic and political barriers for the healthy development of
ethnic minority youth. Thus, research is critical in examining the constructive ways in
which families of color develop culturally grounded coping mechanisms to overcome the
adversities they face on a daily basis.
The Protective Effects of Ethnic-Racial Socialization
Despite the daily encounters with discrimination, ethnic minority youth and
families exhibit resilience. According to Peters and Massey (1983), ethnic minority
families develop culturally based practices, behaviors and attitudes that are embedded in
the culture's value and belief system and that serve as psychological and social support
required by the youth and families. These culturally specific coping mechanisms buffer
ethnic minority families from the multiple stressors associated with racism, poverty,
minority status, and acculturation. Several researchers have examined coping strategies of
ethnic minority youth and families, suggesting the importance of ethnic and racial
socialization in promoting youth's socioemotional competence and secure sense of self
(Hughes & Chen, 1997; Stevenson, Cameron, Taylor & Davis, 2002). In particular, racial
socialization has been highlighted as a protective factor for minority children who grow
up in a context of racial discrimination and oppression (Stevenson et aI, 2002). Racial
socialization is defined as "the task Black parents share with all parents- providing for
and raising children...but they include the responsibility of raising physically and
emotionally healthy children who are Black in a society in which Black has negative
connotations" (Peters, 1985). According to Stevenson and colleagues (2002), racial and
9cultural socialization processes are essential aspects of ethnic minority family functioning
because they provide explanation and support for: 1) "appreciating the spiritual and
metaphysical buffers to being an ethnic minority in a racist world, 2) appreciating the
cultural uniqueness of being and behaving ethnic in a racist world, and 3) appreciating
and internalizing the meaning-making experiences of being ethnic in this world" (p.85-6).
Ethnic socialization, on the other hand, represents the transmission of family culture, and
is defined as the socialization of "children about their ethnic culture, practicing cultural
traditions at home and teaching their children about the traditions, culture, history, and
holidays that are associated with their ethnic background (Gonzales, Umana-Taylor, &
Bamaca, 2006).
Evidence supports the centrality of ethnic-racial socialization for ethnic minority
families. However, the content of cultural messages and ways in which these messages
are transmitted appears to vary across and within ethnic groups. Current literature
suggests that various cultural messages are included in ethnic-racial socialization, ranging
from transmission of cultural practices and values (Cultural Socialization) to discussions
concerning racial discrimination (Status Differentiation Awareness). According to Boykin
and Toms (1985), ethnic-racial socialization consists of: 1) cultural experience (i.e. styles,
motifs, and patterns of behavior unique to ethnic group), 2) minority experience (i.e.
social, economic, and political influences on minorities), and 3) mainstream experience
(i.e. influences of white middle-class culture). Thornton and colleagues (1990) suggest
that racial socialization encompasses areas of racial pride, racial history, achievement,
racism, equality, religion, self-image, moral values, and peaceful coexistence. According
------------------_...
10
to Peters (1985), parents believed that compared to instilling a strong sense of racial
identity, it is more important to learn how to cope and survive prejudice and
discrimination and understand that equality is not always present in minority-mainstream
relationships.
These various models of ethnic and racial socialization indicate overarching
cultural themes within these processes. Two major dimensions of ethnic-racial
socialization have been identified in the current literature: 1) Cultural Socialization,
which refers to the transmission of cultural pride, history, heritage, traditions and customs
(Hughes et aI, 2006; O'Connor, Brooks-Gunn, & Graber, 2000) and 2) Status
Differentiation Awareness, which reflects the socialization of children to the challenges
due to racial and ethnic status discrepancies such as experiences of discrimination.
Messages regarding the transmission of culture has been identified in similar constructs
such as cultural pride reinforcement, cultural legacy appreciation (Stevenson, Herrero-
Taylor, Cameron, & Davis, 2002), and integrative/assertive socialization (Demo &
Hughes, 1990). Messages surrounding racial discrimination include concepts such as
cautious/defensive socialization (Demo & Hughes, 1990), racism awareness training
(Stevenson, et aI, 2002), and racial barrier awareness (Bowman & Howard, 1985).
Cultural Socialization
Hughes and colleagues (2006) have coined Cultural Socialization as the term that
encompasses both explicit and implicit parental practices associated with the transmission
of culture - e.g. teaching children about their ethnic or racial heritage and history,
fostering the development of ethnic or racial identity and pride, and promoting
11
involvement in cultural practices, customs and traditions (Boykin & Toms 1985; Hughes
& Chen, 1999; Stevenson, et aI, 2002; Umana-Taylor & Fine, 2004). Parenting practices
such as celebrating or participating in cultural holidays or traditions, talking in their
ethnic or cultural language, discussing the historical experiences of cultural and family
members, eating ethnic foods, and displaying cultural elements such as cultural books,
artifacts, and music, are all aspects of cultural socialization identified among ethnic
minority families. Across various ethnic groups, literature indicates that cultural
socialization is a core element of child rearing, for example, studies suggest that a large
percentage of ethnic minority parents discuss cultural socialization messages with their
children - 66% of Japanese American parents, over 85% of Latino parents (Phinney &
Chavira, 1995) and more than 80% ofAfrican American parents (Caughy, O'Campo,
Randolph, & Nickerson, 2002; Hughes & Chen, 1997, Phinney & Chavira, 1995).
Various studies examining the content of cultural socialization messages have
found that among African American, Mexican, Chinese, and Japanese samples, the
majority of parents attempt to foster the transmission of cultural values, history, and
practices, as well as the cultural pride oftheir children (Knight, Bernal, Garza, Cota, &
O'Campo, 1993; Ou & McAdoo, 1993; Phinney & Chavira, 1995). Immigrant Latino and
Asian American parents also reported emphasizing the socialization of traditions and
values of the culture of origin (Buriel & DeMent, 1997; Garcia-ColI & Magnuson, 1997).
Caughyet al (2002) found in their observations ofAfrican American families; that over
95% of the homes displayed multiple cultural artifacts.
Socializing children with messages of cultural knowledge, ethnic pride, and
12
cultural traditions is often perceived as central to the development of a healthy identity
and a secure sense of belonging to their ethnic or cultural group. Several theories on
ethnic-racial socialization have reported an association with positive identity
development, equity, racial barriers, and egalitarian perspectives (Thornton, Chatters,
Taylor, & Allen, 1990). Among Mexican American adolescents, higher levels of parental
ethnic socialization were associated with ethnic identity achievement (Quintana,
Castaneda-English, & Ybarra, 1999). Similarly, in the African - centered model by
Nobles (1973) and Semaj (1985) racial or ethnic identity is seen as first shaped by the
messages and interactions that the African American child experiences in their immediate
social context, the family, and then later is either reinforced or disconfirmed when
interacting with external agents such as peers, teacher, schools, and the general society
(Burke, 1980). Particularly among African American families, messages surrounding
cultural or ethnic pride have been reported as a central tenant of cultural socialization
(Demo & Hughes, 1990; Sanders Thompson, 1994). For American Indian youth, the
learning of native culture through cultural socialization has been highlighted as an
important resilience factor (Zimmerman, Ramirez, Washienko, Walter & Dyer, 1998).
Beauvais (2000) indicates that incorporating traditional values and fostering of ethnic
pride sets a foundation for American Indian youth as they maneuver between more than
two cultural worlds. According to LaFromboise and Medoff (2004),· providing guidance
and instilling cultural values is a task that is taken on not only by family members but
also the neighborhood and community, which in tum fosters identity development, self
worth, and environmental mastery.
13
Research indicates the protective effects of cultural socialization messages
(Bowman & Howard, 1985; Knight, Cota, & Bernal, 1993; Stevenson, 1995). Cultural
Socialization messages on cultural history and heritage have been associated with
positive self concepts (Ou & McAdoo, 1993) and more positive in-group attitudes
(Stevenson, 1995). Scott (2003) found that greater emphasis on socializing youth in
cultural values is associated with more use of effective coping strategies in the face of
discrimination. Stevenson and colleagues (1997) reported that boys who received cultural
pride messages from their parents exhibited lower aggressive and situational anger; while
among girls, cultural pride messages were associated with lower depressive symptoms.
Caughy, O'Campo, Randolph and Nickerson (2002) found that among African American
preschoolers, cultural pride socialization was associated with less externalizing
behavioral problems as well as internalizing problems. Cultural socialization was
associated with higher family self esteem, higher peer self esteem, and higher child
academic achievement among African American adolescents (Constantine & Blackmon,
2002; Smith, Atkins & Connell, 2003).Similarly, Whitbeck and colleagues (2007) found
that among American Indians in the Upper Midwest, engagement in traditional practices
such as powwows, speaking the traditional language, and engaging in cultural activities
served as a protective influence against the negative impact of discrimination on
developing depressive symptoms.
Status Differentiation Awareness
In contrast to Cultural Socialization, Status Differentiation Awareness which
encompasses messages related to discrimination, minority status or ethnic/racial status
14
(i.e. Preparation for Bias, Promotion ofMistrust), is reported to be less consistently
discussed among ethnic minority families (Hughes et aI, 2006). In the National Survey of
Black Americans, only 8% of parents and 13% of youth reported discussing issues
surrounding racial barriers with their family (Bowman & Howard, 1985; Thornton et aI,
1990). Marshall (1995) found that 14% ofAfrican American parents and 3% of youth
reported discussing coping with racial barriers when asked open ended questions on
ethnic socialization. Other studies have reported higher rates of Status Differentiation
Awareness messages; for example, Sanders-Thompson (1994) found that 48-58% of their
African American participants recalled race-related discussions with a parent.
Preparation for Bias
Preparation for Bias, defined as a process that "prepares children for future
encounters with racial discrimination and prejudice" (Hughes & Chen, 1997), represents
Status Differentiation Awareness messages in which parents promote skills to proactively
cope or manage the negative experiences of discrimination. As such, Preparation for Bias
is identified as a socialization process that fosters resilience among youth who face daily
challenges related to their racial, ethnic and minority status.
Current literature suggests the centrality of Preparation ofBias messages for
youth of color. Among African American families, socialization messages on Preparation
of Bias ranged from 48% to 90% (Caughy et aI, 2002; Coard et aI, 2004; Hughes & Chen,
1997). Among other ethnic minority families, Preparation ofBias messages is less
apparent and appears to be more salient among African American families, compared to
other ethnic minority groups (Hughes & Chen, 1997; Nagata & Cheng, 2003; Phinney &
15
Chavira, 1995). For example, Nagata and Cheng (2003) found that adult children of
Japanese Americans interned during World War II reported little discussion with their
parents in regards to their parents' internment experience.
Several theories repoli an association between Preparation for Bias messages and
positive identity development, equity, racial barriers, and egalitarian perspectives
(Thornton, et aI, 1990). Cross' Nigrescene model (1991) describes that the development
of racial identity is based on the individual's perception of their race and their attitudes
towards race relations, especially regarding racism. Murray and Mandara (2001) found in
their sample of 116 African American youth, ethnic pride and Preparation ofBias
messages on strategies to deal with broader societal discrimination were necessary for
racial identity development. Among Mexican American youth, parental teachings on
coping with discrimination were positively associated with children's knowledge of
Mexican traditions and preference for Mexican cultural behaviors (Quintana, & Vera,
1999). Stevenson (1995) found that African American adolescents who emphasized the
importance of Preparation of Bias were more likely to be further along in their racial
identity development. Similarly, Marshall (1995) found that African American parents
who engaged in Preparation for Bias discussions with their youth were more likely to
have children in the advanced encounter stage of racial identity development.
Numerous studies report positive psychosocial outcomes of socializing youth on
ways to cope with discrimination. Bowman and Howard (1985) reported that adolescents
who received Preparation for Bias messages concerning racial barriers and interracial
relations had higher grades and a greater sense of personal efficacy. In their study of
16
African American adolescents, Constantine and Blackmon (2002) found that Preparation
for Bias was associated with higher levels of positive feelings towards the family and self
esteem. Thornton and colleagues (1990) found that African American youth who are
socialized to be aware of racial barriers and are cautioned about interracial challenges,
showed more positive behavioral and psychological outcomes than youth who are taught
nothing about race or who receive negative in-group messages (Bowman & Howard,
1985). Fischer and Shaw (1999) found that higher levels of experiencing Preparation for
Bias messages attenuated the relationship between racism experiences and poor mental
health. Similarly, Stevenson and colleagues (2002) found that African American
adolescent males who received coping with antagonism and cultural pride and cultural
heritage messages reported lower engagement in fighting. Phinney and Chavira (1995)
found that African American youth who received messages concerning racial or ethnic
prejudice and discrimination were more likely to engage in proactive coping strategies
(discussion, disapproving or self-affirmation) compared to passive or aggressive coping
strategies when faced with discrimination.
Promotion ofMistrust
Promotion ofMistrust was proposed by Hughes and colleagues (1997, 2006) as a
term that reflects the promotion of caution and wariness surrounding experiences of
discrimination, racism and interracial/ethnic relations. A key component of Promotion of
Mistrust is the communication of mistrust regarding attitudes, behaviors and interactions
with other ethnic or racial groups as well as cautions about sociopolitical barriers to
success. In particular, Promotion of Mistrust messages differs from those of Preparation
17
for Bias, in that socialization centers largely on the negative impact associated with
racism, discrimination and minority status, however, with minimal advice or support on
ways of coping or managing such challenges (Hughes & Chen, 1997).
Empirical evidence suggests that there is variability in the frequency in which
parents transmit messages promoting intergroup mistrust and caution. Qualitative studies
indicate that Promotion of Mistrust occur among a substantial proportion of ethnic
minority families. For example, Hughes and DuMont (1993) reported that discussions
emphasizing vigilance and defensiveness towards Whites as well as skepticism regarding
interracial relationships occurred among all of their African American parent focus
groups. Similarly, in the qualitative study by Coard and colleagues (2004) data from
interviews with African American parents indicated that roughly a third of the parents
reported engaging in discussions that promoted defensive racial protocols (i.e. social
distancing and mistrust). In contrast, studies examining survey data reported that the
proportion of parents reporting socializing their youth on messages which caution or
promote mistrust of other ethnic or racial groups ranged from as Iowa 3% to 18%
(Biafora et aI, 1993, Hughes & Chen, 1997, Thornton et aI, 1990). It maybe that parents
who have mainly experienced negative racial interchanges may engage in avoidant
approaches when dealing with racial discrimination and be mistrustful of other groups.
Such parents may completely avoid discussing discrimination or they may openly express
messages of mistrust and caution of other ethnic groups, thereby modeling and teaching
maladaptive coping strategies to their children.
These findings highlight the lack of clarity regarding the degree to which ethnic
18
minority parents transmit Promotion of Mistrust messages, and further, how these
messages differ from Preparation for Bias messages in their influence on youth
adjustment. In particular, research is still limited in addressing how the transmission of
cross-generational experiences of racial discrimination affect adolescent adjustment,
specifically, whether these messages are protective or adverse socialization practices for
ethnic minority youth.
Directions for Ethnic-Racial Socialization Research
Current findings on the protective effects of etlmic-racial socialization suggest
that etlmic minority families transmit messages on a) Cultural Socialization and b) Status
Differentiation Awareness (e.g. Preparation for Bias, Promotion of Mistrust). Empirical
evidence suggests that Cultural Socialization messages regarding cultural traditions,
history and pride are integral in fostering positive development among ethnically diverse
children and adolescents (Caughy, et aI, 2002; Hughes & Chen, 1997, Phinney &
Chavira, 1995). On the contrary, research examining the protective effects of
socialization processes surrounding issues of race and discrimination report mixed
findings. Despite empirical support for the protective effects of socializing youth to
experiences of discrimination, some studies have indicated that an overemphasis on racial
barriers by parents may actually undermine the efficacy of their child and lead them to
withdraw from opportunities and experiences that would enhance their competence
(Biafora, et aI, 1993; Marshall, 1995). Moreover, studies have indicated that despite the
importance ethnic parents place on discussing issues with racial discrimination, few
actually engage in the transmission ofthese messages. In fact, parents are more likely to
19
report messages about ethnic pride (Cultural Socialization messages) than messages on
discrimination (Hughes & Chen, 1997, Phinney & Chavira, 1995). The minimal amount
of discussion on this topic may be because parents find it inherently more difficult to
introduce to children issues ofbias than cultural discrimination. Ethnic minority parents
maybe particularly vigilant in introducing children to negative ethnic stereotypes because
of the negative consequences related to the internalization of these stereotypes, and that
these stereotypes may influence their understanding of race. Although evidence suggests
that ethnic minority parents see the goal of ethnic-racial socialization as discussing
minority experience by which they would prepare their children for an oppressive
environment, it is not known whether the transmission of such messages actually
influence the kind of coping strategies minority children utilize when faced with
discriminatory experiences (Tatum, 1987). Such highlights the need for research to
examine whether parental transmission of minority experiences is protective for ethnic
minority youth who experience the negative consequences of racism in their daily lives.
Current Methodological Limitations in Assessment of Ethnic-Racial Socialization
Despite the extensive use of observational methods for examining family
processes, little research has used direct observations to thoroughly examine and identify
the patterns of cultural transmission that occur among ethnic minority families. Current
measures of ethnic-racial socialization have largely used self reported data from youth
and/or parents, and very few studies have utilized other methods of assessing cultural
socialization (Hughes, et ai, 2006). The interactional nature of ethnic-racial socialization
processes lends itself to behavioral observation methods that allow the capturing of
20
transactions that occur among family members, that is often difficult to obtain through
self-report, interviews, and other sources.
Observational measures have been used extensively in understanding the
dynamics within families, peers, and marital dyads. A large part of this trend is due to the
fact that direct observations provide a window on real behaviors of interest (e.g. shouts,
hits, instructions, hugs, smiles), and also the dynamics of relationships. Observing family
processes allows us to capture family interaction patterns that contribute to the etiology
and also maintain dysfunctional attitudes and behaviors in the family (Dishion & Granic,
2004; Patterson, 1982). By examining the interchanges among family members,
researchers can identify specific dynamics or transactional processes in which the cross-
generational transmission of behavior occurs. Many studies utilize observational
measures in order to understand causal processes and to predict child outcomes including
child antisocial behavior, arrest and detention rates (Hops, Davis, & Longoria, 1995;
Patterson & Forgatch, 1985).
The ability of observational methods to assess the interactional patterns of
behavior that occur among family members is particularly important for examining
different socialization strategies ethnic minority families use in promoting cultural
knowledge, as well as preparing one's child for a world that may present numerous
sociopolitical barriers. Thus, observational measures of ethnic-racial socialization
processes may shed light on the range and effectiveness of the ways in which families
socialize their youth on adaptive coping in the face of discrimination, as well as teach
youth salient characteristics of their family culture (e.g. cultural heritage and pride) that
21
promote resilience among ethnic minority youth.
Research Aims and Questions
This exploratory study developed a new behavioral observation measure that
examines variations of observed ethnic-racial socialization messages transmitted within
the familial context, and further, how these messages impact the psychological
adjustment of ethnic minority adolescents. The new behavioral observational measure of
ethnic-racial socialization examined variability within socialization messages discussed
by American Indian, African American and European American youths and their families.
The primary research questions of this study were examined over the following five
phases:
1) Phase I: Measurement Development. An observational paradigm and a companion
coding measure of ethnic-racial socialization were developed through integration
of qualitative methods. Specifically, qualitative information from cultural
informants (focus groups) as well as experts on ethnic minority mental health was
incorporated in the development of the observational paradigm and companion
coding system. The observational paradigm assessed two theoretically informed
dimensions of ethnic-racial socialization: a) messages on the transmission of
family culture, and b) messages on coping with discrimination. The companion
coding system captured variations in socialization messages portrayed in the
observational paradigm.
2) Phase II: Determining Factor Structure. The factor structure of observed ethnic-
racial socialization measure was examined across a multiethnic sample of 140
22
American Indian, African American and European American youth and families.
Specifically, the underlying factor structure of the newly developed observational
measure was determined using confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses. It is
hypothesized that the observed ethnic-racial socialization measures will represent
Hughes and colleagues' (2006) ethnic-racial socialization dimensions of
Preparation for Bias, Cultural Socialization, and Promotion ofMistrust as well as
Phinney's (1992) dimensions ofEthnic Exploration and Other-Group Orientation.
3) Phase III: Convergent and Ecological validity. Correlational analyses examined
the convergent and ecological validity of observed ethnic-racial socialization.
a. Convergent validity: It is hypothesized that observed ethnic-racial
socialization codes will significantly correlate with adolescent reported
cultural experiences (e.g. ethnic identity achievement, experiences of
discrimination) among American Indian and African American youth but
not for European American youth.
b. Ecological validity: It is hypothesized that observed ethnic-racial
socialization codes will be significantly correlated with a) family context
variables, and b) adolescent externalizing and internalizing problems for
American Indian and African American youth, but not for European
American youth.
4) Phase IV: Mediational Analyses. Regression analyses examined mediational
effects of ethnic-racial socialization dimensions. Specifically,
a. It is hypothesized that observed ethnic-racial socialization dimensions will
23
mediate the relationship between family contextual variables and ethnic
identity achievement for American Indian and African American youth,
but not for European American youth.
b. It is hypothesized that observed ethnic-racial socialization dimensions will
mediate the relationship between perceived discrimination and adolescent
adjustment for American Indian and African American youth, but not for
European American youth.
c. It is hypothesized that observed ethnic-racial socialization dimensions will
mediate the relationship between youth ethnic identity achievement and
problem behavior for American Indian and African American youth, but
not for European American youth.
5) Phase V: Moderation Analyses: Regression analyses examined whether observed
ethnic-racial socialization moderates the negative impact of discrimination on
adolescent adjustment.
a. It is hypothesized that observed ethnic-racial socialization will served as a
moderator of the relationship between discrimination and adolescent
adjustment among African American and Native American youth but not
European American youth.
6) Phase VI: Unique Effects. Regression analyses examined the unique contributions
of observed ethnic-racial socialization on adolescent adjustment above and
beyond the effects of ethnic identity achievement and family contextual variables
a. It is hypothesized that observed ethnic-racial socialization dimensions of
24
Cultural Socialization and Preparation for Bias will have unique
promotive effects on adolescent adjustment among American Indian and
African American youth.
b. It is hypothesized that observed ethnic-racial socialization dimensions of
Promotion of Mistrust will have unique adverse effects on adolescent
adjustment among American Indian and African American youth.
----------_._._._..._-_ .._---_ ..__.-
25
CHAPTER II
METHOD
Overview
This current study was conducted in a series of phases. Phase I consisted of
measurement development, specifically, the development of a behavioral observational
paradigm that captures ethnic-racial socialization processes within the familial context
through use of qualitative data. Phase II involved measurement validation via use of
exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis across 140 urban European American,
African adolescents and rural American Indian adolescents. Phase III examined the
concurrent and ecological validity of the ethnic-racial socialization dimensions with
sociocultural indicators of family functioning separately for each ethnic group (European
American, African American and American Indian). Phase N examined mediational
effects of ethnic-racial socialization dimensions for adolescent psychological adjustment,
separately by ethnicity. Phase V tested whether ethnic-racial socialization dimensions
moderated the negative impact of discrimination on youth adjustment by ethnicity. Last,
Phase VI examined the unique effects of observed ethnic-racial socialization above and
beyond the effect of family variables and adolescent ethnic identity by ethnicity.
26
Phase I: Measurement Development
Current measures of ethnic-racial socialization have been largely based on self-
report measures or interviews, and very few studies have applied behavioral observations
as a method of capturing ethnic-racial socialization processes among ethnic minority
families (Hughes et aI, 2006). Due to its transactional nature, behavioral observations was
identified as an important method of assessing ethnic-racial socialization in part, because
it provides rich data on how parents socialize their children on ways of coping with
ethnic, racial and cultural barriers (e.g. discrimination) via family discussions on
discrimination, cultural traditions, pride and heritage. In comparison to self report or
interview data, direct observations also provide a third-person perspective of the
phenomenon of interest, in which interactive behaviors are defined consistently and
reliably by the researcher, and further coded by multiple observers using a specific
coding system.
Measurement development occurred across a series of stages. The first stage
consisted of the identification of core constructs and concepts of ethnic-racial
socialization through review of existing measures, previous studies, consultation with
leading researchers in the field of ethnic minority research and child and family
interventions, as well as through qualitative information gathered from focus groups
consisting of youth and families from the communities which the current sample was
drawn from. The second stage entailed the development of a behavioral observation task
that captures two core ethnic-racial socialization processes: a) discussion of racial
discrimination and b) discussion of family culture. Lastly, the final stage involved the
27
development of the coding system for each of the behavioral observation tasks.
Stage 1: Development and Selection ofEthnic-Racial Socialization Constructs
A search of the literature indicated two overarching dimensions of ethnic-racial
socialization: a) socialization of cultural pride, history, heritage, traditions and customs
(Hughes et aI, 2006; O'Connor, et aI, 2000; Phinney, 1992), and b) the socialization of
children to the experiences of discrimination, and minority status (Hughes et aI, 2006,
Phinney, 1992). Literature indicates several empirically validated constructs related to
these overarching dimensions. Specifically, cultural pride reinforcement, cultural legacy
appreciation (Stevenson, et aI, 2002), integrative/assertive socialization (Demo &
Hughes, 1990), and ethnic identity development (Phinney, 1992) represent aspects of
Cultural Socialization; whereas racism awareness training (Stevenson, 1995),
cautious/defensive socialization (Demo & Hughes, 1990), and other-group orientation
(Phinney, 1992) reflect components ofPreparation for Bias and Promotion of Mistrust
that encompass transmission of attitudes and behaviors of ethnic minority families facing
experiences of discrimination or barriers due to minority status.
Drawing from these studies, and through consultation with experts in the field of
ethnic minority research and child and family interventions, two behavioral observation
paradigms were developed: 1) familial discussions on important aspects of family culture,
and 2) familial discussions on coping with experiences of discrimination.
28
Stage 2: Development and Piloting ofthe Observational Paradigm: The Observational
Paradigm for Ethnic-Racial Socialization (OPERS)
Behavioral observational interaction paradigms capturing familial messages
regarding the transmission of culture and messages on discrimination were developed.
Paradigm structure was based on the behavioral observational paradigms developed by
Dishion and colleagues (2002) to assess family management dimensions critical for
family centered interventions. Families were asked to participate in several videotaped
interactions that involved 5 minute discussions on the following family management
topics: school involvement, monitoring and supervision, family culture, discrimination,
family problem solving, substance use norms, and a family celebration). Two of the seven
paradigms, specifically, the discussion on family culture and discrimination were
developed by the author as part of the intervention assessment package.
Stage 3: Recruitment and Conducting Focus Groups
Integrating focus groups was a critical step in developing the behavioral
observation task and coding system on familial ethnic-racial socialization. Focus group
members were recruited from the targeted communities using flyers or contacts with
community members and stakeholders (i.e. through word of mouth). Focus group
participants were selected based on the following two criteria: 1) families with a child
between the ages of 10-14, and 2) residing in the targeted communities (Northeast
Portland, OR; Klamath Falls, OR).
Focus group families interested in participating in the study were provided a brief
description of their involvement in the development of the Observational Paradigm for
29
Ethnic-Racial Socialization (OPERS) and its companion coding system, the
Observational Measure for Ethnic-Racial Socialization (OMERS). Specifically, families
were informed that they will participate in two sessions: 1) the piloting of the
observational paradigms that involved participation in each paradigm (family culture and
discrimination), and 2) a session to share critical feedback and recommendations for
paradigm and companion observational codes. Consenting focus group participants were
asked to read and sign an informed consent form that described study aims,
confidentiality of participant information, possible risks associated with focus group
participation, and participant responsibility in maintaining confidentiality of the
information disclosed in the pilot interactions.
A total of 6 families (2 European American, 2 African American, and 2 American
Indian) were recruited as focus group participants. Focus group sessions were conducted
separately for the purposes of: 1) allowing families to openly talk about their experiences
of participating in the observational paradigms, 2) allowing families to provide their
perceptions ofthe appropriateness of the tasks for members in their community, and 3)
maintaining confidentiality of the personal discussions conducted during the behavioral
observation tasks.
Consented focus group families first participated in the piloting of the
observational tasks. Families were provided instructions for each family discussion, prior
to the videotaping of the task. Second, at the completion of the family interaction tasks,
focus group families were asked to join the research team to share their experiences of
participating in the videotaped family interaction tasks as well as their perspectives on the
30
appropriateness and salience of discussing topics such as family culture and experiences
of discrimination. Examples of the qualitative data from these focus group meetings are
summarized in tables 1 and 2 below.
Table 1. Example Focus Group Responses on Family Culture Paradigm
Comments on pilot task
American
Indian
African
American
European
American
" .. culture task was a good one, important. ... .it is good to talk about
something we value .." (parent)
" ...part of being Black is we get treated different. ....even though we get the
same education... .it is good to have a chance to talk about it" (parent)
" .... its just what we do .. .I guess it is different from others ... " (child)
" ... the family culture discussion was hard to talk about ...we don't really
have a culture ...just do the regular American ho1idays .."(parent)
Table 2. Example Focus Group Responses on Discrimination Paradigm
Comments on pilot task
American
Indian
African
American
European
American
" ...we get discriminated a lot...don't talk much about it ..." (parent)
"it is.. every day thing .... .important to talk about it ... " (parent)
" the discussion was good .... even though its an important issue, we never
talked about it.. ... this discussion opens talking about to my kids" (parent)
"I'm glad we are talking about it. We don't talk enough about it" (parent)
" it was cool to hear mom's story.....didn't know all she dealt with" (child)
"topic on discrimination was interesting....probab1y good to talk about,
since we are in a diverse city" (parent)
"it was a bit difficult to talk about...we don't experience it much" (parent)
"didn't really know what it is ...so hard to talk about it" (child)
Qualitative data gathered from the focus groups were reviewed by the research
team and cultural experts in ethnic minority mental health. The qualitative information
31
was then integrated with theoretical and empirical evidence on potential dimensions of
ethnic-racial socialization. The integrated information served as a basis from which the
behavioral observation paradigm and companion coding system were revised. Examples
ofmodifications made included a) tailoring the paradigm instructions to incorporate
focus group family's suggestions, b) providing options for the location of the assessment
(i.e. at home or at the research field office) and c) providing flexibility around who family
members included in the assessment procedures (e.g. inclusion of extended family).
The finalized paradigm consisted of two five minute family interactions: a) a
discussion on family culture, and b) a discussion on experiences of coping with
discrimination. Instructions for the finalized paradigm consisted of the following:
1) Family Culture
(to the family) "Please talk about your family s culture and what you
think is important for parents to teach their children in your culture? "
"Do you have any questions? I'll be back in 5 minutes"
2) Discrimination
(to the teen) "Please discuss an experience ofdiscrimination that you or
someone around you has faced. Tell us how you coped or they have coped
with the experience ofdiscrimination".
(to the parent) "After (the child) talks, discuss what are the best ways to
cope with discrimination that fit your cultural andfamily values ".
"Do you have any questions? I'll be back in 5 minutes".
32
Stage 4: Development and Refinement ofthe Companion Coding System:
The Observational Measure ofEthnic-Racial Socialization (OMERS)
Following the development of the observational paradigm, subsequent sessions
with families from the focus groups were conducted to review the observational codes
and accompanying coding manual for each paradigm (Family Culture, Experience of
Discrimination). Focus group participants were asked select questions on discrimination
as well as socializing their children to particular cultural or family values (see Table 3).
Table 3. Example Questions Asked ofFocus Groups
Questions asked focus group participants
Family Culture
Discrimination
What do parents of your culture view as essential for children to
know and to learn about when they are growing up?
Do you think discussing family history is relevant to families of
your culture?
What values do you wish your child to have?
What examples do you have or know of where children have been
discriminated against?
What are the coping styles that people in your culture use when you
encounter discrimination?
How often do families talk about discrimination?
This process was integral in not only gathering anecdotal information that represented a
general theme, but it also allowed for the author to learn unexpected aspects of families'
ethnic-racial socialization processes that may have not been apparent from the literature
(e.g. conflict between American Indian community and the European American farmers
33
regarding water supplies). Feedback from the focus groups on the Observational Measure
for Ethnic-Racial Socialization COMERS) played a critical role in expanding the range
and depth ofcodes that tapped into the cultural and social experiences, beliefs, values and
perspectives related to ethnic-racial socialization processes among European American,
African American and American Indian families. Qualitative data from these discussions
with the focus groups were then compiled, and reviewed with cultural consultants. All
sessions were conducted either in person or by phone depending on the availability of the
families.
Once feedback was gathered from the focus groups, qualitative data was
integrated within the theoretical and empirical literature. Specifically, common themes
from the qualitative data were identified, and mapped onto the theoretical constructs
identified in the literature. Similarly, using empirically validated measures of ethnic
socialization and racial socialization, qualitative data from the focus groups were
matched and categorized with the appropriate subscales and items. The integration of
qualitative data with the ethnic-racial socialization domains are summarized in Tables 4
and 5.
Table 4. Common Aspects ofFamily Culture among American Indians, African
Americans, and European Americans in the North West
34
American Indians African Americans European
Americans
Cultural
values
Cultural
identity
Spirituality
Hannony
No conflict
Extended family is
the social network
Respect elders
Honor elders
Some affiliation to
culture
Spirituality is
important
Powwows
Prayer
Communalism
Emphasis on community
and family
Importance ofkinship
relations
Cooperation
Awareness of racial
disparities
Identifying as Black is
seen as a source of
pride
Spirituality is important
Attending church
Use of prayer
Independence
Autonomy
Working hard to
achieve one's
goals
Focus on the
immediate
family unit
Diffused ethnic
identity
Some affiliate
with European
heritage
Depends on
affiliation
35
Table 5. Common Experiences ofDiscrimination among American Indians, African
Americans, and European Americans in the North West
American Indians African Americans European
Americans
Experiences of
discrimination
Attitudes
toward
discrimination
Perception of
interethnic
relations
Overt verbal
discrimination
Police harassment
High tension
between Whites
and American
Indians
Unacceptable
Best not to retaliate
Anger, mistrust of
Whites
Relations with
Whites is strained
and difficult
Overt, subtle
discrimination
Get less opportunities
Exclusion of
resources
Unacceptable
Should educated/be
educated about it
Defend your
expenences
Important to talk to
other groups
Generally promotes
relations with whites
Discrimination is
not a daily
experience
Witness some
discrimination
Discrimination is
not socially
acceptable
Limited actual
interethnic
relations
Using the integrated qualitative data and literature as a basis, over a course of
several meetings with cultural experts and the research team, the author developed the
Observational Measure for Ethnic-Racial Socialization (OMERS) coding system, which
consisted of observational codes and an accompanying coding manual for each paradigm
described in Step 3. The OMERS uses macro rating, a method that requires observers to
synthesize interactions and apply a global impression. Macro ratings were considered the
optimal method of capturing ethnic-racial socialization processes because they capture
summaries of patterns of interaction among family members thus, capture relevant
outcomes to extended processes. The OMERS is a 41 item coding system that assesses
the following domains: a) Cultural Socialization, b) Ethnic Identity Exploration, c)
36
Preparation for Bias, d) Promotion of Mistrust, e) Racial Awareness, f) Other Group
Orientation, g) Family Centeredness, and h) Spiritual Involvement. All codes assess
various ethnic-racial socialization processes using a 9 point scale, with codes for each
informant (child, mother, and father). For the purposes of this study, due to the small
sample size of fathers, only mother and child codes were examined. Reliability and
validity of the codes were assessed in Phases II and III of this project.
Methods for Phases 11-VI
Participants
Participants included a total of 140 European American, African American and
American Indian adolescents between the ages of 10-14 and their families participating in
two ongoing family centered preventive interventions targeting the development of
problem behavior among early adolescents.
Specifically, this study examined a subset of data from two distinct samples:
Sample 1 consisted of a subsample of 58 American Indian adolescents (26 male, 32
female) and their families participating in an ongoing family centered intervention trial
(Family Prevention of Youth AOD in Indian Communities grant, PI: Alison Ball,
#5R01AA012702) targeting a total of 104 American Indian youth in a rural American
Indian reservation in the Pacific Northwest. American Indian youth between the ages of
10-14 were selected. Ifthere was more than one target child between the ages of 10-14 in
one household, a computer generated random assignment procedure was used to select
one child per household to eliminate any correlated errors due to sibling effects.
Sample 2 consisted of a subsample of 50 European American (29 male, 21
37
female), 32 African American adolescents (19 male, 13 female) among 386 youth and
their families participating in an ongoing family centered intervention trial in a Northwest
metropolitan area (The Family Intervention for Adolescent Problem Behavior grant, PI:
Elizabeth Stormshak; #lROlDA018374). Youths from Sample 1 and Sample 2 were
matched on adolescent age.
Adolescents and their families were selected based on the following criteria: 1)
completion of the observational assessment procedure at baseline, and 2) adolescents
between the ages of 10-14. All youth and families for this study were those randomly
selected into the intervention condition, since the home-based assessments of which the
observational assessment was part of, was conducted only with intervention families.
Interventions for the two samples are based on the Adolescent Transitions Program (ATP,
Dishion et aI, 2002), a family centered intervention targeting the development of
externalizing behaviors among early adolescents. As a result, assessment and intervention
procedures across the two interventions followed the procedures outlined in the ATP
intervention model.
We drew the sample for this exploratory study from the two distinct samples for
the following reasons. First, current literature on ethnic-racial socialization has largely
focused on African American children and their families, and very few studies have
examined both ethnic and racial socialization processes among other ethnic groups
(Hughes et aI, 2006). Second, ethnic-racial socialization processes have been rarely
examined among American Indian youth and their families, despite historical
documentation of discriminatory acts against this particular ethnic group. Third, similar
38
to African Americans, American Indians have a long history of generational trauma due
to discrimination and racism that has passed down negative influences of these
experiences to current generations (Kawamoto, 2000), thus examination of ethnic-racial
socialization processes are central in understanding youth functioning.
Recruitment ofSample
American Indian adolescents and theirfamilies: Sample 1. Within each ofthe
communities, a sample of 104 high risk youth between the ages of 9 and 16 and their
families within an American Indian reservation in the Pacific Northwest were recruited.
Families were targeted and recruited through tribal social service programs, local schools,
tribal meetings, tribal community events, and advertised through local and tribal
newspapers. In addition, intermediary staffpersons within the reservation informed
families about the research. A flyer and introductory letter informing potential subjects of
the research project were mailed. All American Indian families residing within the
community with a child between the ages of 8 and 16 were invited to participate in the
Community Shadow Project.
The sequence of contacts for American Indian families involved an introductory
letter, flyer, telephone call, and a home visit. The families were provided a choice of
contact (whether they prefer to be contacted by research project staff via a home visit, by
telephone, or dropping by the Family Resource Center). Research staff described the
project and fully informed all the participants ofthe research protocol, their rights, and
the consent process. Consented families were then contacted to participate in the Family
Assessment. Details of recruitment procedures are reported in the Family Prevention of
39
Youth AOD in Indian Communities grant (PI: Alison Ball; #5 ROlAA012702).
European American and African American adolescents and their families:
Sample 2. Recruitment of 386 adolescents and their families was conducted over several
stages. Families were recruited into the study in the fall of the 6th-grade year. During
recruitment, families were informed about the ATP intervention program and were
provided consent for student participation in the school-based assessment at the middle of
6th grade. All students in the 6th grade were eligible to participate in the assessment.
During the student assessment phase, letters from the principal and consent forms were
mailed out or sent horne from school with the youth. Classroom incentives were provided
for the return of forms, and follow-up phone calls were made to parents who do not
complete the form. Youth and their families participating in the study provided consent
and adolescent assent. All families were informed of confidentiality and potential
research use of their data. After the school assessment, families were then recruited for
the Family Assessment, the first phase of the intervention project. All students and
families in the 6th-grade cohort eligible for participation in the ATP intervention were
assigned randomly to either the intervention or control group. Details of the recruitment
procedures for ATP intervention are reported in the Family Intervention for Adolescent
Problem Behavior Grant (lROIDA018374, PI: Elizabeth Stormshak).
Family Assessment: Procedures for Sample 1 and 2
The Family Assessment consisted of three sessions: (a) a rapport-building, initial
interview with the parentes); (b) a brief assessment packet to the parent, adolescent, and
teacher, and a videotaped family interaction assessment; and (c) a feedback session,
40
where the results of the assessment and initial interview are discussed with the parent,
with attention focused on the parent's readiness to change and the delineation of specific
change options. All families in the intervention groups for Sample land 2 received the
Family Assessment.
Data for this current study was derived from the assessment measures, interview
and behavioral observational family interaction assessment conducted in the first two
sessions of the Family Assessment. Further details on the feedback session and
intervention procedures are reported in grants # 5 R01AA012702 and # 1
R01DA018374.
Youth Report Measures
Ethnic identity. The Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM; Phinney, 1992)
is a 14 item measure of ethnic identity. The measure has a reported reliability of .81 with
high-school students. Two subcomponents of ethnic identity are also assessed: (a)
affirmation and sense of belonging and (b) ethnic identity achievement based on
exploration and commitment. This measure was successfully used in our Portland trial
where we found that ethnic identity was significantly related to a variety of psychological
adjustment measures, such as lower depression and externalizing behaviors (Yasui et aI.,
2005).
Spiritual involvement. Adolescent spiritual or religious involvement was
measured using 6 items describing both adolescent and their families' affiliation and
participation in religious activities. Items include "I think about religion or spirituality
daily" "I find strength and comfort in religion, spirituality" "I pray, worship or meditate".
41
The spiritual involvement scale had a reliability of .85 to .95 across Sample 1 and 2.
Unfair treatment/Experiences ofdiscrimination. Experiences of unfair
treatment/discrimination was determined using 7 items assessing the extent to which the
adolescent received unfair treatment from multiple sources (e.g. teacher, police, peers)
based on their race or skin color. Examples of items include "I was bothered by unfair
treatment by police because of my race or skin color" "I was bothered by being called
racist names" "I was bothered by being followed in a store because of my race or skin
color". The 7 item measure has a reliability of .85 with Sample 1, and .84 with Sample 2.
Antisocial behavior. The adolescent antisocial behavior measure included eight
items on the frequency of antisocial behavior that was derived from a self-report measure
(Metzler, Biglan, Ary, & Li, 1998). Examples of items include carried or handled a
weapon, intentionally hit or threatened to hit someone at school, stole or tried to steal
things worth $5.00 or more. The antisocial measure had reliability of .83 for Sample 1
and .80 for Sample 2.
Deviant peer association. Deviant peer association was measured using four items
that assessed peer associations (u = .79). The four items include "spent time last week
with friends who get in trouble", "spent time last week with friends who fight a lot",
"spent time last week with friends who take things that are not theirs", and "spent time
last week with friends who smoke cigarettes or chew tobacco". The 4 item measure has a
reliability of .83 with Sample 1, and .79 with Sample 2.
Depression. Adolescent depressive symptoms were measured using fourteen
items. Examples of items include "in the last month 1 felt depressed or sad" "bothered by
42
loss of appetite" "felt hopeless" "felt worthless". Reliability for Sample 1 was .81, and
Sample 2, .84.
Family conflict. Family conflict was measured using five items. The five items
include "In the last week how many times did you get angry at your parentis?", "In the
last week how many times did you argue at the dinner table?", "In the last week how
many times did you get in a big argument about a little thing?", "In the last week how
many times did you get so mad that you hit the other person?", and "In the last week how
many times did you get your way by getting angry?". The family conflict scale had a
reliability of .78 to .81 across the two samples.
Positive family relations. The positive family relations scale was measured using
7 items describing positive family involvement, high relationship quality and family
support. Example items include "My parents and I get along well with each other"
"Family members back each other up" "parents trust my judgment". The scale indicated
reliability of .87 (Sample 1) and .83 (Sample 2).
Parental monitoring. Parental monitoring was assessed using 9 items measuring
the degree to which parents supervise and monitor their adolescent's time out of school,
monitors the adolescent's peers and activities, and adolescent's involvement in school
activities. Reliability for the scale ranged from .91 to .93 across Sample 1 and 2.
Observational Paradigms: Parent-child Interactions
The family completed a series of seven 5 minute parent-child interactions that was
part of the horne visit. This current study will focus on two of the seven paradigms
completed by the family, namely, a) a family discussion on the transmission of family
43
culture, and b) a family discussion on coping with experiences of discrimination. At the
beginning of each paradigm, a research assistant provided the family with instructions for
the discussion which is provided in Phase I.
Paradigm 1: Cultural transmission within the family. The observation procedure
consisted of a discussion of what family values and aspects of their culture that they
believed would be important in teaching their children, as well as for others outside their
culture to know about. Parents and the youth were asked to participate in the 5 minute
discussion.
Paradigm 2: Cultural transmission ofcoping with discrimination. The family
observation on coping with discrimination consisted of a parent-child interaction in
which the adolescent described his or her experience of discrimination. After describing
the event, the child was asked to talk about how he or she coped/would cope with the
event. After the child has finished describing the event, the parent is asked to describe
their view on coping with racial discrimination. The discussion takes approximately 5
minutes.
Observational Coding Procedures
Direct observations of cultural transmission were coded using macroanalytic
coding. Coding integrated information gathered from two dimensions: content and
interpersonal dimensions. Content dimensions included the following: cultural values,
cultural history, minority experience, cultural norms, family history, family expectations,
peer group norms, and expectations. Interpersonal dimensions were coded on dimensions
of encouragement, agreement, support, listening, approval, criticism, hostility,
44
reciprocity, and match of affect.
Coder recruitment. Recruitment of ten multiethnic coders was conducted at the
University of Oregon. Ethnic backgrounds of the coders included European American,
African American, American Indian, Asian American and Latino. Four of the ten coders
were male. Coders ranged between the ages of 19 and 31. All coders were undergraduate
students emolled at the University of Oregon. The majors of the coders included
psychology, linguistics, human physiology, and education.
Coder training. The training of coders was directed by the author. Training
included two stages. The first stage consisted of an initial training of coders on culture
and ethnic minority youth and families. This initial training included guided readings,
viewing various media central to issues of discrimination and culture, and observing
numerous videotaped family interactions of families of varying ethnicities. The guided
readings included reading and discussing literature on a) sociopolitical and cultural
influences that impact ethnic minority groups (e.g. discrimination, prejudice,
acculturation), and b) culturally specific processes within the familial context (e.g.
culturally specific parenting practices, cultural beliefs, values, attitudes and behaviors).
Training using media related to the topics of discrimination and culture consisted of
viewing, then discussing what each coder observed in the documentaries, educational
resources and clips from movies that represented ethnic minority individual's experiences
with discrimination, prejudice, and oppression. Third, after coders acquired a basic
knowledge of the cultural and sociopolitical influences on ethnic minority youth and
families via readings and media, the coding team reviewed roughly 12 videotaped family
45
interactions of families of varying ethnicity (e.g. African American, European American,
Latino, American Indian, Asian American and mixed ethnicities). The team discussed
what they observed in the family interactions, specifically whether they identified
interactions that reflected the transmission of culture or messages related to coping with
discrimination. The joint observation of the videotapes in conjunction with open
discussion of coders' observations was critical in helping coders develop an
understanding of what ethnic-racial socialization processes within the familial context
looked like. This initial training consisted of roughly 3 weeks of two 3 hour training
sessions per week.
The second stage of training consisted of the following steps: a) reading the
coding manual and memorizing observational codes, b) viewing training tapes and
discussing ratings of the codes, c) coders individually rating the same fan1ily interaction
for consensus meetings, d) checking coder reliabilities in consensus meetings, e)
discussing difficult to rate codes and practice rating these particular codes with additional
training tapes. First, reading and learning the observational codes involved meetings in
which the coding team reviewed, discussed and learned the observational codes and their
definitions until each coder had a clear understanding of what each code represented.
Second, the coding team viewed roughly 30 training tapes to which they discussed as a
group how each code be applied according to their definitions in the manual. Third, once
coders as a group showed a general understanding of how to apply the codes to particular
behaviors observed in the tapes, team meetings shifted to having coders individually code
a training tape, then as a team, review ratings of each coder to identify discrepancies.
46
When discrepancies were found, each coder provided a rationale as to why they gave a
certain rating for a particular interaction, and these explanations were then discussed in
light of the definitions in the coding manual. Fourth, as coders progressed in their
individual ratings during training consensus meetings, reliability checks were made to
determine interrater reliability. Interrater reliability was assessed using percentage
agreement. Coder ratings were considered reliable if they had over 85 percent agreement
with the calibrator, who was the author. Fifth, codes that were particularly difficult for
coders to reach reliability were reviewed. Using the definitions provided in the manual,
codes were discussed so that coders can come to a consensus on the behaviors and
interactions pertaining to the code. Then, the team practiced coding these specific codes
using additional training tapes. Practice coding of the specific codes were conducted until
coders reached reliability of above 85 percent agreement. Training coders on all these
steps was conducted during two 3-hour meetings per week. The training period lasted
roughly 8 months, of which the last month mainly involved checking coder reliability for
preventing coder drift.
Training coders to code two 5 minute interactions using global rating lasted
longer than expected. One major reason for the extended training period was due to the
fact that the two observational tasks (family culture and coping with discrimination) were
topics that coders ofdiffering backgrounds initially had differing opinions on. It was
critical for coders to spend a long time discussing their observations and rationale for
rating behaviors in a certain way and as a group come to a consensus on how to rate the
interactions observed during training sessions. The process by which the group came to
47
consensus on ratings was particularly critical, which included each coder providing their
views on why a particular code was coded in a certain way, and then comparing those
views to the definitions in the manual, as well as the knowledge the group had
accumulated on culture and ethnic minority youth and families. Having a multiethnic
group of coders was very important to this process, because in addition to the information
from focus groups, the literature and media, the team was able to draw from perspectives
of coders who represented the ethnic and cultural group of the families the coding team
observed during training. For example, two of the coders who were American Indian
provided the coding team a clearer understanding of acts of discrimination that occurred
in the community from which the American Indian sample was collected, which initially
was captured by some but not all coders. Integrating the perspectives of the coders was
thus, integral in consensus building. In addition, the inclusion of a multiethnic team of
coders was also critical for the purpose of restricting potential coder bias. In the author's
previous research, coder bias was found to be present among European American coders'
ratings of observed family interactions ofAfrican American families (Yasui & Dishion, in
press). Since our current sample utilized a diverse group of youth and families (African
American, European American, and American Indian), and further, some coders had
limited knowledge, in particular ofAmerican Indian culture, it was crucial for the team to
learn from the perspectives of other coders in order to come to a group understanding and
consensus on how to rate particular codes, which in tum helped reduce any coder bias
that may have been initially present.
Once training was complete, coders were assigned to code the 140 videotaped
48
family interactions of the European American, African American, and American Indian
youth and their families. Coders were assigned approximately 4-5 tapes per week for
coding. For purposes of conducting reliability checks, 40 percent of the tapes were
double coded. A larger percentage of tapes were double coded to veer on the side of
parsimony in checking coder drift and maintaining reliability. When coder drift occurred,
the coders tentatively stopped coding the tapes and went through additional training
sessions with the author until the coder again reached reliability.
The Observational Measure for Ethnic-Racial Socialization (OMERS)
The Observational Measure for Ethnic-Racial Socialization (OMERS) developed
in Phase I was used to measure dimensions of ethnic-racial socialization among 140
African American, European American, and American Indian youth and their families.
The OMERS codes for the Family Culture Paradigm were designed to capture Cultural
Socialization as defined by Hughes and colleagues (2006) and Ethnic Identity
Achievement derived from Phinney's ethnic identity measure (1992). Specifically, the
codes captured messages surrounding the family's promotion/involvement in cultural
traditions, beliefs and customs; messages on promoting knowing cultural/ethnic history
and heritage, messages on family centeredness, and messages on spiritual involvement.
OMERS codes for the Discrimination Paradigm were based on Hughes and colleagues'
(2006) dimensions of Preparation for Bias and Mistrust, and Phinney's (1992) construct,
Other-Group Orientation. Specifically, codes tapped messages on proactive methods of
coping with discrimination, messages that captured family's awareness of racism and
discrimination, messages related to defensive racial protocols, as well as messages
49
regarding interethnic relations.
The OMERS is a 41 item coding system that measures the following aspects of
ethnic-racial socialization: for the Family Culture Paradigm, the domains of a) Cultural
Socialization, b) Ethnic Identity Exploration, c) Family Centeredness, and d) Spiritual
Involvement; and for the Discrimination Paradigm, the domains of e) Preparation for
Bias, f) Promotion ofMistrust, g) Racial Awareness, and f) Other Group Orientation. All
codes use a 9 point scale. Separate codes are derived for each informant (child, mother,
and father). Due to the small sample sizes of fathers, for the purposes of this study, we
only examined mother and child codes. Internal consistency of the codes are indicated in
the Phase II results section of this project.
50
CHAPTER III
RESULTS (PHASES II-VI)
Phase II: Detennining Factor Structure
In order to detennine the underlying factor structure of the Observational Measure
for Ethnic-Racial Socialization (OMERS), exploratory factor analyses and confinnatory
factor analyses were conducted. Confinnatory factor analyses were first conducted to
examine whether the observational data represented the theoretical constructs detennined
by Hughes et al (2006) and Phinney (1992). Confinnatory factor analysis allows for
specifying which variables will be correlated with which factors and which factors are
correlated, which is based on theoretical models. For the purposes of this current study,
empirical as well as theoretical dimensions of ethnic-racial socialization identified by
several researchers (Hughes et aI, 2006; Hughes & Chen, 1997; Stevenson, 2002) have
served as the model by which we tested the fit of the observational measures.
Confinnatory factor analysis was used to examine the optimal match between the
observed and theoretical factor structures for the data in order to detennine the "goodness
of fit" of the predetennined factor models. Based on the literature, the Discrimination
Paradigm was expected to derive three main constructs: Preparation of Bias, Promotion
of Mistrust and Other Group Orientation. The Family Culture Paradigm was
hypothesized to derive three constructs: Cultural Socialization, Spiritual Involvement and
Collectivism.
51
Confirmatory Factor Analyses: Three Factor Model
Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted in Mp1us (Muthe'n & Muthe'n,
2004). Results indicated that the three factor model for the Discrimination Paradigm
demonstrated a poor fit, Parent Codes X2 = 823.30, df=206, CFI =. 67, RMSEA= .11; and
Child Codes, X2 = 722.38, df=206, CFI =. 83, RMSEA= .11. Similarly, a three factor model
for the Family Culture Paradigm indicated poor fit, Parent Codes X2 = 1002.41, df= 146, CFI
=.74, RMSEA= .16; and Child Codes, X2 = 555.25, df=146, CFI =.85.
Due to the fact that confirmatory factor analyses indicated that the model did not
fit the data well, we decided to identify the underlying factor structure using exploratory
factor analyses. Exploratory factor analyses were conducted to investigate the possibility
that particular items were driving the poor fits ofthe two overall models. Thus,
exploratory factor analyses were conducted on codes for the discrimination paradigm and
codes for the family culture paradigm to weed out items that had factor loadings of less
than .40, and factors that had less than three items with loadings of .40 and above.
Exploratory Factor Analyses
Exploratory factor analyses using varimax rotation was conducted on the codes
from the discrimination and family culture paradigm. Missing values were deleted on a
pairwise basis for these factor analyses. However, analyses using listwise deletion yielded
virtually identical results. Comparison of the listwise and pairwise deletion samples did
not reveal any significant differences in demographic characteristics. Sample sizes for the
analyses included a total of 140 African American, European American and American
Indian youth and their parents. Each code was measured separately for the target child
-------------
52
and the primary caregiver (mothers for all 140 families). We selected factors for
extraction guided by evaluation of eigenvalues and scree plots and conducted all analyses
by source and theorized subscale. All final factor solutions had eigenvalues above 1.00.
Specifically, for the discrimination paradigm: range was 3.13 to 3.67 for analyses of child
codes, 2.10 to 6.76 for analyses ofparent codes; and for the family culture paradigm, the
range was 2.43 to 4.67 for analyses of child codes, 1.90 to 3.34 for analyses ofparent
codes. On the basis of these solutions, we identified scales that were consistent across
both child and parent codes.
For the discrimination paradigm, we expected up to three theoretical factors for
parent and child codes, representing the socialization constructs: Preparation for Bias,
Promotion of Mistrust, and Other-Group Orientation. Factor analysis, however, supported
a four factor solution, in which eight items that initially were expected to load on
Preparation for Bias, loaded on a separate factor, which was labeled "Racial Awareness".
Additionally, we relabeled the factor with items that loaded onto Preparation for Bias, as
"Proactive Preparation" as the items reflected a proactive coping strategy for
discrimination. The items and item loadings, are listed by source in Table 6. Cross-source
scores for the total sample correlated significantly: Proactive Preparation, (r = .54, p <
.01), Racial Awareness (r = .46,p < .01), Promotion ofMistrust (r = .57,p < .01), and
Other-Group Orientation (r = .39,p < .01).
Table 6. Ethnic-Racial Socialization Dimensions Derivedfrom the Discrimination
Paradigm: Retained Items and Factor Loadings by Source
53
Item Parent Child
Proactive Preparation
Promotes educating others, talking to others about discrimination .82
Engages/promotes non-aggressive verbal confrontation .64
Engages/promotes using social support to cope with discrimination .64
Engages/promotes problem solving to cope with discrimination .65
Racial Awareness
Shows that discrimination is a serious issue .74
Actively engaged in discussion on discrimination .97
Directive in discrimination discussion .86
Participates in discussion on discrimination .81
Seriously responds to discrimination discussion .42
Lack of interest in discrimination discussion (reverse coded) .46
Perspective on discrimination is that it is unacceptable .40
% Family members discuss issues about discrimination .61
Promotion o(Mistrust
Promotes engaging in the hatred, getting back at perpetrator .83
Responds with defensive attitudes to discrimination .51
Engages/promotes physically confronting perpetrator .42
Engage/promotes aggressive verbal confrontation with perpetrator .75
Responds with anger to discrimination .40
Promotes internalization/taking act of discrimination personally .40
Other-Group Orientation
Emphasizes the importance of relationship with mainstream .91
Emphasizes the importance of relationships with minority group .80
Emphasizes social involvement with other ethnic groups .61
Promotes the attitude of embracing diversity .51
.56
.55
.62
.65
.77
.95
.91
.88
.68
.80
.63
.61
.98
.84
.81
.82
.41
.54
.82
.96
.65
.40
54
Table 7. Ethnic-Racial Socialization Dimensions Derived/rom the Family Culture
Paradigm: Retained Items and Factor Loadings by Source
Item Parent Child
Cultural Socialization
Family appears to value their membership in a cultural group .95
Has knowledge about their cultural/ethnic traditions and customs .75
Participates, values cultural traditions, customs, practices .71
Family promotes being proud/emphasizes one's heritage .91
Family appears to be content in their membership to their culture .70
Emphasizes passing down cultural family values .48
Familv Centeredness
Family emphasizes that harmony is important .67
Family emphasizes supporting others is important .74
Family emphasizes honoring their elders, extended family .48
Family emphasizes respecting to parents, extended family .46
Family emphasizes that connectedness is important .60
Spiritual Involvement
Family reports that spirituality is important .97
Family emphasizes involvement in spiritual activities .72
Spirituality/ religion is an important part of life .99
Family encourages relying or depending on spirituality' .90
Ethnic Heritage Exploration
Emphasizes knowing history of ethnic/cultural group .93
Family discusses cultural history .85
Family emphasizes the importance ofleaming about their heritage .55
Family discusses their ethnic group's history .58
.88
.84
.76
.87
.64
.50
.74
.64
.63
.67
.65
.92
.85
.98
.89
.93
.74
.73
.76
For the family culture paradigm, we again expected up to three theoretical factors
for parent and child codes, reflecting the three constructs: Cultural Socialization,
Spirituality, and Collectivism. Factor analysis instead, supported a four factor structure in
which four items that were expected to load on the Cultural Socialization factor
represented a separate factor, which was labeled "Ethnic Heritage Exploration". The
55
items, item loadings, and internal consistency coefficients are listed by source in Tables 7.
Cross-source scores for following scales correlated significantly, for Cultural
Socialization (r = .53, P < .001), Family Centeredness (r = .42, p < .001), Spiritual
Involvement (r = .37,p < .001), and Ethnic Heritage Exploration (r = .35,p < .001).
Confirmatory Factor Analyses: Four Factor Model
In order to determine whether the four factor solutions fit the models well,
confirmatory factor analyses were conducted. For the discrimination paradigm, we assessed
a four-factor solution to examine whether the dimensions of a) Proactive Preparation, b)
Racism Awareness, c) Promotion of Mistrust, and d) Other Group Orientation fit the sample
data. As shown in Figures 1and 2, this model fit the data relatively well, Parent Codes X2 =
376.5, df=190, CFI =.91, RMSEA= .06; and Child Codes, X2 = 380.6, df=192, CFI =.94,
RMSEA= .06.
For the family culture paradigm, a four factor solution examined the fit of the
dimensions: a) Cultural Socialization, b) Family Centeredness, c) Spiritual Involvement, and
d) Ethnic Heritage Exploration. The models fit relatively well, for Parent Codes, X2 = 446.1,
df=212, CFI =. 94, RMSEA== .06; and for Child Codes, X2 == 471.1, df=217, CFI =.92,
RMSEA== .07 (see Figures 3 and 4).
56
Figure 1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Discrimination Paradigm - Parent Codes
Other-Group
Orientation
Promotion
of
Mistrust
.61
.80
.90
Educate
Pos Verbal ProactiveConfront~tion
Social Suprt
Preparation
Prob Solve .65
.41 *
Takes serious
Eng. discussion
Directive
Racism!
Participates Discrimination
Awareness
unacceptable
Interested
Eng, in hatred
Aggressive verbal
rei wi mainstream
Defensive
% participate
Get physical
rei wi minority
Social wloth gp I<lIlI .51
Embrace diversity~
~An=g=e=r==::::;! ~
Internalize I
57
Figure 2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Discrimination Paradigm - Child Codes
Other-Group
Orientation
rei wi minority
.65
.82
.96
Social wloth gp i<lIl
I .42
Embrace diversity r----
rei wi mainstream
58
Figure 3. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Family Culture Paradigm- Parent Codes
.67
.48*
Ethnic Heritage
Exploration
Spiritual
Involvement
Cultural
Socialization
Family
Centeredness
Spirituality
important
I.~Honor elders ~ .46
Respect I
Support others
Harmony
Pass down
values
Connectedness
Participate
Imp. membership
Ethnic pride
Know traditions
Content w gp
Spr. Involvement
Knowhistory~
Discuss history r------z
L h · r .55earn entage ;3---
Discuss history~
I .72.... .99
Spr. part of life I~:======~
Rely on spr.
59
Figure 4. Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Family Culture Paradigm- Child Codes
.53*
Spiritual
Involvement
Ethnic Heritage
Exploration
Cultural
Socialization
Family
Centeredness
.92
.65
Spirituality
important
Support others
Honor elders~
I
.67
Respect
Harmony
Imp. membership
Pass down
values
Participate
Know traditions
Connectedness
Ethnic pride
Content w gp
Spr. part oflife
Spr. Involvement
Know hi"o",~
Discuss history I ~
Learn heritage r~-----
i ~Discuss history~ .50
IlIIl .85
~
L-R_e_ly_o_n_s_pr_.--~
60
Across the Discrimination and Family Culture Paradigms, the four factor solution
indicated improved fit to the data compared to the three factor model (see Table 8).
Table 8. Confirmatory Factor Analyses: Overall Fit ofModels
Scale and fitted model x: df RMSEA CFI
Discrimination Paradigm
Child Codes
Three Factor Model 722.38 206 .12 .83
Four Factor Model 380.60 205 .06 .94
Parent Codes
Three Factor Model 823.30 206 .11 .67
Four Factor Model 376.51 205 .06 .94
Familv Culture Paradigm
Child Codes
Three Factor Model 555.25 146 .12 .85
Four Factor Model 284.84 145 .06 .95
Parent Codes
Three Factor Model 1002.41 146 .16 .74
Four Factor Model 291.20 145 .06 .95
RMSEA = Root mean squared error of approximation; CFI= comparative fit index.
Internal Consistency ofEthnic-Racial Socialization Codes
Internal consistency of the scales derived from the factor analyses were next
examined separately for each ethnic group. Reliability analyses indicated that all scales
reported internal consistency coefficient of above. 80 across European American, African
American and American Indian youth and parent codes.
61
Phase III: Examining Convergent and Ecological Validity: Comparisons by Ethnicity
Descriptive Statistics
Preliminary analyses examined ethnic differences in observational codes across
African American, European American and American Indian adolescents and their
families. Univariate ANOVAs in which simple comparisons using European American
youth as the reference group were conducted. The Bonferroni correction for the number
of significant differences at the .05 level was used, which suggested p<.03 1as the
significance level. Means, standard deviations and ANOVA simple comparisons are
indicated in Table 9.
Table 9. Means and Standard Deviations ofObservational Codes by Ethnicity
American
Indian
Racial Awareness (child) 4.70 (1.19)
Racial Awareness (parent) 4.83 (.67)
Promotion of Mistrust (child) 2.81 (1.46)
Promotion of Mistrust (parent) 2.06 (1.24)
Other-Group Orientation (child) 1.15 (.46)
Other-Group Orientation (parent) 1.10 (.28)
Proactive Preparation (child) 2.62 (1.70)
Proactive Preparation (parent) 3.03 (1.99)
Cultural Affiliation (child) 3.28 (1.00)
Cultural Affiliation (parent) 3.60 (1.34)
Family Centeredness (parent) 4.02 (1.49)
Family Centeredness (child) 4.61 (1.55)
Ethnic Heritage Exploration (child) 1.50 (.94)
Ethnic Heritage Exploration (parent) 1.92 (.99)
Spiritual Involvement (child) 1.82 (.93)
Spiritual Involvement (parent) 2.30 (1.44)
* a set at .003 for Bonferroni corrections
African
American
5.27 (.79)
4.75 (.61)
3.04 (1.79)
1.97 (1.26)
2.15 (1.35)
2.08 (1.35)
2.63 (1.65)
3.00 (1.96)
3.56 (1.66)
3.91 (1.66)
4.20 (1.12)
4.62 (1.25)
2.48 (1.70)
2.58 (1.66)
1.89 (1.33)
2.31 (1.97)
European Contrasts
American
4.39 (.88) AA>EA
4.46 (.44) AI>EA
1.89 (1.51) AA,AI>EA
1.17 (.30) AA,AI>EA
1.77 (1.35) AA>EA
1.77 (1.34) AA>EA
1.98 (.100)AA,AI>EA
2.33 (1.23) AA,AI>EA
2.92 (.78) AA>EA
3.37 (1.05)
3.88 (.81)
4.39 (.76)
1.64 (1.12)AA,AI>EA
1.34 (1.01) AA>EA
1.74 (1.26)
2.25 (1.79)
62
Means and standard deviations of the codes indicated a trend in which American
Indian and African American youth and parents tended to score higher on the ethnic-
racial socialization codes compared to European American families, with the exception of
the Other-Group Orientation construct. Pairwise contrasts in ANOVA revealed that
Promotion of Mistrust (parent and child codes), Proactive Preparation (parent and child
codes) and Ethnic Heritage Exploration (child code) indicated significant differences in
levels of endorsement of these messages between European American versus African
American and American Indian families. In general, pairwise contrasts revealed that
African American families scored significantly higher than European American families
in the majority of the observational codes, except for Cultural Socialization (parent code),
Spiritual Involvement and Family Centeredness.
Descriptive analyses were also conducted for adolescent self reported data.
Domains of Cultural Experience (ethnic identity and experiences of discrimination),
Family Context (parental monitoring, positive family relations, family conflict) and
Adolescent Adjustment (Antisocial Behavior, Deviant Peer Association, and Depression
were examined. Means and standard deviations are provided in Table 10.
63
Table 10. Means and Standard Deviations ofAdolescent Survey Data by Ethnicity
American African European
Indian American American
Culture Based Variables
Discrimination 1.38 (.58) 1.17(.29) 1.10 (.26)
Ethnic Identity 3.54 (.43) 3.15 (.84) 2.69 (.85)
Adolescent Outcome Variables
Antisocial Behavior 1.29 (.33) 1.34 (.41) 1.09 (.24)
Deviant Peer Association 1.42 (1.43) 1.08 (1.22) .31 (.60)
Depression 1.95 (.72) 1.94 (.85) 1.83 (.95)
Family Context Variables
Positive Family Relation 4.00 (.70) 3.61 (1.10) 3.96 (.91)
Parental Monitoring 3.97 (.80) 4.03 (1.09) 4.50 (.62)
Family Conflict 3.32 (1.45) 2.89 (1.50) 2.43 (1.26)
Correlational Analyses
Correlations were conducted to examine the association between the
observational measures of ethnic-racial socialization and adolescent and parent reported
measures. Specifically, correlations were conducted among observed ethnic-racial
socialization measures and a) adolescent outcome measures, b) adolescent cultural
experiences, and c) adolescent family experiences. Correlations were conducted between
adolescent as well as parent observational codes and adolescent self report.
Adolescent Cultural Experiences
Correlations between observational ethnic-racial socialization codes and
adolescent self reported ethnic identity, perceived discrimination and spiritual
involvement were conducted. Results indicated significant correlations among the
behavioral observation constructs and self reported ethnic identity, spiritual involvement
64
and perceived discrimination for African American and American Indian youth, but not
for European American youth (see Table 11).
Adolescent Family Experiences
Correlations between observational ethnic-racial socialization codes and
adolescent self reported positive family relations, parental monitoring, parental rule
making and family conflict were conducted. Results indicated correlations were
significant between behavioral observation constructs and self reported Positive Family
Relations and Family Conflict for African American and American Indian youth, but not
for European American youth (see Table 12).
Adolescent Outcomes
Correlations between observational ethnic-racial socialization codes and
adolescent self reported antisocial behavior, deviant peer association and depression were
conducted. Results indicated significant correlations among the behavioral observation
constructs and self reported ethnic identity, spiritual involvement and experiences of
discrimination for African American and American Indian youth, but not for European
American youth (see Table 13).
Table 11. Correlations among Behavior Observation Ethnic-Racial Socialization Dimensions and Cultural Experience Variables
Behavioral Observation Dimensions ofEthnic-Racial Socialization
Ethnic Cultural Family Other Group Promotion of Proactive
Exploration Socialization Centeredness Orientation Mistrust Preparation
Racial
Awareness
Selfreport: EA youth
Ethnic identity .16 -.07 -.21 -.15 -.15 .01 -.08
Spirituality .12 .02 -.21 .05 -.08 .16 -.02
Discrimination .11 .02 .07 -.21 .23 -.13 -.19
Selfreport: AA youth
Ethnic identity .06 .54** .18 .27 .17 .65** -.37*
Spirituality -.19 .39* .05 .09 -.03 .24 .15
Discrimination -.17 -.01 -07 -.12 .39* .03 .17
Selfreport: AIyouth
Ethnic identity -.01 .43** .28* .21 -.10 .43** .13
Spirituality .26* .24 .31 * .02 .18 .14 .33*
Discrimination -.10 -.12 -.03 .10 .40* -.10 -.03
Note. t p<.06, *p < .05, **p < .01.
0'1
Vl
Table 12. Correlations among Behavior Observation Ethnic-Racial Socialization Dimensions and Family Context Variables
Behavioral Observation Dimensions ofEthnic-Racial Socialization
Ethnic Cultural Family Promotion of Proactive
Exploration Socialization Centeredness Mistrust Preparation
Racial
Awareness
Selfreport: EA youth
Parental Monitoring .19
Family Conflict -.13
Positive Family Relation .11
Self report: AA youth
Parental Monitoring -.07
Family Conflict -.02
Positive Family Relation -.01
Selfreport: AIyouth
Parental Monitoring .16
Family Conflict -.16
Positive Family Relation .22
Note. t p<.06, *p < .05, **p < .01.
.12
-.04
.12
.44*
-.25
-.47**
.28*
-.31 *
.53**
.15
-.09
.18
-.33t
-.33t
.41 **
-.15
-.32*
.25t
-.44*
.22
-.11
-.46*
-.01
-.34*
-.10
.52*
-.26*
.34*
.20
.34**
.32t
.10
.38**
.23
-.22
.33**
.15
-.24
.22
-.46*
-.05
.13
.10
.16
.18
0\
0\
Table 13. Correlations among Behavior Observation Ethnic-Racial Socialization Dimensions and Adolescent Outcomes
Behavioral Observation Dimensions ofEthnic-Racial Socialization
Ethnic Cultural Family Other Group Promotion of Proactive Racial
Exploration Socialization Centeredness Orientation Mistrust Preparation Awareness
Selfreport: EA youth
Antisocial Behavior -.02 -.07 -.02 -.12 -.12 -.26t -.13
Depression .25t .19 .02 -.24t .22 -.04 -.14
Deviant Peer Assn. .28t .08 .08 -.10 .23 -.23 -.15
Selfreport: AA youth
Antisocial Behavior .07 -.48** -.40** -.27 .52** -.15 .03
Depression -.16 -.34* -.31 t .04 .25 -.18 .15
Deviant Peer Assn. -.11 -.24 -.31 t -.11 .59** .02 .17
Selfreport: AIyouth
Antisocial Behavior -.24t .35* -.22 .06 .55** -.20 .12
Depression -.17 -.05 -.11 .02 .60** -.13 .13
Deviant Peer Assn. -.07 -.45* -.30** .08 .31 ** -.27* .08
Note. t p<.06, *p < .05, **p < .01.
0"1
-.....l
68
Phase N: Mediational Effects of Observed Ethnic-Racial Socialization
To investigate the possible mediational role of observed ethnic-racial socialization
dimensions in a) the relationship between perceived discrimination and adolescent
adjustment, and b) family factors and ethnic identity development, the analyses outlined
by Baron and Kenny (1986) were conducted (see Figure 5). First the mediator variable is
regressed on the independent variable. Second, the dependent variable is regressed on the
independent variable. Last, the dependent variable is regressed on both the mediator and
independent variables. A mediational relationship is present if a) the first two equations
are significant, b) the mediator is related to the dependent variable in the third equation,
and c) the effect of the independent variable is less in the third equation than it was in the
second equation. Mediation effects were examined for significance using the Sobel test
(Sobel, 1982) which detennines the significance of the indirect effect of the mediator by
testing the hypothesis of no difference between the total effect (path c) and the direct
effect (path c'). The indirect effect of the mediator is the product ofpath a*b which is
equal to (c - c' ). The Sobel test is a stringent method of calculating the indirect effect of
meditor is significantly different from zero. The test of the indirect effect is calculated by
dividing a*b by the square root of the variance in the equation below and treating the
ratio as a Z test (i.e., larger than 1.96 in absolute value is significant at the .05 level).
69
The Sobel equation is:
(a * b)
Sobel test equation z value=
where a is the first equation
b is the second equation
c is the total effect
c' is the direct path
sa is the standard error of path a
sb is the standard error of path b
Figure 5. Model ofMediation
a
Initial
Variable
Total Effect c = (c '+ab)
Mediated Effect = ab
c'
Outcome
Mediational Effects ofEthnic-Racial Socialization Codes on Ethnic Identity Development
Mediational analyses were conducted to examine whether ethnic-racial
socialization accounted for the relationship between family contextual variables and
adolescent ethnic identity achievement. Mediational effects were examined only for the
70
relationship between adolescent reported positive family relations and ethnic identity
achievement since associations due to non significant effects between either of the
pathways between parental monitoring or family conflict (initial variable) and ethnic
identity (outcome) and the ethnic-socialization codes (mediator).
A parent-child combined observation score for the dimensions of Proactive
Preparation, Promotion of Mistrust, and Cultural Socialization were developed for the
purposes of the mediational analyses. Pearson correlations between the parent and child
codes ranged from .39 to.87 for European American families, .37 to .88 for African
American families, and .36 to .83 for American Indian families.
Mediators ofPositive Family Relations and Ethnic Identity Achievement
Analyses whether Cultural Socialization and Proactive Preparation accounted for
the variance between the relationship between adolescent reported Positive Family
Relations and adolescent Ethnic Identity separately by ethnicity.
Analyses for American Indian adolescents showed that Positive Family Relations
was significantly associated with Proactive Preparation, B= .32, t=2.52, p<.05, and
Ethnic Identity, B= .40, t=3.26 p<.Ol. Proactive Preparation partially accounted for the
relationship between Positive Family Relations and youth Ethnic Identity, B = .33, t=2.65,
p<.OOl, z=2.38, p<.05 (see Figure 6).
71
Figure 6. Mediational Effects ofProactive Preparation for American Indian Youth
Proactive
Preparation
.32*
Positive
Family
Relations
(AO*)
.29*
.33*
Adolescent
Ethnic
Identity
Mediational analyses examined the effect of Proactive Preparation on the
relationship between Positive Family Relations and adolescent Ethnic Identity among
African American youth. Positive Family Relations was significantly related with
Proactive Preparation, B = .35, t=1.98, p<.05, and Ethnic Identity, B = .31, t=3.43 p<.OO1.
Proactive Preparation fully accounted for the effect on youth ethnic identity, B = .60,
t=4.04, p<.Ol, z=3.64, p<.05, (see Figure 7).
Figure 7. Mediational Effects ofProactive Preparation for African American Youth
Proactive
Preparation
.35*
Positive
Family
Relations
(.34*)
.13
.60**
Adolescent
Ethnic
Identity
72
For European American youth, Positive Family Relations was significantly associated
with Proactive Preparation, B = .31, t=2.26, p<.05, and Ethnic Identity, B = .29, t=4.25
p<.OI. Proactive Preparation did not account for any variance among Positive Family
Relations and Ethnic Identity, B = -.18, t=-1.17, p= ns.
Next, analyses were conducted on the mediational effects of Cultural
Socialization. For African American youth, Positive Family Relations were significantly
associated with Cultural Socialization, B = .42, t=2.54, p<.05, and Ethnic Identity, B = .31,
t=3.44, p<.OOI. Cultural Socialization fully accounted for the effect on Ethnic Identity, B
= .42, t=2.34, p<.05, z=2.33, p<.05, (see Figure 8).
Figure 8. Mediational Effects ofCultural Socialization for African American Youth
Cultural
Socialization
.42*
Positive
Family
Relations
(.34*)
.16
.42*
Adolescent
Ethnic
Identity
Analyses for American Indian adolescents indicated that Positive Family Relations were
significantly associated with Cultural Socialization, B = .29, t=2.97, p<.OI, and Ethnic
Identity, B = .38, t=3.96, p<.OOI. Cultural Socialization however, did not account for the
association between Positive Family Relations and Ethnic Identity, B = .11, t=1.12, p=ns.
For European American youth, Positive Family Relations was significantly correlated
with Ethnic Identity, B = .29, t=4.25, p<.OOI, but not Cultural Socialization, B = .11, t=.74,
73
p=ns. As a result mediation effects could not be examined.
Mediational Effects on the Impact ofDiscrimination on Adolescent Adjustment
Analyses examining observed ethnic-racial socialization as a mediator of the
impact of discrimination and adolescent adjustment were conducted. Specifically,
mediational effects of ethnic-racial socialization dimensions Proactive Preparation,
Promotion of Mistrust, and Cultural Socialization on the relationship between
experiences of discrimination and adolescent antisocial behavior, deviant peer association
and depression were examined separately for each ethnic group.
Mediational Effects ofPromotion ofMistrust
Analyses examined whether Promotion ofMistrust accounted for the relationship
between experiences of discrimination and adolescent antisocial behavior separately by
ethnic group. For American Indian adolescents, Discrimination was significantly
associated with Promotion of Mistrust, B= .28, t= 2.84, p<.Ol, and adolescent Antisocial
Behavior, B = .25, t= 2.54, p<.05. Promotion of Mistrust partially accounted for the
relationship between Discrimination and adolescent Antisocial Behavior, B = .56, t= 6.45,
p<.OOl, z=2.74, p<.05, (see Figure 9).
Figure 9. Mediational Effects ofPromotion ofMistrust on Antisocial Behavior for
American Indian Youth
Promotion
Of
Mistrust
.28*
Discrimination (.25*)
.10
.56*
Adolescent
Antisocial
Behavior
74
Analyses with African American youth indicated that Discrimination was
significantly associated with Promotion of Mistrust, B= .39, t= 2.30 p<.05, and
adolescent Antisocial Behavior, B= .25, t= 2.40, p<.05. Promotion of Mistrust fully
accounted for the relationship between Discrimination and adolescent Antisocial
Behavior, B = .55, t= 3.48, p<.OOl, z=15.73, p<.05 (see Figure 10).
Figure 10. Mediational Effects ofPromotion ofMistrust on Antisocial Behavior for
African American Youth
Promotion
Of
Mistrust
.39*
Discrimination (.25*)
-.11
.55*
Adolescent
Antisocial
Behavior
For European American adolescents, Discrimination was significantly associated
with Promotion of Mistrust, B= .30, t= 2.14 p<.05, and adolescent Antisocial Behavior, B
= .62, t= 5.39, p<.OOl. However, Promotion of Mistrust did not account for the
relationship between Discrimination and Antisocial Behavior, B= -.06, t= -.47, p= ns.
Next, analyses examining the effects of Promotion ofMistrust on the relationship
between Discrimination and adolescent Deviant Peer Association were conducted
separately by etlmic group. Analyses for American Indian youth indicated that
Discrimination was related to Promotion of Mistrust, B=.28, t= 2.84, p<.Ol, and Deviant
75
Peer Association, 13 =.22, t= 2.19, p<.05. Promotion ofMistrust fully accounted for the
relationship between Discrimination and Deviant Peer Association, 13 =.32, t=3.19, p<.Ol,
z=2.60, p<.05 (see Figure 11).
Figure 11. Mediational Effects o/Promotion o/Mistrust on Deviant Peer Association/or
American Indian Youth
Promotion
Of
Mistrust
.28*
Discrimination (.22*)
.13
.32*
Adolescent
Deviant Peer
Association
Similarly, Among African American youth Perceived Discrimination was
significantly correlated with Promotion of Mistrust, 13 =.39, t=2.29, p<.05, and Deviant
Peer Association, 13 =.22, t=2.40, p<.05. Promotion of Mistrust fully accounted for the
relationship between Discrimination and Deviant Peer Association, 13 =.58, t=3.48, p<.Ol,
z=1.96, p<.05, (see Figure 12).
For European American adolescents, Discrimination was significantly related with
Promotion ofMistrust, 13 =.30, t=2.14, p<.05, and Deviant Peer Association, 13 =.04, t=.40,
p=ns. Promotion of Mistrust did not significantly account for the relationship between
Discrimination and Deviant Peer Association, 13 =.04, t=.40, p=ns.
76
Figure 12. Mediational Effects ofPromotion ofMistrust on Deviant Peer Association for
African American Youth
Promotion
Of
Mistrust
.39*
Discrimination (.22*)
-.06
.58*
Adolescent
Deviant Peer
Association
Lastly, analyses examined whether Promotion of Mistrust accounted for the
impact of Discrimination on adolescent Depression were examined. For American Indian
adolescents, Discrimination was related to Promotion of Mistrust, B =.28, t= 2.84, p<.Ol,
and Depression, B=.36, t= 3.78 p<.OOl. Promotion of Mistrust fully accounted for the
relationship between Discrimination and youth Depression, B=.45, t=5.05, p<.OOl,
z=2.13, p<.05, (see Figure 13).
Figure 13. Mediational Effects ofPromotion ofMistrust on Depression for American
Indian Youth
Promotion
Of
Mistrust
.28*
Discrimination (.36*)
.24*
.45*
Adolescent
Depression
77
Among African American youth, Discrimination was significantly correlated with
Promotion of Mistrust, 13 =.48, t=3.02, p<.05, and Depression, 13 =.24, t=2.69, p<.05.
However, Promotion of Mistrust did not account for the relationship between
Discrimination and Depression for African American youth, 13 =.05, t=.22, p=ns.
For European American adolescents, Discrimination was significantly related with
Promotion of Mistrust, 13 =.30, t=2.14, p<.05, and Depression, 13 =.66, t=6.05, p<.OOI, but
Promotion of Mistrust did not indicate a significantly account for the effect of
Discrimination on Depression, 13 =.08, t=.70, p=ns.
Generally analyses examining the effect of Promotion of Mistrust indicated that
among American Indian and African American youth, the negative effects of
discrimination on adolescent adjustment (antisocial behavior, deviant peer association,
depression) were accounted for by familial messages that promoted defensiveness and
mistrust of mainstream society. In contrast, for European American youth, experiences of
discrimination were associated with poor adolescent adjustment as well as promotion of
familial messages cautioning against others, however these messages did not account for
the relationship between discrimination and poor adjustment.
Mediational Effects ofCultural Socialization
Analyses examining the variance accounted for by Cultural Socialization were
conducted for each ethnic group separately. For American Indian youth, adolescent
Ethnic Identity was significantly associated with Cultural Socialization, 13 =.40, t=3.01,
p<.OI, and Deviant Peer Association, 13 =-.42, t=-3.35, p<.Ol. Cultural Socialization
partially accounted for the association between adolescent Ethnic Identity and Deviant
78
Peer Association, /3 = -.30, t=-2.23 p<.05, z= -1.97, P <.05 (see Figure 14).
Analyses examining African American adolescents indicated that adolescent
Ethnic Identity was significantly associated with Cultural Socialization, /3 =.49, t=3.0l,
p<.Ol, but not with Deviant Peer Association, /3 =-.26, t=-1.47, p=ns. For European
Anlerican adolescents, there were no significant associations between adolescent Ethnic
Identity, Cultural Socialization and Deviant Peer Association.
Figure 14. Mediational Effects ofCultural Socialization on Deviant Peer Association for
American Indian Youth
Cultural
Socialization
.40'
Adolescent
Ethnic
Identity
(-.42*)
-,30*
-.30'
Adolescent
Deviant Peer
Association
Analyses were conducted examining the effect of Cultural Socialization on the
association between adolescent Ethnic Identity and Antisocial Behavior. Analyses on
African American youth indicated that adolescent Ethnic Identity was significantly
related to Cultural Socialization, /3 = .47, t=3.0l, p<.05, and adolescent Antisocial
Behavior, /3 = -.36, t=-2.23 p<.05. Cultural Socialization fully accounted for the
relationship between adolescent Ethnic Identity and Antisocial Behavior, /3 = -.47, t=-2.60,
p<.05, z=2.62, p<.05, (see Figure 15).
79
Figure 15. Mediational Effects ofCultural Socialization on Antisocial Behavior for
African American Youth
Cultural
Socialization
.47*
Adolescent
Ethnic
Identity
(-.36*)
-,13
-.47*
Adolescent
Antisocial
Behavior
Analyses for American Indian youth showed that adolescent Ethnic Identity was
significantly related to Cultural Socialization B = .21, t=2.11, p<.05, and negatively
correlated with adolescent Antisocial Behavior, B= -.23, t=-2.39, p<.05. However,
Cultural Socialization did not account for the association between adolescent Ethnic
Identity and Antisocial Behavior, B= -.08, t=-.80, p= ns. For European American
adolescents, there were no significant associations between adolescent Ethnic Identity,
Cultural Socialization and Antisocial Behavior.
Overall, Cultural Socialization appeared to account for association between ethnic
identity achievement on adolescent externalizing problems among ethnic minority youth,
although the effects varied between African American and American Indian youth.
However, for European American youth, Ethnic identity and Cultural Socialization were
not significantly related to adolescent outcome.
80
Phase V: Testing the Moderation Effects of Ethnic-Racial Socialization
Moderation analyses examined whether the effect of discrimination on adolescent
adjustment changed as a function of observed ethnic-racial socialization. Specifically,
the effects of Promotion of Mistrust and Cultural Socialization were examined.
Regression analyses examined whether Promotion of Mistrust accounted for the
impact of discrimination on depression for American Indian youth. Results indicated that
the relationship between discrimination and youth depression marginally differed at
different levels of socialization of Promotion of Mistrust messages (see Table 14, Figure
16). Specifically, discrimination may adversely affect depression more for American
Indian youth receiving higher levels of Promotion of Mistrust messages within the family
context compared to youth who receive less of these messages. No effects were found for
youth outcomes of antisocial behavior or deviant peer association.
Table 14. Moderation Effects ofPromotion ofMistrust on American Indian Youth
Depression
Models
Step1
Discrimination
Step 2
Discrimination
Promotion of Mistrust
.37
.54
F B
32.38*
.61
31.97*
.44
.45
t
2.04*
.82
-1.96*
Step 3 .57
Discrimination
Promotion ofMistrust
Discrimination X Promotion of Mistrust
Note. f p<.07, *p < .05, **p < .01.
23.25*
.03
-.04
.76
2.06*
- .11
-2.34*
81
Figure 16. Plot ofDiscrimination X Promotion ofMistrust Interaction for American
Indian Youth
Promotion of llI1istrust
- -low
-higll
2.40
:E: 2.20
o
·iii
...
<II
...
a.
<II
'2 2.00
c
<II
<>
...
<II
'0
"'l:l
'" 1.80
1.130 --------- ------
low
Discrimination
high
Regression analyses examining the effects of Promotion of Mistrust among
African American and European American youth indicated no significant results for all
youth outcomes (antisocial behavior, deviant peer association, depression). Analyses
examining whether Promotion of Mistrust accounted for the impact of discrimination on
adolescent antisocial behavior for African American youth showed that the interaction
term Discrimination X Promotion of Mistrust indicated a trend (p=.09), suggesting that
with more power (i.e. larger sample size) an effect may be detected. As expected, no
significant effects of ethnic-racial socialization dimensions were found for European
American youth for analyses on all youth outcomes.
Next, regression analyses examined whether Cultural Socialization accounted for
the impact of discrimination on youth outcome among American Indian, African
82
American and European American youth. Significant findings were found for regression
analyses examining the effects of Cultural Socialization on the relationship between
Experience of Discrimination and Deviant Peer Association among American Indian
youth. Results suggested that the relationship between discrimination and youth deviant
peer association significantly differed at different levels of receiving Cultural
Socialization messages (see Table 15, Figure 17). Specifically, the negative impact of
discrimination on youth deviant peer association is buffered by Cultural Socialization
messages especially among American Indian adolescents who report experiencing higher
levels of discrimination. No significant results were found for the relationship between
discrimination and American Indian youth depression or antisocial behavior.
Table 15. Moderation Effects ofCultural Socialization on American Indian Youth Deviant
Peer Association
Models
Step 1
Discrimination
Step 2
Discrimination
Cultural Socialization
.07
.13
F J3
4.15*
.27
3.66*
.13
-.29
t
2.04*
.82
-1.96*
Step 3 .19
Discrimination
Cultural Socialization
Discrimination X Cultural Socialization
Note. t p<.06, *p < .05, **p < .01.
3.96*
.27
-.02
-.49
2.06*
- .11
-2.03*
83
Figure 17. Plot ofDiscrimination X Cultural Socialization Interaction for American
Indian Youth
2.20""
2.00
~ 1.80
i
.;:;
o
=1.60
c(
..
GI
GI
~ 140
l:
...
.;;:
GI
C·I.20
1.00
0.80
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Cultural So(~ialization
- -low
-Iligh
low higl,
Discrimination
Regression analyses examining moderation effects of Cultural Socialization for African
American and European American youth indicated no significant effects across all three
adolescent outcome measures, suggesting that for youth who experience discrimination,
socialization of culture (e.g. traditions, values, history) does not 'necessarily buffer the
negative effects of discrimination on youth adjustment. The absence of variance
accounted by ethnic-racial socialization dimensions among African American youth was
unexpected. However, from the previous analyses (see correlations, mediation analyses),
it appears that Cultural Socialization has more significant associations with promotive
cultural experiences such as ethnic identity achievement and spiritual involvement, rather
than experiences of discrimination
84
Phase VI: Testing the Unique Effects of Ethnic-Racial Socialization
A final step in the analyses involved testing whether ethnic-racial socialization
dimensions served had unique effects above and beyond those of family context variables
on adolescent adjustment. Stepwise regressions were conducted to examine the additional
effects of Cultural Socialization and Promotion ofMistrust.
Unique Effects ofCultural Socialization
Stepwise regression analyses examined whether Cultural Socialization accounted
for adolescent antisocial behavior above and beyond the effects of Ethnic Identity
Achievement, Parental Monitoring and Positive Family Relations, separately by ethnicity.
Results suggested that Cultural Socialization consistently predicted lower levels of
adolescent antisocial behavior, above and beyond the effects of other variables among
American African youth, but not for American Indian or European American adolescents
(see Tables 16 & 17).
85
Table 16. Unique Effects ofCultural Socialization on African American Youth Antisocial
Behavior above and beyond Effects ofEthnic Identity and Parental Monitoring
Models
Step1
Parental Monitoring
Step 2
Parental Monitoring
Ethnic Identity
Step 3
Parental Monitoring
Ethnic Identity
Cultural Socialization
.14
.20
.32
F B
4.71 *
-.37
3.58*
-.29
-.31
4.29*
-.16
-.07
-.44
t
1.96*
-1.65
-1.94t
-.10
-.36
-2.18*
Note. t p<.06, *p < .05, **p < .01.
Table 17. Unique Effects ofCultural Socialization on African American Youth Antisocial
Behavior above and beyond Effects ofEthnic Identity and Positive Family Relations
Models R2 F B t
Step1 .12 3.92*
Positive Family Relations -.37 -1.98*
Step 2 .18 3.l4t
Positive Family Relations -.29 -1.40
Ethnic Identity -.31 -1.49
Step 3 .31 4.05*
Positive Family Relations -.16 -.57
Ethnic Identity -.07 -.37
Cultural Socialization -.44 -2.23*
Note. t p<.06, *p < .05, **p < .01.
86
Adverse Effects ofPromotion ofMistrust
Stepwise regressions examined the adverse effects of Promotion of Mistrust
messages above and beyond the impact of discrimination and family conflict or positive
familial relationships among American Indian, African American, and European
American families. Regression analyses indicated that beyond the negative effects of
family conflict on adolescent antisocial behavior, Promotion of Mistrust significantly
contributed to development of antisocial behavior only among American Indian youth
(see Table 18). No significant effects were found for African American or European
American adolescents.
Table 18. Unique Effects ofPromotion ofMistrust on American Indian Youth Antisocial
Behavior above and beyond Effects ofDiscrimination and Family Conflict
Models R2 F 13
Stepl .06 3.34*
Discrimination .25
Step 2 .26 9.61 **
Discrimination .01
Family Conflict .51
Step 3 .35 9.55**
Discrimination -.06
Family Conflict .36
Promotion of Mistrust .35
Note. t p<.06, *p < .05, **p < .01.
t
1.96*
.04
3.88**
- .40
-2.60*
2.69*
87
Stepwise regression analyses also examined the negative effect of Promotion of
Mistrust on adolescent deviant peer association among American Indian youth.
Promotion of Mistrust significantly accounted for adolescent Deviant Peer Association,
above and beyond the negative effects of discrimination and family conflict (see Table
19).
Table 19. Unique Effects ofPromotion ofMistrust on American Indian Youth Deviant
Peer Association above and beyond Effects ofDiscrimination and Family Conflict
Models RZ F 13
Step1 .37 32.38*
Discrimination .61
Step 2 .43 20.35**
Discrimination .48
Family Conflict .27
Step 3 .52 18.91 **
Discrimination .42
Family Conflict .12
Promotion ofMistrust .35
Note. t p<.06, *p < .05, **p < .01.
t
5.69*
4.19**
2.37**
3.86**
1.02
3.09**
In summary, these analyses highlight the central role of the ethnic-racial
socialization dimensions plays in ethnic minority youth adjustment. Among African
American youth, Cultural Socialization messages indicated protective effects above and
beyond positive parenting practices and family cohesion, suggesting the salience of the
transmission of cultural messages that promote youth's sense of belonging and pride. In
contrast, analyses with American Indian youth indicated that familial messages
88
promoting defensiveness or caution of others (Promotion of Mistrust) predicted risk for
youth beyond the negative influences due to family conflict and discrimination. These
findings are critical in understanding adverse effects related to distrustful messages on
discrimination among American Indian youth and families.
89
CHAPTER IV
DISCUSSION
This study attempted to develop and validate a new behavioral observation
measure of familial ethnic-racial socialization. The development of an observational
measure of ethnic-racial socialization processes was considered critical to the current
field, for a number of reasons. First, recent literature identifies ethnic-racial socialization
as fundamental to the development of ethnic minority youth (Hughes, et aI, 2006),
specifically, as a protective factor in the context oftension and challenges ofliving at the
crossroads of mainstream and minority cultures. Second, there are very few studies that
document the influence of ethnic-racial socialization as a multivariate influence in the
context of parenting practices. Third, research to date has largely utilized self report
questionnaires or interviews, with very limited number of studies using observational
methods as a way to capture socialization processes surrounding issues of race, ethnicity,
culture, minority status and mainstream culture. Observational methods capture the
dynamic nature of human interaction and behavior that is hard to obtain through self-
report, interviews, and other sources which are often affected by systematic personal
biases (Gardner, 2000). The current study advances this area of research by developing
and validating a behavioral observational measure of ethnic-racial socialization within the
familial context over a series of phases.
------------_. -- --------------
90
Measurement Development
The development of the Observational Paradigm for Ethnic-Racial Socialization
(OPERS) and Observational Measure of Ethnic-Racial Socialization (OMERS) was
conducted over several stages. First, a review of the literature on ethnic socialization,
racial socialization, and ethnic minority youth development revealed several core
constructs reflecting socialization processes surrounding issues ofrace, ethnicity, culture,
minority status and biculturalism. Literature on empirically validated survey measures of
ethnic socialization, racial socialization, ethnic identity achievement, and biculturalism
served as a basis by which the observational paradigm and codes were developed.
Second, focus groups were recruited for purposes of a) piloting the Observational
Paradigm for Ethnic-Racial Socialization (OPERS) and b) receiving feedback on the
appropriateness ofthe observational paradigm and companion coding system. Piloting
the observational paradigm with focus group participants provided a forum for the author
and the research team to hear and learn the aspects ofthe paradigm that were potentially
culturally incongruent, difficult to comprehend or awkward. For example, asking focus
groups participants select questions regarding their experiences was critical in learning
unexpected aspects of families' ethnic-racial socialization processes that may have not
been apparent from the literature (e.g. conflict between American Indian community and
the European American farmers regarding water supplies) and thus coded incorrectly or
not at all without the cultural knowledge. As such, focus group feedback on the piloting
procedure guided revisions ofthe observational paradigm (e.g. re-worded instructions for
the paradigm).
91
Third, the integration of the qualitative infonnation with theory, empirical
findings and input from cultural experts was fundamental in developing an observational
paradigm that captured ethnic-racial socialization processes in a naturalistic way, as well
as a companion coding system that accurately quantified these interactions in a
meaningful manner. While qualitative data provided culturally specific details Ce.g.
common theme of socialization practices), reference to cultural experts and the literature
allowed for the qualitative infonnation to be organized within a theoretical and
empirically supported framework. The integration of different methodologies and the
mixed methods approach enabled a clearer understanding of ethnic-racial socialization
processes across European American, African American and American Indian youth and
their families, in part, because it captured cultural and social nuances that largely vary
across different ethnic groups.
Last, the training of coders was a key step in the development of a reliable
measure of observed ethnic-racial socialization. Coder training for the Observational
Measure of Ethnic-Racial Socialization COMERS) included an initial training of coders
on sociopolitical, historical, and cultural influences on American Indian and African
American families including culturally specific parenting practices and beliefs.
Specifically, the initial training ranged from reviewing and discussing guided readings,
viewing various media central to issues of discrimination and culture, and observing
numerous family interactions ofAmerican Indian and African American families. This
training was central in anchoring the multiethnic team of coders' views of differential
socialization processes that were culturally embedded; a process that was challenging
92
considering the fact that some coders had little to no exposure to certain ethnic groups
and cultures, although most were of minority status.
In summary, the use of mixed methods, along with careful attention to integrating
cultural diversity training for coders was central in developing a culturally grounded
observational measure of ethnic-racial socialization.
Factor Structure
Findings from the exploratory factor analyses indicated that a four factor solution
was derived from the codes for the Discrimination Paradigm, specifically, Proactive
Preparation, Racial Awareness, Promotion of Mistrust and Other-Group Orientation. Our
derived factors represent the theoretical constructs that are defined by Hughes and
colleagues (2006), in which Proactive Preparation and Racial Awareness reflect
definitions of Preparation for Bias, while Promotion of Mistrust as derived as an
independent factor. Interestingly, Racial Awareness, which represents active
acknowledgement and attention to issues of discrimination was identified as a separate
factor from Proactive Preparation suggesting that it is not necessarily consonant with the
promotion of proactive and positive methods of coping with discrimination. Other Group
Orientation, which was derived from Phinney's ethnic identity construct, appeared as a
separate factor which promotes coping with discrimination via emphasis on diversity and
interethnic relations. Confirmatory factor analyses on the sample validated that the four
factor model fit the observed data relatively well, indicating that the observational codes
represented theoretical constructs Promotion of Mistrust and, Preparation for Bias (which
was represented by Proactive Preparation and Racial Awareness).
93
Results for the exploratory factor analyses for the Family Culture Paradigm
indicated a four factor solution, specifically, Cultural Socialization, Ethnic Heritage
Exploration, Family Centeredness, and Spiritual Involvement. Factors from our data
indicated that Cultural Socialization and Ethnic Heritage Exploration represented Hughes
and colleagues (2006) dimension of Cultural Socialization. While the Hughes's construct
encompasses the transmission of cultural heritage, observational codes indicated that
familial messages on heritage were independent of messages on cultural pride, traditions,
and customs. Spiritual Involvement, which represented the important role of spirituality
and religion in families' culture, was derived as an independent factor, and parallels
Stevenson's Spiritual and Religious Coping Scale from his Scale of Racial socialization
Measure (Stevenson, 2002). Finally, Family Centeredness, which reflected collectivistic
cultural values, was derived as an independent factor, suggesting that it is an aspect of
ethnic-racial socialization that was central, yet different from messages related to cultural
history, pride, traditions or spirituality. Confirmatory factor analyses verified that the four
factor model fit the observational data well, indicating that the codes represented
Collectivism, Spirituality, and Cultural Socialization which was represented by Ethnic
Heritage Exploration and Cultural Socialization. In summary, results indicated the
observational codes largely represented the theoretical constructs reported in the literature
on ethnic-racial socialization.
Convergent and Ecological Validity: Comparisons by Ethnicity
Descriptive analyses revealed that African American and American Indian youth
and their families tended to score higher on observed ethnic-racial socialization
94
dimensions compared to their European American counterparts. These results reflect the
findings in the literature that suggests that race-related discussions within the family
context are central socialization processes, especially for ethnic minority youth and
families (Biafora et aI, 1993; Hughes & Chen, 1997, 1999; Sanders Thompson, 1994).
The evidence of socialization messages on discrimination among American Indian
families was a particularly interesting finding, since limited literature has examined
ethnic-racial socialization processes among American Indians. It maybe that for African
American and American Indian families who face issues of discrimination on a regular
basis, discussions surrounding race are a critical method of coping with the negative
psychological impact such experiences have on youth and their families.
Convergent Validity
Convergent validity of the observational measures was examined by conducting
correlational analyses with adolescent self report data on ethnic identity achievement,
spiritual involvement and perceived discrimination. As hypothesized, correlations
revealed that ethnic identity was strongly related to dimensions of Cultural Socialization
and Proactive Preparation among African American and American Indian youth,
suggesting that these dimensions are tapping into culturally salient processes surrounding
ethnic pride, affiliation to ethnic group and involvement in ethnically related behaviors
and activities (i.e. traditions and customs). Among European American youths, none of
the observed ethnic-racial socialization dimensions were associated with ethnic identity
achievement. These results indicate that messages emphasizing family connections,
cultural traditions and customs are not integral in European American adolescents' sense
95
of belonging and identity to their ethnic group. It maybe that because issues around
ethnicity and culture are less salient for European American youth (Phinney, 1992),
conversations on surrounding family culture are not associated with a developed sense of
belonging to a particular culture or ethnic group.
Spirituality was associated with varying components of observed ethnic-racial
socialization among African American and American Indian youth. For American Indian
youth, spiritual involvement was positively correlated with Ethnic Heritage Exploration,
Family Centeredness and Racial Awareness. These findings reflect the ways in which.
spirituality coins the American Indian culture which emphasizes the belief that all of
nature is interconnected and provides a foundation from which youth relate to their
family and community (Garrett & Garrett, 1994). Correlations between spiritual
involvement and Racial Awareness may suggest that the affiliation towards one's own
culture through spirituality may heighten awareness of the ways in which American
Indian youth and families experience discrimination and racism from other groups.
Among African American youth, spirituality was associated with Cultural Socialization,
suggesting that socialization in African American culture is closely related to the ways in
which spirituality is a central aspect ofAfrican American youth's lives, which parallels
findings in the literature (Brody, Stoneman & Flor, 1996; Woods & Jagers, 2003).
Dimensions of observed ethnic-racial socialization were not associated with spirituality
among European American youth. This suggests that rather than conceptualizing
spirituality and culture as synonymous, spirituality or religion itself may be perceived as
a separate value within the European American family context.
96
Surprisingly, correlations between experiences of discrimination were only related
with Promotion of Mistrust for African American and American Indian youth, not
European American youth. Defensive messages around discrimination are more likely to
occur when families experience discrimination and thus, react to the harmful effects it
may have on youth. The lack of association between experiences of discrimination and
Racial Awareness and Proactive Preparation messages may reflect the fact that
socialization of racial barriers or discrimination may not be a reaction to youth's
discrimination experiences but rather a proactive parenting practice especially relevant to
the transmission of ethnic identity for minority families. Supportive ofthis hypothesis are
the strong correlations between youth ethnic identity achievement and Proactive
Preparation. Among European American youth, experiences of discrimination were not
significantly associated with observed ethnic-racial socialization dimensions, suggesting
that discrimination are not interrelated to the role culture, race and ethnicity plays in their
family life.
Ecological Validity: Associations with Youth Outcome
Correlations with Promotion ofMistrust and Proactive Preparation
Overall, correlational analyses indicated that among American Indian and African
American youth, Promotion of Mistrust was highly correlated with poor adjustment.
Specifically, Promotion ofMistrust was strongly associated with externalizing behavior
problems among American Indian and African American youth, as well as depression for
American Indian youth. As hypothesized, Promotion ofMistrust was not related to any
psychological outcome for European American youth. These results suggest that
97
socialization of defensiveness, anger and cautioning of others may not promote positive
adjustment among ethnic minority youth (Marshall, 1995).
Contrary to our hypotheses, Proactive Preparation was not consistently associated
with adolescent psychological outcomes. Marginal associations between Proactive
Preparation and youth antisocial behavior were found among African American youth,
but not adolescent depression or deviant peer association. For American Indian youth,
Proactive Preparation was negatively correlated with Deviant Peer Association but
unrelated with antisocial behavior and depression. It maybe that discussions promoting
proactive methods of dealing with experiences of discrimination are only prevalent
among youth who are better adjusted but that they are conversations a wide range of
youth and their parents participate in. As hypothesized, no significant associations were
found for European American youth.
Correlations with Cultural Socialization and Family Centeredness
Correlations indicated significant associations between adolescent reported
adjustment and observed Cultural Socialization and Family Centeredness for ethnic
minority adolescents but not for European American youth. Among African American
and American Indian youth, Cultural Socialization was strongly negatively related to
youth problem behavior. For African American youth, Cultural Socialization was also
negatively related to internalizing problems. As expected, Cultural Socialization was not
associated with adolescent outcome for European American youth. This outcome
suggests that messages surrounding cultural traditions, customs and values are more
salient for ethnic minority youth compared to European American youth who may not
98
identify as strongly with their ethnic or cultural origin.
As hypothesized, Family Centeredness was negatively associated with adolescent
externalizing and internalizing problems for African American youth. Although Family
Centeredness was not an original construct identified in Hughes and colleagues' (2006)
theoretical model of ethnic-racial socialization, the construct reflects collectivistic and
communal values that are embedded within African American cultural values. A stronger
cultural focus on the family will more likely be associated with positive parenting
practices and family relationships which have been identified as promotive child rearing
practices within the general literature (Umana-Taylor & Fine, 2004). Among American
Indian families, Family Centeredness was negatively related to adolescent deviant peer
association, suggesting the salience of collectivistic values. As expected, no significant
associations were found between adolescent outcome variables and Cultural Socialization
or Family Centeredness for European American youth.
Ecological Validity: Associations with Family Context
Correlations with Parental Monitoring
Correlations were conducted to determine whether family context influences
ethnic-racial socialization processes. For African American youth, parental monitoring
was positively associated with the dimensions, Cultural Socialization, Family
Centeredness and Proactive Preparation, but negatively associated with Promotion of
Mistrust and Racial Awareness. These results suggest that positive parenting practices
play an important role in conveying messages on culture or on proactively preparing
youth for experiences of discrimination (i.e. parents equipped with positive parenting
99
skills strategies may be more likely to convey promotive messages surrounding culture
and coping with discrimination).
Among American Indian youth, Cultural Socialization was the only dimension
that was significantly related to parental monitoring. This association suggests that
American Indian parents who are more able to directly supervise their youth may have
more opportunities to share central aspects of their culture with their children. The lack
of association between parental monitoring and messages related to experiences of
discrimination may be because race-related discussions occur in a context in which
exercising parental authority is not optimal in discussing sensitive issues of
discrimination.
Correlations for European American families indicated that parental monitoring
was positively correlated with Proactive Preparation and negatively associated with
Promotion of Mistrust. One possible reason for these findings maybe that among
European American families, discussions about race are less likely to be a daily or
frequent occurrence; therefore, promotive discussions on discrimination may highlight
parents' high skill level in fostering healthy and positive adjustment of their youth.
Correlations with Family Conflict
Significant associations between adolescent report of family conflict and observed
ethnic-racial socialization were only present among American Indian families.
Specifically, family conflict was negatively associated with Cultural Socialization and
Family Centeredness, suggesting that discussions related to family connectedness,
cultural traditions, customs, and values are less likely to occur in the context where
100
family members have strained relationships.
Interestingly, no associations were found between family conflict and observed
ethnic-racial socialization dimensions for African American families. One possible reason
is that for African American families, the presence of family conflict is not detrimental to
families having productive, meaningful discussions, as maybe is for families of other
ethnicities.
Correlations with Positive Family Relations
Correlational analyses indicated that among African American and American
Indian families, strong associations were found between observed ethnic-racial
socialization measures and adolescent reported positive family relations. Specifically,
Cultural Socialization and Family Centeredness were strongly related to positive family
relationships among American Indian and African American families; suggesting that the
transmission of family culture is more likely to occur in an environment where there is
high relationship quality and family support. Positive family relations was also associated
with Proactive Preparation among African American and American Indian families,
indicating that parental advice or support on coping with discrimination are most likely to
occur when there are strong, supportive relationships among family members.
In contrast, as hypothesized, Promotion of Mistrust was negatively associated
with youth reported Positive Family Relations for American Indian and African American
youth. Messages that teach defensiveness and mistrust are less likely to be emphasized
among supportive and positive family contexts.
For European American youth and their families, Positive Family Relations was
101
significantly associated with Proactive Preparation, suggesting that promotion of positive
family relationships may translate to parents providing positive advice on diplomatic
ways to deal with difficult discriminatory experiences. No other associations were found
among other ethnic-racial socialization codes and youth reported positive family relations.
Summary: Convergent and Ecological Validity
Overall, correlational analyses revealed that observed ethnic-racial socialization
measures are meaningful constructs that hold salience for the healthy adjustment of
American Indian and African American youth. First, the positive associations between
ethnic identity achievement and the ethnic-racial socialization dimensions indicate that
observational codes are tapping into culturally salient processes; highlighting the
observational measure's validity as well its promise for assessing future ethnic-racial
socialization processes across various ethnic minority groups. Second, correlations
between the observational codes and adolescent outcome suggests ethnic-racial
socialization as a promotive factor among youth of color (Hughes, et aI, 2006; Stevenson,
et aI, 2002). Last, the examination of family context variables and dimensions of ethnic-
racial socialization indicate overlap in promotive culturally based socialization practices
and positive parenting. The strong association between these dimensions highlights the
need for further examination of whether ethnic-racial socialization buffers youth of color
above and beyond promotive parenting practices.
102
Mediational Models
Analyses examined a) variance accounted by observed ethnic-racial socialization
on the relationship of family contextual variables and ethnic identity achievement, and b)
variance accounted by ethnic-racial socialization on the relationship between experience
of discrimination and adolescent outcome.
Mediational Effects on Family Contextual Variables and Ethnic Identity
Analyses indicated varying outcomes for American Indian and African American
youth. Among African American families, Cultural Socialization fully accounted for the
relationship between Positive Family Relations and adolescent Ethnic Identity
Achievement, suggesting that familial socialization of cultural traditions, history and
values are a critical part of adolescents' ethnic identity achievement.
For American Indian youth, Proactive Preparation partially accounted for the
relationship between Positive Family Relations and adolescent Ethnic Identity
Achievement. Results indicate that messages promoting proactive methods of dealing
with experiences of discrimination are an important part of developing a sense of
belonging and identification as a member of the American Indian tribal culture.
These findings support empirical evidence that indicate the socialization of
culture (i.e. Cultural Socialization) as well as messages that teach youth about coping
with discrimination (Preparation for Bias) are strongly related to ethnic identity
development (Demo & Hughes, 1990; Umana-Taylor & Fine, 2004) for ethnic minority
youth. Overall the analyses highlight the promise of the OMERS as a valid measure of
ethnic-racial socialization processes among American Indian and African American youth
103
and their families.
Mediational Effects on the Association between Discrimination and Youth Outcome
Analyses indicated that Promotion of Mistrust significantly accounted for the
relationship between youth experiences of discrimination and adolescent adjustment.
Promotion of Mistrust fully accounted for the association between adolescent experiences
of discrimination and antisocial behavior as well as deviant peer association for American
Indian and African American youth. Among American Indian youth, Promotion of
Mistrust partially accounted for the impact of discrimination on adolescent depression.
Results suggest that socialization of youth on messages reflecting caution and
defensiveness in the face of discrimination exacerbates the negative influence
discriminatory experiences may already have on the youth functioning, especially among
ethnic minority adolescents. These findings highlight the fact that it is not merely the
discussion of issues related to discrimination that is promotive, but the context and
methods parents use in conveying messages on how to cope with discrimination that is
important for youth adjustment.
An interesting non significant finding is the lack of association between Proactive
Preparation and youth outcome or experiences of discrimination. Several reasons are
postulated,first discussions of proactive ways of coping such as problem solving, talking
to, or educating others may not easily translate as well in situations one actually
encounters discrimination. Second, promotive messages captured by Proactive
Preparation may foster different positive development such as ethnic identity or other
prosocial attitudes or behaviors rather than serve as a buffer against the development of
104
externalizing or internalizing problems. Third, ethnic-racial socialization practices such
as Cultural Socialization may serve as more salient methods of promoting resilience
among ethnic minority youth as evidenced in our correlations; however, this association
is unclear in the context efdiscrimination. It maybe that for this current sample, because
lower levels of discriminatory experiences were reported by youth, messages on
proactive methods of coping with discrimination had less salience than for youth in other
contexts who experience discrimination on a more frequent occurrence.
Mediational Effects ofCultural Socialization
Analyses indicated that Cultural Socialization played a central role in accounting
for the protective influence of ethnic identity achievement on adolescent problem
behavior for American Indian and African American youth. Cultural socialization
accounted for the protective effect of ethnic identity achievement on youth deviant peer
association for American Indian youth, suggesting that familial messages on cultural
traditions, values and pride foster are a critical aspect of adolescent's ethnic identity
which buffers youth engagement with deviant peers. For African American youth,
protective influence of ethnic identity achievement on adolescent antisocial behavior was
accounted by Cultural Socialization, highlighting the critical role socialization of family
culture plays in fostering ethnic minority youth resilience.
Overall, the mediational analyses highlight the central role observed ethnic-racial
socialization plays in promoting resilience such as ethnic identity achievement but also
potentially adversely impacting youth adjustment via messages of mistrust and caution.
Results provide insight into the unique effects the different types of ethnic-racial
105
socialization messages on youth's development (e.g. Promotion of Mistmst versus
Proactive Preparation messages) suggesting the importance of examining the content as
well as ways in which messages regarding culture, race and discrimination are conveyed
to ethnic minority youth. In sum, the unique, additional effects accounted by the
observed ethnic-racial socialization measures support the cultural validity ofthe
Observational Measure for Ethnic-Racial Socialization (OMERS) and its ability to
effectively measure components of ethnic-racial socialization processes central to ethnic
minority youth and family functioning.
Moderation Effects ofEthnic-Racial Socialization
Moderation analyses examined whether observed ethnic-racial socialization
dimensions influenced the negative impact of discrimination on youth adjustment.
Specifically, for American Indian adolescents, Promotion ofMistmst marginally
accounted for the relationship between discrimination and youth depression, suggesting
that the adverse effect of discrimination on depression is exacerbated particularly for
youth who receive messages that promote defensiveness and mistmst of other ethnic
groups.
Cultural Socialization also accounted for the relationship between discrimination
and deviant peer association for American Indian youth. Specifically, among American
Indian youth who experienced higher levels of discrimination, messages on family
culture (e.g. cultural pride, traditions, values), buffered youth engagement with deviant
peers. This suggests that in the face of discrimination, the impact of discrimination is
diminished when American Indian families teach and foster cultural pride among their
106
youth.
Contrary to our hypotheses, significant effects were not found for African
American youth. However, analyses examining the variance accounted by Promotion of
Mistrust indicated a trend, suggesting that with more power (i.e. larger sample size), such
effects may be detected. As hypothesized, no significant effects were found for European
American youth.
Unique Effects of Ethnic-Racial Socialization
A critical empirical investigation within the ethnic-racial socialization literature is
the examination of its unique effects on the development of healthy adjustment among
youth of color. Limited studies have examined whether these culturally based
socialization processes have additional influences on youth well being beyond the impact
of familial factors. Stepwise regression analyses showed that observed Cultural
Socialization indicated promotive effects above and beyond the positive effects of
parental monitoring, positive family relations and ethnic identity, suggesting that Cultural
Socialization uniquely buffers these youth from the development of antisocial behaviors.
In contrast, examination of the unique effects of Promotion of Mistrust among
American Indian youth suggested that messages that caution or promote defensiveness in
the face of discrimination proved to have adverse effects on adolescent adjustment. The
negative impact of Promotion of Mistrust on youth antisocial behavior was significant
even when controlling for the influence of family conflict or discrimination. Similarly,
Promotion of Mistrust indicated a significant effect of risk, suggesting that such messages
enhanced youth's engagement with deviant peers beyond the negative impact family
107
conflict or discrimination. Thus, messages that teach distance and defensiveness maybe
detrimental particularly for American Indian youth, whose cultural values emphasize
cohesion, harmony and interdependence (LaFromboise, Berman, & Sohi, 1994).
Limitations
While this study provided substantial support for convergent, ecological and
predictive validity of the Observational Paradigm for Ethnic-Racial Socialization
(OPERS) and Observational Measure for Ethnic-Racial Socialization (OMERS), several
limitations must be acknowledged. Due to practical limitations, the sample sizes for each
ethnic group examined were small, reducing power. Because of small sample size, we
were not able to examine the factor structure of the observed ethnic-racial socialization
codes separately by ethnicity, and our investigation of ethnic differences in the
appropriateness of the codes was restrained to examination of internal consistency of
codes across ethnicity. It is critical that future research examine the underlying factor
structure of the observed codes for separately for each ethnic group, to determine the
applicability of the OMERS.
Second, this study was conducted with data derived from two separate samples
(one urban, one rural) participating in an ongoing longitudinal family centered
intervention based on Dishion and colleagues' ATP intervention (2002). Although
matched on adolescent age, the samples are distinct from each other in that the first
sample consists ofAmerican Indian youth and their families living in a rural American
Indian reservation, whereas the second sample was derived from a metropolitan area that
is diverse. Thus, the ecological influences that impact youth adjustment within each of
108
these communities may greatly differ since there is variability in regards to community
demographics as well as available socioeconomic resources for families. Future research
is required to test ethnic differences in the promotive or adverse impact of observed
ethnic-racial socialization from youth of color residing in similar ecological contexts. It
maybe that the differences between rural versus urban communities accounted for the
differences reflected in the findings rather than the effects of ethnic-racialsocialization.
Third, due to limited sample size, we were unable to examine gender differences
in the relations of observed ethnic-racial socialization dimensions with adolescent
adjustment and family contextual factors. Literature on parenting practices among
African American families suggests that African American parents tend to socialize their
youth differently due to gender (Halstead, Johnson and Cunningham, 1993; McAdoo,
1981). Research is necessary to examine gender differences in ethnic-racial socialization
processes within ethnic groups.
Fourth, data used for this study are not longitudinal. Future research should
examine whether observed ethnic-racial socialization dimensions are predictive of
positive adolescent adjustment among youth ofcolor.
Fifth, a major limitation in examining the convergent validity of the Observational
Measure for Ethnic-Raci8J Socialization (OMERS) was the lack of the examination of the
association between adolescent and parent reported survey data on ethnic-racial
socialization practices and the derived observed ethnic-racial socialization codes. It is
critical that we examine convergent validity of the observational measure with
empirically validated measures of ethnic-racial socialization.
109
Sixth, the number of families involved in the focus groups was limited. Typically,
qualitative research requires focus groups to consist of roughly 10 participants to ensure
accurate representation ofthe population of interest. Practical issues limited us from
recruiting enough families to conduct focus groups and thus, utilize extensive qualitative
methods.
Last, across the total sample, the range of adolescent reported experiences of
discrimination were generally restricted across ethnic groups, in which most youth
reported low levels of encountering discrimination. This could be the fact that early
adolescents may not recognize certain acts of unfair treatment as discrimination, in
particular, if the behaviors are subtle instances. Interestingly, in our observations some
youth reported that they did not understand the meaning of the term "discrimination"
until the research assistant or parents described acts of discrimination using various
examples. Such suggests that discussions around race and discrimination may be more
salient among older adolescents who have an awareness of the consequences of both
individual level and societal level acts of discrimination.
Conclusion and Future Directions
The current findings provide support for the reliability and validity of the
Observational Paradigm for Ethnic-Racial Socialization (OPERS) and Observational
Measure for Ethnic-Racial Socialization (OMERS) as an appropriate observational
measure of ethnic-racial socialization processes among ethnic minority youth. Analyses
suggest that the observational measure is robust and consistent across parents and youth,
they evidence convergent and ecological validity, and are unique predictive of ethnic
110
minority youth adjustment.
The present study provides an advance in the current literature on ethnic-racial
socialization by demonstrating the capability to efficiently capture important, observable,
transactional familial processes of ethnic-racial socialization integral to the development
of cultural resilience (e.g. ethnic identity achievement) and child adjustment (e.g.
externalizing and internalizing problems). Understanding these socialization processes is
a critical step towards the development of culturally grounded theories of adaptive child
development for youth of color, as well as guiding interventions that target multiethnic
populations. In particular, while there is support for traditional interventions with ethnic
minority youth and families (Reid, Webster-Stratton, & Beauchaine, 2001), there is still
paucity within the field of intervention research on the development and application of
culturally adapted intervention programs that incorporate culturally based, developmental
concerns central to ethnic minority youth development. Thus, given the centrality of
culturally grounded constructs such as ethnic-racial socialization for youth of color, it is
critical that intervention research consider the integral role these processes play in the
development and implementation of child and family interventions targeting diverse
youth and families.
111
APPENDIX A
CODING MANUAL FOR FAMILY CULTURE PARADIGM
Q1. How does the family define their family?
• Nuclear: immediate family (e.g. mom, dad and kids)
• Extended: includes family members outside immediate family (e.g.
grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins, godparents, other members that are
included as family but may not be necessarily biologically related)
Q2. Does the family report valuing extended family networks?
• Does the family spend time together
• Do they see/spend time with each other frequently
• Do family members speak fondly of extended family members (indication of
closeness, respect)
• Do family members participate in events/activities that involve extended family
members
1 (not at all)
Family does not report any involvement with extended family members
Family does not mention extended family members
Family speaks negatively of extended family
Family discourages or avoids involvement with extended family
5 (somewhat)
Family briefly suggests involvement with extended family members
Family speaks positively of extended family members but appears to not know them very
well or have frequent involvement with them
Family occasionally participates in activities with extended family
9 (a lot)
Family reports involvement with extended family members, provides various examples
of engagement with exter,ded family
Family speaks positively of extended family members and appears to know them very
well/have frequent involvement with them
Family frequently participates in activities with extended family
112
Q3. Does the family report family connectedness as important?
• Family reports examples or promotes being together/family togetherness
• Family appears to spend a lot of time each other
• Family promotes family involvement is an important family value
• Family shows indication of sharing with family (resources such as social support,
financial support)
• Family knows about each other's lives well, appears to have close positive
relationships
1 (not at all)
Family does appear to be close to family members
Family does not mention spending time with family members
Family speaks negatively of family or spending time with family
Family appears not comfortable with each other
Family discourages or avoids involvement with family
5 (somewhat)
Family appears to be somewhat close to family members
Family appears to spend some time with family members
Family appears to somewhat know about each other but not very well
Family appears somewhat comfortable with each other
9 (a lot)
Family reports various examples or promotes being together/family togetherness
Family reports spending a lot of time each other
Family encourages family involvement is an important family value
Family reports sharing with family (resources such as social support, financial support)
Family knows about each other's lives well, appears to have close positive relationships
Q4. Is showing respect/valuing other adult family members important for this family?
• Family reports valuing elders/adult relatives
• Family emphasizes listening to and obeying adult family members
• Family report listening to or learning from elders/adult relatives experiences
• Family place weight on elders/adult relatives as people to look to for advice,
support, guidance
• Family reports examples of how elders/adult family members have been
important to their lives
1 (not at all)
Family does not discuss other family members
Family does not appear to value other adult family members
Family talks negatively ofother adult families
113
5 (somewhat)
Family reports some involvement of other family members
Family appears to somewhat value opinions/involvement of other family members
9 (a lot)
Family reports valuing elders/adult relatives
Family emphasizes listening to and obeying adult family members
Family report listening to or learning from elders/adult relatives experiences
Family place weight on elders/adult relatives as people to look to for advice, support,
guidance
Family reports examples of how elders/adult family members have been important to
their lives
Q5. Does the family promote being proud ofone sheritage?
• Family talks about where one came from (blood line, heritage)
• Family discuses how important it is to know one's heritage
• Family discusses experiences of elders/family members and the importance of
knowing their history
• Family discusses heritage in a positive manner (sense of pride when talking about
their heritage)
1 (not at all)
Family has no knowledge of family heritage
Family does not value family members' experiences
5 (somewhat)
Family has some knowledge of their heritage
Family appears to somewhat value family members' experiences
9 (a lot)
Family talks about where one came from (blood line, heritage)
Family discuses how important it is to know one's heritage
Family discusses experiences of elders/family members and the importance of knowing
their history
Family discusses heritage in a positive manner (sense of pride when talking about their
heritage)
Q6. Does the family appear to value their membership to a cultural group?
• Family uses "we ere -------" (e.g. we are black)
• Family reports the importance of being proud of their ethnic group (e.g. "You
should be proud to be black')
• Family spends a large portion of floor time discussing their ethnic/cultural group
• Family talks positively about their cultural group
114
1 (not at all)
Family is not aware of their ethnic/cultural membership
Family has no indication of what is their cultural background (history, customs, practices)
Family shows no interest in ethnic/cultural membership
5 (somewhat)
Family is somewhat aware of ethnic/cultural membership
Family reports some knowledge of their cultural background
Family shows some interest in cultural membership
9 (a lot)
Family is very aware of ethnic/cultural membership
Family reports a lot of knowledge of their cultural background
Family shows a lot of interest in cultural membership
Q7. Does the family appear to have a lot of knowledge about their cultural or ethnic
traditions and customs?
• Family reports knowledge of cultural
o Food
o Music
o Traditions
o Customs
o Social events
1 (not at all)
Family does not know anything about cultural or ethnic traditions and customs- no report
of culturally specific aspects of their cultural group
5 (somewhat
Family appears to know some about cultural or ethnic traditions and customs
Family reports some examples of cultural customs/traditions
9 (a lot)
Family knows about cultural or ethnic traditions and customs - provides details about
culture, gives various examples
115
Q8. Does the family appear to know about their ethnic group shistory/heritage?
• Family provides details about cultural history
• Family appears to know their cultural history
1 (not at all)
Family does not know anything about cultural or ethnic group's history- no report of
history or cultural experiences of their cultural group
5 (somewhat
Family appears to know some about cultural or ethnic group's history- reports some
history or cultural experiences of their cultural group
9 (a lot)
Family appears to know a lot about cultural or ethnic group's history- reports details or
history or cultural experiences of their cultural group
Q9. Does the family appear to be content in their membership to their culture Iculture is
a central part ofthe family s identity?
• Family expresses fln understanding of being a member of their cultural group (e.g.
"your experience as a black girl is different than that of a white girl")
• Family shows positive affect when discussing their culture
• Family spends large amount of floor time discussing their cultural heritage
I (not at all)
Family has no understanding of their membership (e.g. "I am not sure what my ethnic
group is" "ethnic group does not mane much to us")
Family has little to say about their ethnic/cultural group
5 (somewhat)
Family has some understanding of their membership (e.g. "I am not sure what my ethnic
group is" "ethnic group does not mane much to us")
Family reports some infOlmation about their ethnic/cultural group
Family spends some of discussion time on talking about their cultural group
9 (a lot)
Family has good understanding of their membership (e.g. "I am not sure what my ethnic
group is" "ethnic group does not mane much to us")
Family reports of information about their ethnic/cultural group
Family spends majority of discussion time on talking about their cultural group
116
QI0. Is the familv involved in activities or social events/ cultural
tradition/custom/practices related to their cultural group?
• Family reports participation in social events related to their cultural group
• Family identifies various activities related to their culture
• Family shows acknowledgement/value of cultural activities
• Family talks of cultural traditions
• Family talks of cultural events as though they are a natural part of their lives
1 (not at all)
Family reports no knowledge of cultural activities
Family reports little value/importance to cultural activities
Family reports no involvement in cultural activities
5 (somewhat)
Family reports brief knowledge of cultural activities
Family reports briefvaluing/importance to cultural activities
Family reports some involvement in cultural activities
9 (a lot)
Family reports a lot of knowledge of cultural activities
Family reports a lot of value/importance to cultural activities
Family reports involvement in cultural activities
Q11. Does the familv discuss the importance of family members passing down cultural
family values?
• Family talks of passing down culture to the other generations
• Family indicates importance of learning from elders about culture
• Family uses family/extended family experiences as examples to teach young
1 (not at all)
Family is not aware oflearning from elder generations
Family does not appreciate or show much value for learning from elders or passing down
cultural values through generations
5 (somewhat)
Family reports some awareness of learning from elder generations (suggest that it is
important but do not go into detail)
Family shows some appreciation or shows valuing of learning from elders or passing
down cultural values through generations
9 (a lot)
Family reports great awareness of learning from elder generations (indicates importance
and go into detail)
Family shows appreciation or values learning from elders or passing down cultural values
117
Q12. Does the family discuss the importance oflearning about heritage/cultural history?
• Family reports importance of learning about cultural history
• Family discusses cultural historylheritage
• Family reports learning from elders/ family members about cultural history (e.g.
"grandma taught us everything about being Black")
• Family reports knowledge of their cultural history/heritage
1 (not at all)
Family is not aware of cultural heritage or history
Family shows no interest in learning about cultural historylheritage
5 (somewhat)
Family appears to have some awareness of cultural heritage/history
Family suggests that learning cultural historylheritage is important but does not show
much knowledge
9 (a lot)
Family have awareness of cultural heritagelhistory
Family emphasizes learning cultural historylheritage is important
Family is knowledgable of cultural historylheritage
Family reports learning from family members about cultural historylheritage
Q13. How often does the family discuss cultural history/heritage (e.g. Black slavery)?
• Percentage of floor time family discusses cultural history/heritage
1 (not at all)
Family does not discuss cultural heritage or history
5 (somewhat)
Family spends at least 1-2 minutes talking about cultural heritage of history
9 (a lot)
Family spends at over 2 minutes talking about cultural heritage of history
Q14.1s harmony with others important for this family?
• Does the family value getting along with each other
• Does the family report that doing things together as a group (togetherness) is
important
• Does the family emphasize supporting each other (financially, socially,
emotionally)
• Does the family emphasize spending quality time together
118
1 (not at all)
Family does not encourage/value spending time together
Family does not encourage doing things together or sharing things/resources
Family is not supportive of each other
Family relations appear distant
5 (somewhat)
Family reports some encouraging or valuing of spending time together
Family briefly indicates that they support each other
Family relations are generally positive
9 (a lot)
Family is encouraging or report valuing of spending time together
Family provides examples or talk about supporting each other
Family relations are positive
Family enjoy spending time together
Q15. Is supporting others an important aspect o(family relationships?
• Does family support each other emotionally (e.. talk to family when upset, rely on
family for emotion reasons)
• Does family support each other financially (e.g. housing people, feeding people,
saving money for family, helping out with money)
• Does the family support each other socially (e.g. caretaking of children or elders,
helping out family members)
• Family encourages supporting each other
• Family expects family members to help/support them
1 (not at all)
Family does not show any indication of supporting or receiving support from family
Family does not encourage supporting or receiving support from family
Family relationships are not positive
Family expects that individuals do not rely on family
5 (somewhat)
Family shows some indication of supporting or receiving support from family
Family slightly encourages supporting or receiving support from family
Family relationships are generally positive
9 (a lot)
Family shows indication of supporting or receiving support from family
Family encourages supporting or receiving support from family
Family relationships are positive
Family has the expectation that they support/receive support from each other
119
Q16. Does the family show respect or honor to their elders and extended family
members?
• Does the family talk highly of family members that indicate respect (e.g "your
grandma is the matriarch of this family, she knows everything")
• Does the family report respecting elders/extended family
• Does the family provide examples in which they show respect or honor to their
family
• Do the children show respect to parents during discussion (not interrupting,
listening and facing, giving undivided attention to parent)
1 (not at all)
Family does not appear to value elders/extended family
Children do not show respect to their parents (do not follow directions, interrupt)
5 (somewhat)
Family provide some talk of valuing family
Children show some respect to their parents (sometimes follow direction, sometimes
interrupts)
9 (a lot)
Family talks highly of family members
Family reports respecting elders/extended family
Family provide various examples in they report respect
Q17.1s {it/filling family expectations an important family value?
• Family indicates family expectations clearly
• Children respond to parents' expectations agreeably
• Children opt for future that meets the expectations of their parents or their culture
1 (not at all)
Family does not indicate any expectations
Children appear to choose the path that they want to pursue rather than choosing
something that is expected or desired by family
5 (somewhat)
Family indicates some expectations
Children appear to understand parents', family's expectations for them
9 (a lot)
Family reports clear family expectations
Children appear to choose a path that is expected or desired by family
120
Q18. How important is spirituality for this family?
• Does the family talk about spirituality
• Does the family talk positively about being spiritual
• Does the family indicate involvement in spiritual activities
1 (not at all)
Family does not discuss spirituality
Family appears to have negative impressions or no interest in spirituality
5 (somewhat)
Family reports partial involvement in spirituality but that it is not central to their lives
9 (a lot)
Family reports spiritual involvement and importance of spirituality in their lives
Q19. Is the family involved in spiritual activities?
• Family reports involvement (e.g. going to church, praying, having spiritual items
such as Bible, statues)
1 (not at all)
Family has no involvement at all with any spiritual activities
5 (somewhat)
Family may have brief involvement with spiritual activities
9 (a lot)
Family reports engagement in spiritual activities
Family reports details on involvement in spiritual activities
Q20. Does the family encourage relying! depending on spirituality in challenging times?
• Family discuss the importance ofre1igionJspirituality in life - can rely on
spirituality
• Family emphasizes spirituality as important to know as part of their culture
1 (not at all)
Family is not involved in spirituality
Family does not believe in relying on spirituality
5 (somewhat)
Family reports some indication that spirituality is important but spirituality appears not to
be central for their lives
9 (a lot)
Family reports importance and centrality of spirituality in their lives
Family provides examples of spirituality as a support
121
APPENDIXB
CODING MANUAL FOR DISCRIMINATION PARADIGM
Experience of Discrimination
Q1. Has the family experienced discrimination
• Recipient of direct behavioral and verbal discrimination, indirect behavioral and
verbal discrimination
YES: family reports experiencing direct discrimination listed above
Q2. How aware is the family ofthe effect ofdiscrimination
• Does the family appear to know the emotional toll of discrimination
• Does the family appear to acknowledge the barriers that are placed due to
discrimination (e.g. lack of opportunities, differential treatment, minority versus
mainstream status)
• Does the family discuss/provide examples of discriminatory events
• Does the family report awareness of the pervasiveness or discrimination
• Does the family acknowledge the presence of discrimination (do they know what
it means?)
• Are family members able to identify certain events as experiences of
discrimination
• Acknowledgement of the act as discrimination (highly aware)
• Confusion as to if the event was discrimination or disregarding event as
discrimination (low awareness)
1 (not at all)
Family does not understand the concept of discrimination
Family uses limited time (less than 5%) during the task discussing Issues of
discrimination
5 (somewhat)
Family acknowledges what discrimination is and uses at least 50% of the discussion time
on issues of discrimination
Family may talk about an event of discrimination but does not describe the event in detail,
and does not provide emotional content
Family discusses the event without much emotional expression
9 (a lot)
Family shows thorough understanding of what discrimination is
Family reports/expresses strong emotional reaction to the discriminatory event/s
Family uses over 90% of discussion time talking about issues of discrimination
Family generates various ways to cope/deal with discrimination
Family emphasizes importance of understanding barriers due to discrimination
122
Coping against discrimination
Q3a: To what degree does the family USE or PROMOTE/PLAN the use or
Disregard! minimize/Avoid (avoidant coping strategies)
o Minimizing the impact of event
o Brushing the event off as if it is not important
o Rationalizing that the event happens to everyone so it is not important to
have to deal with it
o Showing no interest in dealing with the event
o Complete avoidance regarding event- includes any verbal participation in
discussion of the topic,
o Hopeless approach to discrimination
1 (not at all)
Family reports no disregarding or avoiding dealing with the discriminatory event
5 (somewhat)
Family briefly brushes off discriminatory event but does continue to engage in discussing
the event
Family may minimize the discriminatory event but also brainstorm other ways of coping
with discrimination (e.g. "it happens to everyone but it should still be dealt with")
Family shows some tension in discussing discrimination
9 (a lot)
Family avoids discussing the discriminatory event
Family shows awkwardness in discussing the event
Family shows complete ignorance about discrimination
Family shows very little understanding that discrimination largely impacts the
psychology of the victims
Q3b: To what degree does the family USE or PROMOTE the use or
Physical confrontation (aggressive coping strategies)
o Reacting in physical manner to the discriminatory event (grabbling,
pushing, shoving etc)
o Use of physical representations of derogatory terms (use of finger)
o Blocking the perpetrator physically
1 (not at all)
Family reports no use of physical confrontation in dealing with the discriminatory event
5 (somewhat)
Family suggests (not actual reporting of) using physical force as a way to cope with the
discrimination (e.g. "1 would fight anyone who calls me the n-word")
Family uses an example of someone they know using physical confrontation
123
9 (a lot)
Family reports use of physical confrontation as a common way of dealing with
discrimination
Family reports several example of using physical force or confrontation
Family encourages using physical confrontation as an appropriate strategy in dealing with
discrimination
Family all engages in promoting or encouraging the use of physical confrontation
Q3c: To what degree does the family USE or PROMOTE/PLAN the use of"
Aggressive verbal confrontation (aggressive coping strategies)
o Yelling, cursing in reaction to the event
o Responding using derogatory comments
o Direct discriminatory comments towards the victim
1 (not at all)
Family reports no use of aggressive verbal confrontation m dealing with the
discriminatory event
5 (somewhat)
Family suggests (not actual reporting of) using verbal aggressive confrontation as a way
to cope with the discrimination (e.g. "1 would cuss or yell at anyone who calls me the n-
word")
Family uses an example of someone they know using aggressive verbal confrontation
Family reports an event in which they used some aggressive verbal confrontation in
dealing with a discriminatory event
9 (a lot)
Family reports use of verbal aggressive confrontation as a common way of dealing with
discrimination
Family encourages using aggressive verbal confrontation as an appropriate strategy in
dealing with discrimination
Family all engages in promoting or encouraging the use of aggressive verbal
confrontation
Q3d: To what degree dor:;s the family USE or PROMOTE/PLAN the use of"
Non aggressive verbal confrontation (approach coping strategies)
o Asking the perpetrator to consider discussion regarding the event
o Openly telling the perpetrator that the discriminatory act was hurtful and
difficult
o Suggesting resolution through participating in cultural activity
o Talking to i.ndividuals about the event or connecting with others on an
individual basis
124
1 (not at all)
Family reports no use of non aggressIve verbal confrontation in dealing with the
discriminatory event
5 (somewhat)
Family suggests (not actual reporting of) using non aggressive verbal confrontation as a
way to cope with the discrimination
Family uses an example of someone they know using non aggressive physical
confrontation (e.g. "my grandma shared her story with her white neighbors")
Family reports an event in which they used some non aggressive verbal confrontation in
dealing with a discriminatory event
9 (a lot)
Family reports use of non aggressive verbal confrontation as a way of dealing with
discrimination
Family encourages using non aggressive verbal confrontation as an appropriate strategy
in dealing with discrimination ("it is important to teach others about the experience of
discrimination" "sharing our story with many people is a way to combat discrimination")
Family all engages in promoting or encouraging the use of non aggressive verbal
confrontation
Q3e: To what degree does the family USE or PROMOTE/PLAN the use of'
Use ofsocial support (approach coping strategies)
o Talking to family/friends about how victim felt, discussing the event with
friends
o Asking for advice on how to cope with discriminatory act and the feelings
that accompany being discriminated against
o Venting to family/friends about the event
1 (not at all)
Family reports no use of 50cial support system in dealing with the discriminatory event
5 (somewhat)
Family suggests (not actual reporting of) talking to family/friends as a way to cope with
the discrimination (e.g. "How about talking to your family about it")
Family uses an example of someone they know consulting their family/friends (e.g. "my
grandma would talk to her friends/teachers/ about the discriminatory event")
9 (a lot)
Family reports use of friends as a cornmon way of dealing with discrimination
Family reports several examples of using friends as a support system
Family encourages talking or relying on friends as an appropriate strategy in dealing with
discrimination
125
Q3f To what degree does the family USE or PROMOTE/PLAN the use of"
Distraction Use pleasant activity to distract oneself from being occupied by thoughts and
feelings that resulted from being discriminated against
• Physical activities (going for a walk, running, playing hoop etc)
• Individual activities (listen to music, reading, watching movie)
• Social activities (hanging out with friends, family)
1 (not at all)
Family reports no engagement in distracting oneself from the event by doing another
activity
5 (somewhat)
Family suggests (not actual reporting of) distracting one's attention away from thinking
about the event by engaging in an activity
Family uses an example of engaging in an activity so that they can distract themselves
from thinking about or emotionally reacting to the event
Family reports an event in which they used distraction as a way to deal with a
discriminatory event
9 (a lot)
Family reports common use of distraction as a way of dealing with discrimination
Family reports several examples of using distraction
Family encourages use of distraction as an appropriate strategy in dealing with
discrimination
Family all engages in promoting or encouraging use of distraction
Q3g To what degree does the family USE or PROMOTE/PLAN the use of"
Cognitive reframe and problem solving (approach coping strategies)
o Using logical steps to figure out why the event happened and what is the
best way to deal with such events
o Use of cognitive restructuring such as identifying that the discrimination
was not an indication about the victim but more about the perpetrator
o Use of cognitive restructuring in ways so that the victim does not
personalize the treatment but realize that it is a larger societal issue that is
evident
o Asking family or friends about strategies on how to deal with the
discriminatory event (asking advice, consulting)
o Problem solving involves use of rationale steps to figure out ways to deal
with the incident
1 (not at all)
Family reports no engagement in use of problem solving
126
5 (somewhat)
Family suggests problem solving as a way to handle the discrimination
Family uses an example of problem solving (e.g. "when I was treated differently, I went
to ask your dad his advice on how to cope with the event")
Family reports an event in which they problem solved in dealing with a discriminatory
event
9 (a lot)
Family reports common use of problem solving as a way of handling discrimination
Family reports several examples of using problem solving
Family encourages problem solving as an appropriate strategy in dealing with
discrimination
Family all engages in promoting or encouraging use of problem solving
Q3h To what degree does the family USE or PROMOTE/PLAN the use of'
Accepting as part of/ire/Living with discrimination
o Accept that discrimination is part of the minority experience and that it
cannot be avoided
o Acceptance that discrimination will occur but to not allow oneself to
overcome with anger but to accept that it is part of life
1 (not at all)
Family reports not just accepting the event but taking action
5 (somewhat)
Family suggests (not actual reporting of) taking no action/accepting as a way to handle
the discrimination
Family uses an example of taking no action/acceptance
Family reports an event in which they used ignoring or not taking actions against
discrimination
9 (a lot)
Family reports common use of not taking action as a way of handling discrimination
Family reports several examples of not taking action and ignoring
Family all engages in promoting or encouraging accepting or not taking action
Q3j: To what degree does the family USE or PROMOTE/PLAN the use of'
Conforming
o Changing or adapting one's behavior purposefully so that one will not be
discriminated against
o Changing one's appearance to avoid victimization
1 (not at all)
Family reports not changing their attitudes, behaviors to avoid discrimination
127
5 (somewhat)
Family suggests changing behaviors so that people will not treat them negatively
Family uses an example ofchanging their behaviors/attitudes etc
Family reports an event in which they changed their behaviors to cope with the
discriminatory event
9 (a lot)
Family reports common use of changing one's behavior as a way of handling
discrimination
Family encourages just changing one's behavior, appearance, attitudes as an appropriate
strategy in dealing with discrimination
Family all engages in promoting or encouraging changing one's behavior, appearance or
attitudes to cope with discrimination
Emotional response to discriminatory event
Q4a: How does the family respond to the discrimination (during event & discussion):
Anger (yelling, being physically aggressive, shouting, reporting anger, body is tense,
body shows)
1 (not at all)
Family reports no reaction of frustration/anger in reacting to the discriminatory event
Family shows no frustration/anger in discussing the discriminatory event
Body language: body is calm, relaxed
5 (somewhat)
Family reports some reaction of frustration/anger in reacting to the discriminatory event
Family shows some frustration/anger in discussing the discriminatory event
Body language: body shows some tension when discussing the event (e.g. clenching of
fist, use of some hand gesturing that follows along with discussing the discriminatory
event
9 (a lot)
Family reports/shows some frustration/anger in discussing the discriminatory event
Body language: body shows a lot of tension when discussing the event (e.g. showing
angry movements such as pounding the table with a clenched fist, use of large hand
gesturing that follows aloi1g with discussing the discriminatory event
Voice: stem voice, loud voice, use ofpunctuating statements
Facial expression: brows down, crease in forehead, eyes narrowing
128
Q4b: How does the family respond to the discrimination (during event & discussion):
Hopelessness (no affect, report that there is no point in trying to deal with discrimination,
a hopelessness that is not just acceptance)
Sadness (crying, sad affect, low mood because of treatment)
1 (not at all)
Family reports no sadness/hopelessness in reacting to the discriminatory event
Family shows no sadness/hopelessness in discussing the discriminatory event
Body language: body is calm, relaxed
5 (somewhat)
Family reports some sadness/hopelessness in reacting to the discriminatory event
Body language: body shows some drooping of shoulders, curling inward, withdrawing
Voice: some monotone, low, not loud, sighing
Facial expression: some exhibition of eyes cast downward, mouth drooping down, flat
affect, no expression, blank facial expression
9 (a lot)
Family shows a lot of sadness/hopelessness in reacting to the discriminatory event
Body language: body shows a lot of drooping of shoulders, curling inward, withdrawing
Voice: monotone, low, not loud, sighing
Facial expression: eyes cast downward, mouth drooping down, flat affect, no expression,
blank facial expression
Q4c: How does the family respond to the discrimination (during event & discussion):
Calm (acceptance of the event, ability to use effective coping strategies to cope)
Seriousness (child takes the event or topic in s serious manner, in depth discussion of
topic, indication that the issue is important
1 (not at all)
Family is very dysregulated in their emotions during the discussion
Family shows a lot of fluctuation of affect in reacting to the discussion on discrimination
Family reports lack of ability to regulate self (e.g." I was freaking out about what to do")
Body language: exaggerated moves of the body
Facial expression: eyes opened, maybe face flushed, expressions continuously change
Voice: elevated
5 (somewhat)
Family shows some dysregulation in their emotions during the discussion
Family shows some fluctuation of affect in reacting to the discussion on discrimination
Family reports some limitations in regulating themselves in lack of ability to regulate self
Body language: some exaggerated moves of the body
Facial expression: eyes opened, face somewhat flushed, expressions sometimes change
Voice: elevated
129
9 (a lot)
Family reports dealing with the discriminatory event in a rationale and non reactive
manner
Family shows little fluctuation in affect in reacting to the discussion on discrimination
Body language: body stable, body does not use large exaggerated moves, sitting
comfortably in position
Voice: steady, not loud
Facial expression: eyes focused, eyes attending to those in discussion
Q4d: How does the family respond to the discrimination (during event & discussion)
Lack ofinterest (apathy to the event, disengagement)
1 (not at all)
Family shows high level of engagement in the discussion
Family pays a lot of attention to the discussion on discrimination
Family in involved in participation - provides opinions, responds to questions, comments
Family talks about discrimination 80-100% of the time of discussion
Body language: leaning or face toward each other, face turned to the individuals talking
Facial expression: for most of the discussion eyes focused on individual speaking, facial
expression align with the content of the discussion
Voice: clear voices
5 (somewhat)
Family shows some involvement/participation in the discussion
Family pays some attention 50-60% time to the discussion
Family talks about discrimination 40-65% of the time of discussion
Body language: some leaning or face toward each other, face turned to the individuals
talking
Facial expression: eyes generally focused on individual speaking, facial expression align
with the content
Voice: clear voices
9 (a lot)
Family is disengaged in the discussion on discrimination
Family spends less than 10% of discussion time on the topic of discrimination
Family does not pay attention to the discussion, often conversation topic digresses and
family ends up talking about other issues
Family reports that discrimination is not an important issue to them
Family reports that they do not understand discrimination and do not show the interest or
enthusiasm to discuss the topic
Conversation is random- seems to get off track a lot during the task
Body language: goofing off and not paying attention, shrugging, not understanding what
to talk about
Facial expression: eyes not always attending to those in discussion
130
Q4e: How does the family respond to the discrimination (during event & discussion:
Shame/Embarrassment/Put down ofSelf (reports feeling embarrassed, shamed because
of victimization, reporting negative things about self as a reason for discrimination, tries
to avoid discussing in detail, nonverbal cues of being shamed)
1 (not at all)
Family shows confidence and a sense of security in knowing how to deal or cope with
discrimination
Family is able to generate various ideas about how to deal with discrimination
Body language: leaning or face toward each other, face turned to the individuals talking
Facial expression: for mest of the discussion eyes focused on individual speaking, facial
expression align with the content of the discussion
Voice: clear voices
5 (somewhat)
Family shows some embarrassment or shame due to discrimination
Family reports that the discriminatory event was shameful for them
Family provides an example of trying to "hide" or "be invisible" In response to a
discriminatory event
Body language: 40-60% of discussion looking down, shoulders drooping forward, head
hung
Facial expression: for 40-60% of time, depressed affect, eyes looking down, no direct eye
contact with the video or with other participating family members
9 (a lot)
Family shows a lot embarrassment or shame due to discrimination
Family reports that the discriminatory event was very shameful for them
Family provides several examples of trying to "hide" or ''be invisible" in response to a
discriminatory event
Body language: 80-100% of discussion looking down, shoulders drooping forward, head
hung
Facial expression: for 80-100% of time, depressed affect, eyes looking down, no direct
eye contact with the video or with other participating family members
Voice: majority of the time quiet, subdued
131
Q4f: How does the family respond to the discrimination (during event & discussion):
Fear (family reports being fearful or scared of the discrimination, family reports running
away, hiding, family shows fear in facial expressions during discussion)
1 (not at all)
Family shows little fear in reaction to the discrimination
Family shows/or reports that they have the confidence and a sense of security in knowing
how to deal or cope with discrimination
Body language: leaning or face toward each other, face turned to the individuals talking
Facial expression: for most of the discussion eyes focused on individual speaking, facial
expression align with the content of the discussion
Voice: clear voices
5 (somewhat)
Family shows some fear in reaction to the discrimination
Family appears confused or not sure/not confident in knowing how to deal or cope with
discrimination
Body language: some of the time when discussing the discrimination face looking down,
shoulders hunched
Facial expression: some lack of eye contact when discussing the event
9 (a lot)
Family shows a lot of fear in reaction to the discrimination
Family appears very confused, unsure of their ability to deal with the event
Family reports freezing, running away, being taken at surprise with fear during the
discriminatory event
Avoidance of discussing the discriminatory event
Body language: face looking down, shoulders hunched
Facial expression: lack of eye contact when discussing the event
Q4g; How does the family respond to the discrimination (during event & discussion):
Defensiveness (family appears to need to prove their strength or their power, family
reacts with high emotionality in regards to the event)
1 (not at all)
Family shows/reports little need to prove their strength or their power (i.e. that being
discriminated does not impact them at all)
Family shows/or reports that they have a lot of knowledge/methods in dealing with
discrimination
Body language: leaning or face toward each other, face turned to the individuals talking
Facial expression: for most of the discussion eyes focused on individual speaking, facial
expression align with the content of the discussion
Voice: clear voices
132
5 (somewhat)
Family shows some need to prove that they are strong and that discrimination does not
affect them (e.g." Yeah I was called nigger lover but whatever, they can't get at me")
Family shows/or reports that they have a bit of knowledge in dealing with discrimination
Body language: some of the time when discussing the topic body positioned so that they
look more dominant (e.g. face upward, body forward)
Facial expression: some look of domination
9 (a lot)
Family shows strong need to prove that they are strong and that discrimination does not
affect them (e.g." They can't hurt me, they do not know who they are dealing with")
Body language: most of the discussion time body positioned so that they look more
dominant (e.g. face upward, body forward)
Facial expression: look of domination
Stereotypes of ethnic groups
Q5. Does the family use any negative stereotypes ofethnic groups in the conversation?
European African Latino American American Asian American
American American Indian
White trash Lazy Lazy Lazy Nerd/geeks
Trailer trash Violent Resist assimilation Drunks Submissive/quiet
Redneck Not smart Not smart Violent Takes other's jobs
I Skin head Promiscuous Promiscuous Unmotivated Can't speak English
Racist Poor Poor Poor Obedient
Elitist Rude Can't speak English Uncivilized Like whites
Loud Uneducated Uneducated
Uneducated Gangs Uneducated
Gangs
Attitudes in coping with discrimination
Q6a How often does the family emphasize/encourage the following attitudes/behaviors
in dealing with discrimination:
Not taking it personally
o Acknowledging that the act of discrimination is an indication of the
perpetrator's inability to cope with different viewpoints or cultures
o Acknowledging that it is not personal characteristics of one but
generalized stereotypical impressions of cultural groups that become the
target of hatred or discomfort
o Realizing that discrimination occurs to many others and that it is a social
Issue
o Not internalizing the discrimination as due to deficits of self
133
1 (not at all)
Family identifies the discriminatory event as due to internal personal characteristics
Family reports reacts to the discriminatory event in a highly emotional way such as
getting very angry at the perpetrator, or internalizing the event and being very depressed
Family cannot step away from the fact that discrimination reflects a societal problem and
that it is not necessarily about them as individuals
5 (somewhat)
Family appears to somewhat understand that discrimination reflects the deficit of the
perpetrator and not of the:nse1ves
Family is somewhat able to identify what is the source of discrimination (e.g. skin color,
poverty, sexual orientation)
9 (a lot)
Family clearly understands that discrimination reflects the deficit of the perpetrator and
not of themselves
Family acknowledges that discrimination occurs because people make generalized
assumptions based on cultural stereotypes which are not always the best representation of
the particular group or individuals
Family encourages sharing one's experience with others so that discrimination can be
known and acknowledged as a continuous social issue
Q6b How often does the family emphasize/encourage the following attitudes/behaviors
in dealing with discrimination:
Overcoming discrimination using prosocial, diplomatic ways
o Promoting use of prosocia1 methods of engaging individuals in discussing
or talking c.bout discrimination
o Emphasis on being multicultural, increasing multiethnic relations
o Use of prosocia1, non violent and non aggressive strategies such as talking,
listening, accepting of racia1/ethnic differences
o Promoting understanding the experiences of victims of discrimination
o Promoting overcoming barriers in a non aggressive manner
1 (not at all)
Family reports that the best way to deal or cope with discrimination is to retaliate
Family reacts to the discriminatory event in a highly emotional way such as getting very
angry at the perpetrator, or internalizing the event and being very depressed
Family reporting anger at the perpetrator and a need for revenge
Family reports using aggressive tactics to respond to the discriminatory act
Family reports experiences of reacting aggressively to discrimination
Family promotes separation of ethnic groups
134
5 (somewhat)
Family somewhat promotes the use ofprosocialldiplomatic ways of engaging individuals
in dealing with discrimination
Family somewhat emphasizes having multiethnic relations
Family somewhat promotes learning and understanding of the expenences of those
experiencing discrimination
Family suggests reacting non-aggressively to acts of discrimination
9 (a lot)
Family promotes the use of prosocial methods of engaging individuals in discussing or
talking about discrimination
Family emphasizes on being multicultural, increasing multiethnic relations
Family promotes use of prosocial, non violent and non aggressive strategies such as
talking, listening, accepting of racial/ethnic differences
Family promotes understanding the experiences of victims of discrimination
Family promotes overcoming barriers in a non aggressive manner
Family discusses an experience of how they coped with discrimination III a non
aggressive, diplomatic manner
Q6c: How often does the family emphasize/encourage the following attitudes/behaviors
in dealing with discrimination:
Acceptance ofdiversity/ Promoting multiethnic relations
o Promoting interactions/communication with individuals from other ethnic
groups
o Emphasis on being multicultural, increasing multiethnic relations
o Encouragement of learning about other cultures, other ethnic groups
o Encouragement of opening doors to break down barriers due to
discrimination
o Family report of engagement in multiethnic relationships, cultures
1 (not at all)
Family reports no desire to be involved in crosscultural, multiethnic relations
Family reports no interest in understanding about other cultures
Family shows complete ignorance, lack of understanding of multiethnic relations/other
cultures
5 (somewhat)
Family suggests interacting with individuals from other ethnic groups
Family somewhat emphasizes having multiethnic relations, being multiethnic
Family somewhat promotes learning and understanding of the experiences of those
experiencing discrimination
Family somewhat suggests opening one's perspective and interacting with others as a
way to cope with discrimination
135
9 (a lot)
Family promotes interactions/communication with individuals from other ethnic groups
Family emphasizes on being multicultural, increasing multiethnic relations
Family encourages learning about other cultures, other ethnic groups
Family encourages opening doors to break down barriers due to discrimination
Family reports engagement in multiethnic relationships, cultures
Family provides evidence that they are involved in multiethnic relations that are positive
Q6d: How often does the family emphasize/encourage the following attitudes/behaviors
in dealing with discrimination:
Educating others(outside family) about discrimination
o Promoting the teaching to others about the effect discrimination has on the
psychology of individuals
o Promoting the learning of the experiences of other cultures and ethnic
groups
o Engagement in multicultural courses, cultural history related to
discrimination
o Family shows understanding that discrimination is an issue that has not
been solved and that being open to the experiences of others is a necessary
step towards coping with discrimination
1 (not at all)
Family reports no understanding of discrimination (indication of lack of ability to educate
others about discrimination)
Family does not value learning of the experiences of other cultures and ethnic groups
Family shows complete ignorance, lack of understanding of multiethnic relations/other
cultures
Family promotes separation of ethnic groups/cultures
5 (somewhat)
Family somewhat promot~s the teaching of the effect of discrimination
Family somewhat emphasizes having multiethnic relations, being multiethnic
Family appears to slightly value learning or sharing the experiences of other cultures and
ethnic groups
Family appears promote integration of ethnic groups as a way to learn and overcome
barriers due to discrimination
9 (a lot)
Family promotes the teaching of the effect of discrimination
Family emphasizes on being multicultural, increasing multiethnic relations
Family highly values learning or sharing the experiences of other cultures and ethnic
groups
136
Family emphasizes integration of ethnic groups as a way to learn and overcome barriers
due to discrimination
Family encourages opening doors to break down barriers due to discrimination
Family provides evidence that they are involved in multiethnic relations in which they
share their experiences oftheir own cultures/discrimination
Q6e: How often does the family emphasize/encourage the following attitudes/behaviors
in dealing with discrimination:
Avoiding discrimination/minimizing discrimination
o Family reports that discrimination is no longer a present issue and has
been dealt with
o Family indicates that they have little contact with issues of discrimination
and therefore is not an important issue
o Family does not appreciate learning about the experiences of others
o Family spends very little time talking about issues of discrimination (less
than 10%)
1 (not at all)
Family highly values the understanding of the effect of discrimination
Family promotes sharing/learning about individual's experiences of discrimination
Family does not value learning of the experiences ofother cultures and ethnic groups
Family encourages opening doors to break down barriers due to discrimination
Family provides evidence that they value the understanding ofthe effect of
Family understands what discrimination is and aware of ways to cope effectively
Family spends 80-100% of floor time discussing discrimination
5 (somewhat)
Family slightly minimizes the effect that discrimination has on individuals
Family slightly undermines the discriminatory experience of another
Family shows little appreciation ofleaming about others' experiences
Family appears to slightly avoid learning or sharing the experiences of other cultures and
ethnic groups
9 (a lot)
Family reports that discrimination is no longer a present issue and has been dealt with
Family indicates that they have little contact with issues of discrimination and therefore is
not an important issue
Family does not appreciate learning about the experiences of others
Family spends very little time talking about issues of discrimination (less than 10%)
137
Q6f: How often does the family emphasize/encourage the following attitudes/behaviors
in dealing with discrimination:
Accepting as part ofUfe/Living with discrimination
o Family encourages accepting discrimination as a part oflife
o Family acknowledges that their people have fought the "system" and have
not been able to change the pervasiveness of discrimination
o Family reports coping with the discrimination and not going against the
power
1 (not at all)
Family highly emphasizes taking action and responding the discrimination
Family promotes fighting for one's rights and teaching others the experiences of
discrimination
Family highly values and encourages the learning of the experiences of other cultures and
ethnic groups
Family encourages interacting with others and sharing/teaching experiences of
discrimination
5 (somewhat)
Family is only slightly involved in taking action and responding the discrimination
Family suggests that going against discrimination is not something they can do
Family does not seem to promote confronting people about issues of discrimination
Family appears to slightly avoid learning or sharing the experiences of other cultures and
ethnic groups
9 (a lot)
Family encourages accepting discrimination as a part oflife
Family acknowledges that their people have fought the "system" and have not been able
to change the pervasiveness of discrimination
Family reports coping with the discrimination and not going against the power
Family does believe that things can be changed by confronting discrimination issues
Perspective on discrimination
Q7. What is the family s perspective on discrimination?
o Does the family think that discrimination is a pertinent issue that needs to
be address0d?
o Does family provide evidence that they have discussed issues of
discrimination?
o Does the family discuss the "hurts" of individuals who have experienced
discrimination
138
1 (unacceptable)
Family firmly believes that discrimination should not be ignored and that it should be
dealt with
Family reports sharing their experiences with others as a way to educate/teach others
about the issues of discrimination
Family fully understands the experiences of discrimination and is able to report/describe
those experiences as valid and important
5 (somewhat)
Family believes that discrimination is somewhat an issue that should be addressed
Family understands that discrimination should be addressed but does not emphasize on
how to deal with discrimination/overcome barriers
9 (acceptable)
Family firmly believes that discrimination is not important or is an issue that is present
today
Family reports that discrimination is an issue of the past
Family does not show interest in sharing their experiences with others as a way to
educate/teach others
Family minimizes the impact discrimination has on individuals
Q8. Does it appear that discrimination is an important issue that should be seriously
considered?
o Family spends a large portion of floor time discussing discrimination
o Family engages/participates in discussion on discrimination
o Family provides coherent examples about discrimination
o Family is engaged in developing various ideas/suggestions/examples
about how to deal/cope with discrimination
1 (not at all)
Family reports that discrimination is no longer a present issue and has been dealt with
Family indicates that they have little contact with issues of discrimination
Family does not appreciate learning about the experiences of others
Family spends very little dme talking about issues of discrimination (less than 10%)
Family promotes separation of ethnic groups
5 (somewhat)
Family shows some understanding that discrimination is an important issue but does not
engage in further discussion about experiences of others or ways to deal with
discrimination
Family spends 40-60% of floor time discussing discrimination
Family somewhat engaged in the discussion on discrimination
139
9 (a lot)
Family spends a large portion of floor time discussing discrimination
Family is fully engaged/participates in discussion on discrimination
Family provides coherent examples about discrimination
Family is engaged in developing various ideas/suggestions/examples about how to
deal/cope with discrimination talking about discrimination
Family shows serious attitudes in discussion
Q9. Is the family actively engaged in discussion on discrimination?
o Family is participateslinvolved in discussion
o Family provides various examples on how to cope with discrimination
o Family spends a large portion of floor time discussing discrimination
o Family is engaged in developing various ideas/suggestions/examples
about how to deal/cope with discrimination
o Family is vJtentive during discussion on discrimination
1 (not at all)
Family is not engaged in discussion on discrimination
Family does not appear to be interested in the discussion
Family spends less than 10% of time involved in discussion on discrimination
Family digresses from topic often during discussion
5 (somewhat)
Family is somewhat engaged in discussion on discrimination
Family is somewhat appear to be interested in the discussion
Family spends 40-60% of time involved in discussion on discrimination
Family occasionally digresses from topic often during discussion
9 (a lot)
Family is participates/involved in discussion
Family provides various examples on how to cope with discrimination
Family spends 80-100% of floor time discussing discrimination
Family is engaged in developing various ideas/suggestions/examples about how to
deal/cope with discrimination
Ql O. Is family directive in discussion?
o Does the family take initiative to be involved in discussion
o Does the family provide examples about discrimination
o Does the family provide or generate ideas about ways to cope with
discrimination
o Do family members set the tone or direct the flow of the conversation
about discrimination
140
1 (not at all)
Family does not show initiative to participate in discussion
Family does not generate ideas about coping strategies against discrimination
Discussion on discrimination is not coherent, conversation digresses and is random
Family does not spend much time in discussion talking or generating conversation about
discrimination
5 (somewhat)
Family shows some initiation in participation in discussion
Family generates a few ideas about coping against discrimination but the conversation
does not take much of the floor time
Discussion on discrimination is present but conversation sometimes digresses
9 (a lot)
Family takes initiative to be involved in discussion
Family provides examples about discrimination
Family provides or generates ideas about ways to cope with discrimination
Family members set the tone or direct the flow of the conversation about discrimination
Family leads discussion during task
Q11a. What percentage ofdiscussion time does family use to talk about discrimination?
o Time spent on discussing discrimination - of all 5 minutes what % spent
on talking about discrimination
Q11b: How much does each family member participate in discussion?
1 (not at all)
Family spends less than 5% talking about discrimination
5 (somewhat)
Family spends 40-60% talking about discrimination
9 (a lot)
Family spends 80-100% talking about discrimination
Interethnic relations
Q12a. How does the family perceive their relations with:
Members from mainstream culture
o Family values relationships with members from mainstream culture
o Family has relationships with members in mainstream culture
o Family promotes relationships with members in mainstream culture
141
1 (not at all)
Family does not value relationships with members from mainstream culture
Family does not have or desire to have relationships with members in mainstream culture
Family discourages relationships with members in mainstream culture
5 (somewhat)
Family shows some appreciation of relationships with members from mainstream culture
Family somewhat promotes relationships with members in mainstream culture
9 (a lot)
Family values relationships with members from mainstream culture
Family has or desires to have relationships with members in mainstream culture
Family encourages relationships with members in mainstream culture
Q 12b. How does the family perceive their relations with:
Members from ethnic minority cultures
o Family values relationships with members from ethnic minority cultures
o Family has relationships with members in ethnic minority cultures
o Family promotes relationships with members in ethnic minority cultures
1 (not at all)
Family does not value relationships with members from ethnic minority cultures
Family does not have or desire to have relationships with members in ethnic minority
cultures
Family discourages relationships with members in ethnic minority cultures
5 (somewhat)
Family shows some appreciation of relationships with members from ethnic minority
cultures
Family somewhat promotes relationships with members in ethnic minority cultures
9 (a lot)
Family values relationships with members from ethnic minority cultures
Family has or desires to have relationships with members in ethnic minority cultures
Family encourages relationships with members in ethnic minority cultures
Q13. Is the family socially involved with members ofother ethnic groups?
• Family reports having friends of other ethnic groups
• Family reports participation in cultural events that involve interaction with other
ethnic groups
• Family reports participation in multicultural groups, events, activities
1 (not at all)
Family reports no indicat~on of having relations with those from other ethnic groups
5 (somewhat)
Family reports few involvement with those from other ethnic groups
9 (a lot)
Family reports having nU'llerous multiethnic relations
142
143
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction
in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations.
Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Beauvais, F. (2000). Cultural disintegration. In A. E. Kazdin, (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 382-384). Washington, DC; New York, NY: American
Psychological Association; Oxford University Press.
Beauvais, F. (1996). Trends in drug use among American Indian students and dropouts,
1975-1994. American Journal ofPublic Health, 8,1594-1598.
Biafora, F. A., Warheit, 0. J. Zimmerman, R. S., Gil, A. G., Apospori, E., Taylor, D., et al.
(1993). Racial mistrust and deviant behaviors among ethnically diverse Black
adolescent boys. Journal ofApplied Social Psychology, 23, 891-910.
Bowman, P. J., & Howard, C. (1985). Race-related socialization, motivation, and
academic achievement: A study of Black youths in three-generation families. Journal
ofthe American Academy ofChild Psychiatry, 24, 134-141.
Boykin, A. W., & Toms, F. D. (1985). Black child socialization: A conceptual framework.
In H. P. McAdoo & J. L. McAdoo (Eds.), Black children: social, educational, and
parental environments (pp.33-51). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Brody, 0. H., Stoneman, Z., & Flor, D. (1996). Family wages, family processes, and
youth competence in rural married African American families. In E. M. Hetherington,
& E. A. Blechman (Eds.), Stress, coping, and resiliency in children andfamilies (pp.
173-188). Hillsdale, NJ, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Brooks-Gunn, J., Guo, G, & Furstenberg, F. (1993). Who drops out of and who continues
beyond high school? J1..20-year follow-up of Black urban youth. Journal ofResearch
onAdolescence, 3,271-294.
Broman, C. L., Mavaddat, R., & Hsu, S. (2000). The experience and consequences of
perceived racial discrimination: A study ofAfrican-Americans. Journal ofBlack
Psychology, 26, 165-180.
Buriel, R., & DeMent, T. (1997). Immigration and sociocultural changes in Mexican,
Chinese, and Vietnamese American families. In A. Booth, A. C. Crouter, & N.
Landale (Eds.), Immigration and the family: Research and policy on Us. immigrants
(pp. 165-200). Hillsdale, NJ, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
144
Burke, P. J. (1980). The self: Measurement requirements from an interactionist
perspective. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43, 18-29.
Bursik, R. J., Grasmick, H. G (1996). The use of contextual analysis in models of
criminal behavior. In J. D. Hawkins (Ed.), Delinquency and crime: Current theories.
(pp. 236-267). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Caughy, M. 0., Campo, F. J., Randolph, S. M., & Nickerson, K (2002). The influence of
racial socialization practices on the cognitive and behavioral competence ofAfrican
American children. Child Development, 73, 1611-1625.
Coard, S., J., Wallace, S. A, Stevenson, H. C., & Brotman, L. M. (2004). Towards
culturally relevant preventive interventions: The consideration of racial socialization
in parent training with African American families. American Journal ofChild and
Family Studies, 31,463-484.
Constantine, M. G, & Blackmon, S. B. (2002). Black adolescents' racial socialization
experiences: Their relations to home, school, and peer self-esteem. Journal ofBlack
Studies, 32, 322-334.
Cross, W. (1991). Shades ofblack: Diversity in African American identity. Philadelphia,
PA: Temple University Press.
Demo, D., & Hughes, M. (1990) Socialization and racial identity among Black
Americans. Social Psychology Quarterly, 53, 364-374.
Dishion, T. J., & Granic, 1. (2003). Naturalistic observation of relationship processes. In
M. Hersen, S. N. Haynes, & E. M. Heiby (Eds.), The comprehensive handbook of
psychological assessment: Behavioral assessment (pp. 143-161). New York: Wiley.
Dishion, T. J., Kavanagh, K, Schneiger, A, Nelson, S., & Kaufman, N. (2002).
Preventing early adoll~scent substance use: A family-centered strategy for public
middle school. Prevention Science, 3,191-201.
Dishion, T. J., & Kavanagh, K (2002). The Adolescent Transitions Program: A family-
centered prevention strategy for schools. In J. B. Reid, J. J. Snyder, & G R. Patterson
(Eds.), Antisocial behavior in children and adolescents: A developmental analysis
and the Oregon Modelfor Intervention (pp. 257-272). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Fischer, A R., & Shaw, C. M. (1999). African Americans' mental health and perceptions
of racist discrimination: The moderating effects of racial socialization experiences
and self-esteem. Journal ofCounseling Psychology, 46,395-407.
145
Garcia Coll, C. T. (1990). Developmental outcome of minority infants: A process oriented
look into our beginnings. Child Development, 61,270-289.
Garcia Coll, C., Lamberty, G., Jenkins, R, McAdoo, H. P., Crnic, K., Wasik, B.H., et al.
(1996). An integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in
minority children. Child Development, 67, 1891-1914.
Garcia Coll, C.T., & Magnuson, K. (1997). The psychological experience of immigration:
A developmental perspective. In A Booth (Ed.), Immigration and the family:
Research and policy on Us. immigrants (pp. 91-131). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Gardner, F. (1987). Positive interaction between mothers and children with conduct
problems: Is there training for harmony as well as for fighting? Journal ofAbnormal
Child Psychology, 15,283-293.
Gardner, Frances. (2000). Methodological issues in the direct observation of parent-child
interaction: Do observational findings reflect the natural behavior of participants?
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 3, 185-198.
Garrett, J. T., & Garrett, M. W. (1994). The path of good medicine: Understanding and
counseling American Indians. Journal ofMulticultural Counseling and
Development, 22, 134-144.
Gibbons, F. A, Gerrard, M., Cleveland, M. J., Wills, T. A, & Brody, G (2004). Perceived
discrimination and substance use in African American parents and their children: A
panel study. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 86, 517-529.
Gonzales, AG, Umana-Taylor, A J., & Bamaca, M. Y. (2006). Adolescent of Latino and
European descent. Do Latina mothers exert the most influence? Journal ofFamily
Issues, 27, 184-207.
Halstead, M., Johnson, S. B., & Cunningham, W. (1993). Measuring coping in
adolescents: An application of the Ways of Coping Checklist. Journal ofClinical
Psychology, 22,337-344.
Hops, H. B. A, Sherman, L., Arthur, J. F. L., & Osteen, V. (1987). Home observations of
family interactions of depressed women. Journal ofConsulting and Clinical
Psychology, 55,341-346.
Hughes, D. L., & Chen, L.A. (1997). When and what parents tell children about race: An
examination of race-related socialization among African American families. Applied
Developmental Science, 1, 198-212.
146
Hughes, D., & Dumont, K. (1993). Using focus groups to facilitate culturally anchored
research. American Journal ofCommunity Psychology, 21, 775-806.
Hughes, D., & Chen, L. (1999). The nature of parents' race-related communications to
children: A developmental perspective. In L. Balter & C. S. Tamis-LeMonda (Eds.),
Child psychology: A handbook ofcontemporary issues (pp. 467-490). Philadelphia,
PA: Taylor & Francis.
Hughes, D. (2003). Correiates ofAfrican American and Latino parents' messages to
children about ethnicity and race: A comparative study of racial socialization.
American Journal ofCommunity Psychology, 31, 15-33.
Hughes, D., Rodriguez, J., Smith, E. P., Johnson, D. J., Stevenson, H. C., & Spicer, P.
(2006). Parents' Racial Socialization Practices: A Review of Research and Directions
for Future Study. Developmental Psychology, 42, 747-770.
Kawamoto, W. T. (2001). Community mental health and family issues in sociohistorical
context. American Behavioral Scientist, 44, 1482-1491.
Knight, G. P., Bernal, M. 2., Garza, C. A, Cota, M. K., & Ocampo, K. A (1993). Family
socialization and the ethnic identity of Mexican-American children. Journal ofCross-
Cultural Psychology, 24, 273-285.
Knight, G. P., Cota, M. K., & Bernal, M. E. (1993). The socialization of cooperative,
competitive, and individualistic preferences among Mexican American children: The
mediating role of ethnic identity. Hispanic Journal ofBehavioral Sciences, 15, 291 -
309.
LaFromboise, T. D., Berman, J. S., & Sohi, B. K. (1994). American Indian women. In L.
Comas-Diaz, & B. Greene (Eds.), Psychotherapy with women ofcolor (pp. 30-71).
New York: Guilford.
LaFramboise, T., & Medoff, L. (2004). Sacred spaces: The rale of context in American
Indian youth development. In C. S. Clauss-Ehlers & M. D. Weist (Eds.), Community
planning to foster resilience in children (pp.45-63). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Marshall, S. (1995). Ethnic socialization ofAfrican American children: Implications for
parenting, identity development, and academic achievement. Journal ofYouth and
Adolescence, 24,377-396.
Matsumoto, D. (2007). Individual and cultural differences in status differentiation: The
Status Differentiation Scale. Journal ofCross-Cultural Psychology, 38,413-431.
147
McAdoo, H. P. (1981). Blackfamilies. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Metzler, C.W., Biglan, A., Ary, D.V., & Li, F. (1998). The stability and validity of
early adolescents' reports of parenting practices constructs. Journal ofFamily
Psychology, 12,600-619.
Murray, C. B., & Mandara, J. (2001). Racial identity development in African American
children: Cognitive and experiential antecedents. In H. P. McAdoo (Ed.), Black
children: Social, educational, and parental environments (pp. 73-96). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Nagata, D. K., & Cheng, W. J. Y. (2003). Intergenerational communication ofrace-
related trauma by Japanese American former internees. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 73, 266-278.
Nobles, W. W. (1973). Psychological research and the Black self-concept: A critical
review. Journal ofSocial Issues, 29, 11-31.
O'Connor, L. A., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Graber, 1. (2000). Black and White girls' racial
preferences in media and peer choices and the role of socialization for Black girls.
Journal ofFamily Psychology, 14,510-521.
Ogbu, J. U. (1981). Origins of human competence: A cultural-ecological perspective.
Child Development, 52, 413-429.
Ogbu, J. U. (1988). Cultural diversity and human development. New Directionsfor Child
Development, 42, 11-28.
Ou, Y. S., & McAdoo, H. P. (1993). Socialization of Chinese American children. In H. P.
McAdoo (Eds.), Ethnicity: Strength in diversity (pp.245-270). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Patterson, G. R (1982). A social learning approach: III. Coercive family process. Eugene,
OR: Castalia.
Patterson, G. R, & Forgatch, M. S. (1985). Therapist behavior as a determinant for client
resistance: A paradox for the behavior modifier. Journal ofConsulting and Clinical
Psychology, 53, 846-h51.
Peters, M. F. (1985). Racial socialization of Black children. In H. P. McAdoo & J. L.
McAdoo (Eds.), Black children: Social, educational, and parental environments
(pp.33-51). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
--- --- --- - ._--
148
Peters, M. F & Massey, G. (1983). Mundane extreme environmental stress in family
stress theories: The CLse of Black families in White America. Marriage & Family
Review, 6, 193-218.
Phinney, J. S. (1992). The Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure: A new scale for use with
diverse groups. Journal ofAdolescent Research, 7, 156-176.
Phinney, J., & Chavira, V. (1995).Parenta1 ethnic socialization and adolescent outcomes
in ethnic minority families. Journal ofResearch on Adolescents, 5, 13-53.
Prelow, H. M., Danoff-Burg, S., Swenson, R R, & Pug1iano, D. (2004). The impact of
ecological risk and perceived discrimination on the psychological adjustment of
African American and European American youth. Journal ofCommunity Psychology,
32,375-389.
Quintana, S. M., & Vera, E. M. (1999). Mexican American children's ethnic identity,
understanding of ethnic prejudice, and parental ethnic socialization. Hispanic Journal
ofBehavioral Sciences, 21,387-404.
Quintana, S. M., Castaneda-English, P., & Ybarra, V. C. (1999). Role of perspective-
taking abilities and etlmic socialization in development of adolescent ethnic identity.
Journal ofResearch on Adolescence, 9, 161-184.
Reid, J.,Webster-Stratton, C., & Beauchaine, T. (2001). Parent training in Head Start: A
comparison of program response among African American, Asian American,
Caucasian, and Hispa,1ic mothers. Prevention Science, 2, 209-227.
Rosenbloom, S. R, & Way, N. (2004). Experiences of discrimination among African
American, Asian American, and Latino Adolescents in an urban high school. Youth &
Society, 35, 420-451.
Rumbaut, R. G. (1994). The crucible within: Ethnic identity, self-esteem, and segmented
assimilation among children of immigrants. International Migration Review, 28, 748-
794.
Sampson, R 1., & Groves, W. B. (1989). Community structure and crime: testing socia1-
disorganization theory. American Journal ofSociology, 94, 774-802.
Sanders-Thompson, V. L. (1994). Socialization to race and its relationship to racial
identification among African Americans. Journal ofBlack Psychology, 20, 175-188.
Schmader, T., Major, B., & Gramzow, R H.(2001). Coping with ethnic stereotypes in the
academic domain: Perceived injustice and psychological disengagement. Journal of
Social Issues, 57,93- 1 11.
149
Semaj, L. T. (1985). Afrikanity, cognition and extended self-identity. In M. B. Spencer, G.
K. Brookins, & W. R. Allen (Eds.) Beginnings: The social and affective development
ofblack children (pp. 173-183). Hillsdale, NJ, England: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Scott, L. D. (2003). The relation of racial identity and racial socialization to coping with
discrimination among African American adolescents. Journal ofBlack Studies, 33,
520-538.
Simons, R. L., Murry, v., McLoyd, v., Lin, K., Cutrona, C., & Conger, R. D. (2002).
Discrimination, crime, ethnic identity and parenting as correlates of depressive
symptoms among African American children: A multilevel analysis. Developmental
and Psychopathology, 14,371-393.
Smith, E. P., Atkins, J., & Connell, C. M. (2003). Family, school, and community factors
and relationships to racial-ethnic attitudes and academic achievement. American
Journal ofCommunity Psychology, 32, 159-173.
Stevenson, H. C. (2002). Wrestling with destiny: The cultural socialization of anger and
healing in African American males. Journal ofPsychology and Christianity, 21, 357-
364.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural
equation models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290-312).
Washington DC: American Sociological Association.
Stevenson, H. C., Cameron, R., Herrero-Taylor, T., & Davis, G. Y. (2002). Development
of the Teenager Experience of Racial Socialization scale: Correlates of race-related
socialization frequency from the perspective of Black youth. Journal ofBlack
Psychology, 28, 84-106.
Stevenson, H. C., Reed, J., Bodison, P., & Bishop, A. (1997). Racism stress
management: Racial social beliefs and the experience of depression and anger in
African American youth. Youth & Society, 29, 197-222.
Stevenson, H. C. (1995). Relationship of adolescent perceptions of racial socialization to
racial identity. Journd ofBlack Psychology, 21, 49-70.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Tatum, B. D. (1987). Assimilation blues: Blackfamities in a White community.
Northhampton, MA: Hazel-Maxwell.
150
Thornton, M. C., Chatters, L. M., Taylor, R J., & Allen, W. R (1990). Sociodemographic
and environmental correlates of racial socialization. Child Development, 61, 401-409.
Umana-Taylor, A. J., & Fine, M. A. (2004). Examining ethnic identity among Mexican-
origin adolescents living in the United States. Hispanic Journal ofBehavioral
Sciences, 26, 36-59.
Whitbeck, L. B., Hoyt, D. R, McMorris, B. J., Chen, X, & Stubben, J. D. (2001).
Perceived discrimination and early substance abuse among American Indian children.
Journal ofHealth and Social Behaviors, 42, 405-424.
Whitbeck, L. B., Hoyt, D. R, Johnson, K. D., & Chen, X. (2007). Victimization and
posttraumatic stress disorder among runaway and homeless adolescents. Violence and
Victims, 22, 721-734.
Whitbeck, L. B., McMorris, B. J., Hoyt, D. R, Stubben, J. D., & LaFromboise, T. (2002).
Perceived discrimination, traditional practices, and depressive symptoms among
American Indians in the Upper Midwest. Journal ofHealth and Social Behavior, 43,
400-418.
Wong, C. A., Eccles, J. S., & Sameroff, A. (2003). The influence of ethnic discrimination
and ethnic identification on African American adolescents' school and socioemotiona1
adjustment. Journal ofPersonality, 71, 1197-1232.
Woods, L. N., & Jagers, R. J. (2003). Are cultural values predictors of moral reasoning in
African American adolescents? Journal ofBlack Psychology, 29, 102-118.
Zimmerman, M.A., Ramirez-Valles, J., Washienko, K.M., Walter, B., & Dyer, S. (1996).
The development of a measure of encu1turation for American Indian youth. American
Journal ofCommunity Psychology, 24,295-310.