Poster #71 - Do Transracial Adoptive Parents Talk About Racial Microaggressions their Children Experience?

• In Event: Poster Session 15

Abstract

Transracial adoptive (TRA) families are predominantly White parents raising children of color. Like other youth of color, TRA youth encounter various racial microaggressions (RMAs), the daily experiences of implicit and explicit forms of discrimination which denigrate racial minorities (Sue et al., 2007; Zhang et al., 2019). Same-race families of color often engage in ethnic-racial socialization (ERS) processes, specifically preparation-for-bias, to promote their child’s awareness of discrimination and prepare them to cope with discrimination (Hughes et al., 2006). However, scholars note concerns about TRA parents’ competence in preparing their youth for bias (e.g., Butler-Sweet, 2011). Pinderhughes et al.’s TRA ERS model (2021) suggests that when parents recognize their child’s RMA experiences, they engage in preparation-for-bias. TRA parents’ attitudes about race (e.g., color-evasive vs. race-conscious; Goar et al., 2016) may also impact their preparation-for-bias behaviors (Pinderhughes et al., 2021). To understand TRA youths’ RMA experiences and parents’ preparation-for-bias engagement, we examined (1) How often TRA youths experienced various types of RMAs, (2) whether/how often parents responded to their TRA youths about these RMAs, (3) whether parent-reported RMAs were associated with their preparation-for-bias engagement, and (4) whether parents’ racial difference attitudes moderated the relation between parent-reported RMAs and parents’ preparation for bias. We also explored group differences (i.e., Black, Latine, Asian, mixed-race) in RMAs and preparation-for-bias experiences.

Fifty-two US-based TRA parents answered online questions about their child’s experience in nine RMA situations and their responses to the child. The nine RMA situations were then grouped into three RMA categories (i.e., Target Youth is Different, Target Youth is Inferior, and Target Youth is Criminal; for groupings, see Table 1). Whereas 26.5% of parents endorsed a color-evasive perspective, 73.5% endorsed a race-conscious perspective. Linear regression on transformed data was conducted to examine possible moderation.

Descriptive results are presented in Table 1. Preliminary results showed that RMAs assuming Target Youth is Inferior were most frequently experienced (M = 5.55 times per year, SD = 8.94). Fisher’s exact test showed that a significantly different proportion of racial groups experienced RMAs assuming Target Youth is Criminal (p = .03, V = .39); e.g., Black youths were the most vulnerable group targeted by this type of RMAs. Preparation-for-bias responses: All but one parent talked to their child at least once about RMAs. Among RMA categories, parents discussed RMAs assuming Target Youth is Criminal (M = 12.28 times per year, SD = 18.10) the least frequently. Parent-reported RMAs were significantly positively correlated with parents’ preparation-for-bias responses (Kendall’s tau = .447, p < .01). Linear regression results: parents’ racial difference attitudes significantly moderated the relation between parent-reported RMAs and their preparation-for-bias (β = -0.842, t(39) = -2.451, p = .02). Color-evasive parents provided more preparation-for-bias messages for every increment in RMAs than race-conscious parents. Race-conscious parents were more stable in providing preparation-for-bias messages (See Figure 1). Findings indicated the complexity of TRA families of different racial compositions. Results highlighted the important role of TRA parents’ racial difference attitudes in their ERS processes. Implications for research and practice will be discussed.

Authors

• Jiayi Liu, Michigan State University
  Presenting Author

• Seungmi Lee, Tufts University

• Madeline Smith, Tufts University

• Olivia Wei Hobert, Tufts University

• Xian Zhang, Tufts University

• Ellen E. Pinderhughes, Tufts University