Divided on Diversity? A Latent Profile Analysis of White Couple’s Racial Socialization Practices in the Home

• In Event: The direct roles of parents and teachers as socialization agents for dominant ideologies

Abstract

Race is an important developmental context for children (Spender, 2006), especially in a country like the U.S., which is not only becoming increasingly multicultural (Lewis, 2003), but is fractured along racial lines. The U.S. desperately needs anti-racist parents, however racial socialization in White families, which is often more implicit, is not well understood. This is especially true for White couples, where “mismatches” on racial socialization style have not been explored. Thus, this research examines White parent dyads’ racial socialization styles, and how income, education, and target child sex/gender relate to these styles (n = 190 southwest U.S. parents; 100% White; Mother/Father education = high school/GED or less (2%/3%), some college (10%/7%), technical/associates degree (7%/13%), bachelor’s degree (40%/42%) advanced degree (41%/35%); Household income = under $30,000 (1%), $30,000 - $60,000 (15%), $60,000 - $75,000 (14%), $75,000 - $100,000 (19%), over $100,000 (51%)).
To answer the first research question, a Latent Profile Analysis identified different classes of racial socialization among White parent dyads. Profiles were based on parents’ implicit racial attitudes (for primary parent only), color-blind racial attitudes, positive messages about other races, and diverse beliefs. Model fit indices indicated that the three-class solution fit the data best (Figure 1). In the first class, both parents showed low levels of implicit racial bias favoring White people, low color-blind racial attitudes, and high levels of positive messages/diverse values (20%; coined anti-racist socialization group). In another class, both parents had high levels of implicit White racial bias and color-blind racial attitudes but low levels of positive messages/diverse values (28%, racially biased socialization group). In the last group, mothers showed moderate levels of implicit racial bias, moderate color-blind racial attitudes, and high levels of positive messages/diverse values. However, fathers showed high level of color-blind racial attitudes and low levels of positive messages/diverse values, representing a mixed socialization group (52%).
Education level for both partners, income, and target child sex predicted class membership. Compared to the anti-racist parents, fathers in the biased socialization group had significantly less education and significantly higher household income (see Table 1). Comparatively, in the mixed socialization group, both parents had significantly lower education levels and higher income levels than anti-racist couples. Child sex was not significant.
Findings evidence multiple types of parent dyads, including a majority group where one parent had an anti-racist socialization style but the other did not. This “mismatched” group prompts future study, including how dyadic discrepancies influence children’s racial bias. Higher income was generally negatively associated with anti-racist style whereas fathers’ higher education associated positively with anti-racism, encouraging further study on racial attitudes among highly educated, high earning men. An interesting pattern emerged for mothers, where higher education did not necessarily equate to anti-racist style, perhaps due to the influence of greater income and/or partners’ style. Results illustrate the complicated relations between resources and racism. Mixed-group mothers were comparatively less educated, but seemingly found alternative routes toward anti-racist style. Findings call for deeper exploration of couples’ racial socialization “match” and avenues toward anti-racism education/intervention for U.S. parents.

Authors

• Ashley Jimenez Fraser, Brigham Young University

• Wen Wang, North Dakota State University
  Presenting Author

• Jane Shawcroft, University of California - Davis

• Tracy L Spinrad, Arizona State University

• Nancy Eisenberg, Arizona State University

• Gustavo Carlo, University of California, Irvine

• Deborah J. Laible, Lehigh University