Corresponding Author: Linda Charmaraman, Wellesley Centers for Women, Wellesley College, 106 Central Street, Wellesley, MA 02481-8203, ude.yelsellew@ramrahcl, [781] 283-2542, [781] 283-3645 [fax]
Copyright notice
Publisher's Disclaimer
The publisher's final edited version of this article is available at Cultur Divers Ethnic Minor Psychol
Abstract
This mixed-method study used a grounded theory approach to explore the meanings underlying the importance adolescents attach to their racial-ethnic identities. The sample consisted of 923 9th–12th grade students from Black, Latino, Asian, and Multiracial backgrounds. Thematic findings identified a broad range of explanations for adolescents’ racial-ethnic centrality, ranging from pride and cultural connection to ambivalence and colorblind attitudes. While racial-ethnic groups differed in reported levels of racial-ethnic centrality, few group differences were identified in participants’ thematic explanations, with the exception of racial-ethnic and gender differences for Positive Regard and Disengagement. These findings highlight the diversity of meanings adolescents attribute to their racial-ethnic centrality as well as the many commonalities among adolescents across gender and racial-ethnic groups.
Keywords: racial identity, ethnic identity, gender and race, grounded theory
Racial and ethnic identity, commonly defined as the significance and meaning of race and ethnicity to one’s self-concept [Phinney, 1996; Sellers, Smith, Shelton, Rowley, & Chavous, 1998], represent crucial components of adolescent development and exploration among youth of color [Cross & Cross, 2007]. As with most racial identity constructs, research on the importance of race and ethnicity was initiated with adult African American populations [e.g., Cross, 1995; Cross, Parham, & Helms, 1991; Sellers et al., 1998] and has provided critical foundations for the study of racial and ethnic identity. A growing body of work investigates how these constructs apply to diverse groups of adolescents [e.g., Charmaraman & Grossman, 2008; Herman, 2004; Martinez & Dukes, 1997; Pellebon, 2000; Romero & Roberts, 1998], although Multiracial populations in particular remain understudied [Herman, 2004]. The present mixed-method study explores racial-ethnic centrality among Black, Asian, Latino, and Multiracial adolescents. Participants were asked to rate their racial-ethnic centrality and to elaborate on the nuances behind these ratings, providing a qualitative window into the phenomenology of racial and ethnic centrality amongst a diverse group of respondents.
Use of “Racial” and “Ethnic” Identity
Racial identity has been historically understood as relating to responses to racism and prejudice [Helms, 2007], while ethnic identity has included a sense of belonging to a group connected by heritage, values, traditions, and often languages [Phinney & Ong, 2007], although both terms are acknowledged as socially constructed [Cross & Cross, 2007; Helms, 2007; Markus, 2008; Omi & Winant, 1986]. Consistent with these definitions, Markus [2008] argues that race should be conceptualized as distinct from ethnicity due to historical and contemporary racial hegemony related to power and privilege. However, as Cokley [2005] notes, there is great variability in how these constructs are operationalized, with much complexity and definitional overlap [Trimble, Helms, & Root, 2003; Worrell & Gardner-Kitt, 2006]. Cross and Cross further argued that regardless of these theoretical differentiations, racial and ethnic elements interact within individuals’ lived experiences and should not be artificially isolated from one another, as in the exploration of ethnic features of African American racial identity [Cokley, 2005]. This may be especially relevant for adolescents, who are often early in their exploration of racial and ethnic identity, and whose own constructions of racial and ethnic identity may diverge from researchers’ categorizations and assumptions [Cross & Cross]. In this study, we invited adolescent participants to reflect on their racial and/or ethnic background, not to assert that these constructs are conflated, but to leave open how adolescents conceptualize these historically and developmentally complex concepts when referring to their identities, and to capture their understandings of these often intermingling concepts through grounded theory methodology. To reflect this understanding, we have adopted Cross and Cross’ language of “racial-ethnic identity” development throughout this paper.
Theoretical Perspectives
Several theories help to explain racial-ethnic importance and the phenomenological meanings which minority adolescents attribute to their racial-ethnic identity. Stryker’s [1987] identity theory proposes that individuals may attribute different levels of importance to various aspects of identity [e.g. race, gender]. However, Sellers and Shelton [2003] point out that group identification alone cannot encompass identity and individuals who share a common level of group identification may attribute their engagement to different underlying reasons. Spencer and colleagues [1997] expanded on Bronfenbrenner’s [1989] ecological developmental framework by integrating the role of meaning making in shaping individuals’ self-concepts, resulting in the Phenomenological Variant of Ecological Systems Theory [PVEST]. They assert that these processes are more complex for American ethnic minorities, particularly in adolescence, in part due to potentially stressful environments, which combine with phenomenological experiences of emergent identities to shape one’s self-concept. These theories contend that the importance of group identification and the meanings behind these identifications together provide a fuller picture of the motivations that drive racial-ethnic identification than importance alone.
Centrality of Racial-Ethnic Identity
The importance of race and ethnicity to an individual’s identity, which is referred to as centrality, represents a relatively stable perception of the significance one attributes to one’s racial-ethnic background. We use centrality and importance interchangeably in this article, following the terminology originally utilized by the researchers. While much scholarship has focused on racial regard [Sellers et al., 1998], defined as how one feels about one’s group membership, or on broader notions of exploring racial/ethnic identity, the construct of centrality is emerging as a meaningful component of racial and ethnic identity. For instance, recent findings for African American adolescents have shown that regard contributes to positive outcomes only when race or ethnicity are central aspects of individuals’ identities [e.g. Caldwell, Sellers, Bernat, & Zimmerman, 2004; Chavous, Revas-Drake, Smalls, Griffin, & Cogburn, 2008], while other studies directly link centrality with positive academic and mental health outcomes among adolescents of Mexican, Chinese, and European American backgrounds [Fuligni, Witkow & Garcia, 2005] and for African American adolescent boys [Chavous et al.]. Cross-group comparisons suggest that those who tend to face greater racial adversity attribute higher centrality to racial aspects of their identities. Studies have found that adolescents of color report higher racial-ethnic centrality than White youth [Charmaraman & Grossman, 2008; Herman, 2004], while African Americans reported higher racial-ethnic importance than either Multiracial or White adults [Jaret & Reitzes, 1999]. Most prior studies have taken a quantitative, group differences approach to studying racial-ethnic centrality, whereas in the current study, we explore group differences in centrality and use grounded theory to better understand the meanings behind these ratings.
Meanings of Racial-Ethnic Identity
Researchers have suggested several explanations for individuals’ varying racial-ethnic centrality levels. Sellers and colleagues [1998] identify racial regard as central to how African American individuals assign meaning to their racial identity. This concept, arising from Luhtanen & Crocker’s [1992] construct of collective self-esteem, is a frequently identified component of racial-ethnic meaning making. It includes positive feelings and pride towards one’s racial-ethnic group, and has shown positive influence among diverse adolescents, including those of Mexican and Chinese descent [Kiang, Yip, Gonzales-Backen, Witkow, & Fuligni, 2006] and predicts self-esteem among African American, Latino and White adolescents [Phinney, Cantu, & Kurtz, 1997]. Another orientation underlying racial-ethnic centrality is the belief in a colorblind society, wherein everyone is considered to be part of the “human” race. Notions of colorblindnesss are typically identified with Whites [e.g., Grossman & Charmaraman, 2009; Perry, 2002] and can entail denial of discrimination and racism [Bonilla-Silva, 2003]. Some models of racial-ethnic identity have also alluded to colorblind ideologies in their developmental statuses, such as Cross and colleagues’ [1991] pre-encounter stage and Rockquemore and Brunsma’s [2002] transcendent identity. Neville & colleagues [2001] suggest that colorblindness may have different meanings for ethnic minorities than for Whites, as such perspectives work against one’s own group interest for people of color.
The Role of Gender
Cross and Madson [1997] theorize that girls and young women are more interdependent and concerned with being connected to others and maintaining relationships, while boys are more independent and focused on agentic action. Such gender differences may relate to differential patterns of parental cultural socialization which favor girls as being connected to home, community, and traditions, whereas boys are more attuned to messages of racial barriers and bias [Bowman & Howard, 1985; Hughes, Hagelskamp, Way, & Foust, 2009; Thomas & Speight, 1999]. These distinctions may lead to greater expression of themes related to family culture and heritage for girls than for boys.
These conceptualizations have found mixed support in empirical literature. According toMaywalt Scottham and colleagues [2008], few studies have considered gender variation in centrality or even in the broader area of racial-ethnic identity, and existing findings have shown inconsistent relationships, ranging from no significant gender differences [e.g. Rowley, Chavous, & Cooke, 2003] to finding gender differences only in limited situations or subscales [e.g. Maywalt Scottham et al., 2008; Munford, 1994]. In the area of centrality, one of few studies addressing gender found direct relationships between centrality and academic achievement only for boys, while moderating roles for centrality also differed across gender [Chavous et al., 2008]. Within the broader area of ethnic identity, while adolescent girls have been reported to have stronger ethnic identity than boys [Romero & Roberts, 1998], another study showed similar results only among Black and Asian adolescents, with no gender differences for Hispanic or mixed-race adolescents [Martinez and Dukes, 1997]. Plummer [1995] also found that African American males endorsed more “raceless” or “pre-encounter” attitudes than females. These findings suggest that further exploration is needed regarding intersections of gender and racial-ethnic identity.
Objectives of Present Study
This study adds to the body of research concerning adolescents’ racial-ethnic centrality and its multiple meanings across gender and diverse racial groups, including Multiracial participants. We asked participants to rate the importance of race-ethnicity in their lives and to comment on the subjective meanings behind their ratings, which we analyzed for thematic categories. Moving beyond pre-determined, researcher-defined categories for racial-ethnic understandings, our phenomenological stance allowed for participants’ meanings to emerge. Given this paper’s focus on adolescents of color, participants who identified as solely White/non-Hispanic or of mixed European backgrounds were excluded [n = 781].
This study explored the following research questions: [a] Are there racial-ethnic and gender differences in levels of reported racial-ethnic centrality? [b] What themes do adolescents of color offer regarding the importance of their racial-ethnic identities? [c] Are there similarities or differences in thematic meanings across gender and racial-ethnic groups?
Method
Participants
This sub-sample was part of a larger research study on adolescent racial and ethnic identity among monoracial and multi-racial youth [Tracy et al., in press]. A total of 1793 adolescents in grades 9 through 12 from three public high schools participated in the larger study. This paper focuses on the 948 non-White participants who responded to an item on racial-ethnic centrality, of which 24 were excluded due to missing data on key variables as well as the only Native American adolescent. The remaining sample of 923 adolescents included 251 Black, 275 Latino, 138 Asian, and 259 Multiracial participants. As reported by the participants, the Black subgroup was largely composed of African American, Haitian, and Cape Verdean, as well as African and Jamaican adolescents. The majority of Latino adolescents ethnically identified as Puerto Rican and Dominican, with the remainder identifying as Colombian, Mexican, Guatemalan, and El Salvadorean. Asian adolescents consisted of predominantly Chinese or Vietnamese origins, as well as Indian, Filipino, Korean, Japanese, or Pacific Islander ancestry. Within the Multiracial participants, the five largest subgroups were Black/White, Black/Latino, Latino/White, Asian/White, and Black/Native American combinations. The sample was 54% female, ranging in age from 13 to 21 with a mean age of 15.84 [SD = 3.076]. One hundred twenty-three participants were missing data for maternal education. Mothers’ educational levels included those who did not complete high school [19%], received a high school diploma or equivalent [20%], attended some college [18%], graduated from a four-year institution [21%], and received a Masters or Doctorate level degree [8%].
Procedure
Seven high schools with varying racial-ethnic composition in the New England area were invited to participate in this study. Three public high schools agreed to participate. The first was a low-income working class, predominantly Latino urban school [68% Latino, 16% White/non-Hispanic, 15% Black, 1% Asian]. The second school was primarily White, affluent, and suburban [84% White, non-Hispanic, 7% Asian, 4% Black, and 3% Latino, and 2% Multiracial]. The third school was a multicultural, middle income, suburban school [55% Black, 23% White, non-Hispanic, 15% Asian, and 7% Latino; School Matters website, 2008]. The schools varied in how many residents within the district were born outside of the U.S., ranging from 11% at the predominantly White suburban school to 22% at the multicultural school to 35% at the predominantly Latino school [//www.city-data.com - page not listed to maintain confidentiality].
Administrative staff and school counselors provided assistance in disseminating study information letters and parent/guardian [passive] consent forms to students. Surveys were translated into Spanish, Portuguese, and French as indicated by classroom teachers. Translations were done using the dual focus approach to generating multiple language versions of instruments and communication [Erkut, Alarcón, García Coll, Tropp, & Vázquez García, 1999]. This approach involves preparing translations simultaneously to achieve equivalence in meaning, affect, and usage across languages. Before asking students for their assent, students were informed that their participation was voluntary and their answers would be kept confidential. Teachers administered the surveys in their classrooms using the instructions provided by the researchers. Project personnel were on hand to answer questions and to collect the surveys, which took approximately 20 minutes to complete. Ninety-eight percent of participants answered the surveys in English, with the remaining 2% in Spanish, Portuguese, and French.
Measures
Racial-ethnic identification
Respondents were asked about their race-ethnicity in one of three randomly assigned ways, as part of a larger study on self-categorization of race and ethnicity [Tracy et al., in press]: [a] multiple choice checkboxes taken directly from the 2000 Census form; [b] checkboxes and fill-ins; or [c] open-ended fill-in. Participants were also asked to report the race/ethnicity of each biological parent and whether they considered themselves Multiracial. All racial-ethnic identification responses were coded in a two-step process: [1] a single, researcher-identified racial/pan-ethnic category - labels which are widely used in the research literature: Black, White, Asian, Latino, Native, or Multiracial [the latter category was operationalized as identification with two or more racial/ethnic categories]; and [2] ethnicity responses were coded by country or region of origin, yielding 22 ethnic groups. Though the “category” Latino is comprised of multiple ethnic and racial origins, we organized the categories to distinguish Latinos from the White, non-Hispanic participants.
Racial/Ethnic centrality
We used Cross and Cross’ [2007] inclusive “racial-ethnic” terminology so that participants could reflect on their racial or ethnic background, in order to widely capture their self-concept of what those labels mean to them. The following question was used to assess centrality of race/ethnicity to adolescent identity: “How important to you is race/ethnicity in describing who you are?” Respondents were asked to answer using a four-point Likert scale, with end points of Not at all important [1] to Among the most important [4]. Respondents were given the opportunity to comment on the importance of their race-ethnicity rating through a follow-up open-ended question, “Please explain.”
Researchers’ Backgrounds, Experiences, and Biases
Researchers for this study [a female Thai American and a female White, Jewish American] specialize in different areas of adolescent research. Our backgrounds were complementary and struck a balance between having sufficient knowledge to conduct the investigation yet not having been too immersed in existing perspectives and expectations [Fassinger, 2005]. One of us had greater expertise in qualitative methods focusing on adolescent identity and agency, including grounded theory methods prior to this study, but had limited empirical experience with racial-ethnic identity, whereas the other investigator had less experience with grounded theory, but had more extensive knowledge of the racial-ethnic identity literature, particularly in the area of racial discrimination and adolescent psychological outcomes. We both completed two years of postdoctoral NICHD training in researching minority adolescent populations and health disparities. Prior to and during data analysis, we discussed our biases and their potential implications for this research, in order to minimize their impact on the data coding process [Hill, Thompson, & Williams, 1997].
Data Analysis
Qualitative data were obtained from the 575 participants who provided open-ended elaborations of their importance ratings. Eighteen responses were undecipherable or too vague to be interpretable and were therefore excluded, leaving a total of 557 responses included in qualitative analyses. Fifty-three percent of males [n=224] provided open-ended responses, compared to 63% of females [n=333], indicating that these results may be less representative for the male participants. In terms of racial breakdowns, 62% of Black, 53% of Latino, 59% of Asian, and 68% of Multiracial participants provided qualitative responses for analysis.
Utilizing a grounded theory approach [Glaser & Strauss, 1967], the two authors systematically analyzed the data in three nonlinear, recursive phases: open, axial, and selective coding. We independently sorted through 200 randomly selected responses from the entire dataset in order to develop open codes for the preliminary categories that emerged. The purpose of the open coding was to explore how to first conceptualize the details of the data, which consisted of breaking down sentences and fragments into thematic categories. Longer and more complex responses often entailed coding more than one theme. During the entire coding process, we remained “blind” to the identifying characteristics of the respondents, namely their racial-ethnic background and sex, to guard against biases that might emerge from unconscious expectations based on group membership.
Coding resumed with periodic recalibration of categories through axial coding, i.e. relating the initial codes to each other. This involved checking the agreement between the two independent coders and discussing how to reorganize the open codes, constantly comparing existing data to generate meaningful categories [Charmaz, 2000]. The process continued until all categories were saturated. In cases where there were coding disagreements, the coders returned to the original data and codebook to review definitions and criteria of inclusion in a particular category. Lastly, relationships between categories were revised and confirmed through a process of selective coding, illuminating the core categories that arose from prior iterations of coding [Strauss & Corbin, 1998]. This final process included incorporation of the scholarly literature as the data analysis proceeded, obtaining outsider perspectives through peer debriefing and a multicultural research team review, and negative case analysis, e.g. returning to the existing data to verify coherence of categories [Fassinger, 2005]. Final coding was debated until a consensus was reached or by refining existing codes. Inter-rater reliability of codes was calculated during the axial coding stage. To calculate reliability, the number of agreements was divided by the sum total of agreements and disagreements, then multiplied by 100 [Miles & Huberman, 1994]. Reliability for the thematic coding was calculated at 98.4%.
Results and Discussion
First, we quantitatively assessed racial-ethnic and gender differences in levels of reported racial-ethnic centrality. A two way between groups ANCOVA was conducted to assess the racial and gender differences in levels of reported racial-ethnic centrality. Mother’s level of education and participants’ age were included as covariates to control for individual differences, and did not significantly predict centrality. After adjusting for age and mother’s level of education, the interaction between gender and race was not statistically significant F[3, 777] = 2.51, p = .058. There was a statistically significant main effect for race F[3, 777] = 9.91, p = .001; however, the effect size was small [partial eta squared = .04]. Posthoc Bonferroni analyses documented the following differences across groups: Black [M=2.74, SD=0.94] and Latino [M=2.68, SD=0.92] participants reported the highest levels of centrality, while Asian participants [M=2.46, SD=0.80] reported significantly lower levels than Black participants. Multiracial adolescents [M=2.33, SD=0.89] reported the lowest levels of racial-ethnic centrality, significantly lower than Black or Latino participants. Adolescents who responded to open-ended questions reported higher racial-ethnic centrality than those who did not [t=−3.36, p