African American,Black Caribbean,and Non-Hispanic White Feelings of Closeness Toward Other Racial and Ethnic Groups

Abstract

This study examines African Americans’, Black Caribbeans’, and non-Hispanic Whites’ perceptions of closeness to other racial and ethnic groups. The study uses data from a national probability sample, the National Survey of American Life (N = 6,082), and provides the first investigation of this topic among Black Caribbeans. Study findings reveal both similarities and significant differences between African Americans and Black Caribbeans in their levels of closeness to other groups. African Americans and Black Caribbeans were similar in their levels of closeness to Whites, American Indians, and Asian Americans. African Americans felt significantly closer to Black people in the United States than did Black Caribbeans. Conversely, Black Caribbeans felt significantly closer than African Americans to Black people from the Caribbean, Spanish-speaking people, and Black people in Africa. Non-Hispanic Whites felt significantly closer to Asian Americans than did either African Americans or Black Caribbeans. These and other findings are discussed in detail and reaffirm the continued importance of race in American life and intergroup relations.

Keywords

racial attitudes color line ethnic relations immigrants

Increasing rates of interracial marriage and immigration from regions such as Asia and Latin America have rendered archaic the accepted color line in the United States. Lee and Bean (2007) suggest that “if the problem of the 20th century was the color line, the question of the 21st century could be one of the multiple color lines” (p. 563). Implicit in this statement are questions about how color lines are related to group ties. Hollinger (2011) asserts that the issue is “one of solidarity. With precisely who [sic] does one try to affiliate?” (pp. 180-181). This study mirrors this emphasis by using data from a national probability sample of African Americans, Black Caribbeans, and non-Hispanic Whites to examine feelings of closeness to seven groups: (a) Black people in this country, (b) White people in this country, (c) Spanish-speaking groups in this country, (d) American Indians, (e) Asian Americans in this country, (f) Black people from the Caribbean, and (g) Black people in Africa.

Closeness Across Color Lines

Early work on racial attitudes implied that in-group attachment and preference over out-groups was universal (Sumner, 1906). Later work, inspired by social identity theory (Tajfel, 1970; Tajfel & Turner, 1986), suggested that a simple “we-they” distinction is enough to activate disparate reactions to others based on in-group and out-group membership. In-group members are more likely to be positively valued than out-group members, to arouse a more positive trust, and to bring out cooperative behavior (Hewstone, Rubin, & Willis, 2002).

To gain an estimate of how similar respondents viewed themselves and different racial-ethnic groups, we examined their responses to a measure of perceived closeness. Perceived closeness has been found to reflect individuals’ psychological attachment or identification with a particular social group (e.g., Conover, 1984; Gurin, 1985; Gurin, Miller, & Gurin, 1980). Generalized feelings of closeness have been especially useful for assessing interracial attitudes (see Jackman & Crane, 1986; Tropp & Pettigrew, 2005a). Other works indicate that the relationship between contact and interracial closeness is generally weaker among Black Americans than among White Americans (see Ellison & Powers, 1994; Tropp & Pettigrew, 2005b).

Closeness is thus far a concept used almost exclusively to examine Black attitudes (e.g., Gurin, Hatchett, & Jackson, 1989; Herring, Jankowski, & Brown, 1999; Kinder & Winter, 2001). Craemer (2008) suggests that in highlighting closeness as a measure of Black group proximity, researchers may have implicitly encouraged the idea that each racial group identity is psychologically distinct and perceived as such by members of other groups (C. Wong & Cho, 2005). This supposition may obscure a more complex link between in-group closeness and out-group attitudes, for in-group bias may be also positively associated with feelings toward those of other racial backgrounds (Dovidio, Saguy, & Shnabel, 2009; Kaufmann, 2003; Sanchez, 2008;). Even if “the idea that an individual’s self-concept is derived, to some extent and in some sense, from the social relationships and social groups he or she participates in” (Brewer, 2001, p. 117) holds true, positive connections are still possible across racial boundaries.

Racial Boundaries

As relatively recent arrivals, often seen as a model minority, Black Caribbeans are unique among the three groups highlighted in this article. Immigrants to the United States often confront a perception of race that contrasts with their own. Thus, their move involves an adjustment process during which race and the implication of racial group membership may achieve new meaning. For many, this will contradict past experiences, leading to internal conflicts, a situation perhaps no truer than for migrants from Black homelands. While race remains important in their lives, a common assertion is that historical trends have tended to weaken the bonds they have with African Americans. Earlier immigration came during an era when race linked them and native Blacks in common cause to overthrow “the stifling, degrading limits of segregation. . . . More recently, the wave of Black immigration post-1965 has led to another way of seeing and articulating what difference country of birth makes” (Cooper, 2011, p. 25). This has resulted in an ethnic and a racial component to Black communities and a tension between the two groups that may serve to undermine solidarity (e.g., Jackson & Cothran, 2003; Nunnally, 2010; Rogers, 2006; Waters, 2001).

Some scholarship complicates this dichotomy (Foner, 2001; Stafford, 1987). Black Caribbeans bring to this country divergent experiences with race when compared to native-born African Americans. Vickerman (1999, 2001) describes men who must relearn the meaning and practical cost of African ancestry within the United States while acquiring a newly racialized identity. Their homeland is a place where Blacks are enmeshed in every part of the social hierarchy, and social class dominates. In their new home, they are concentrated at the bottom because of their race. These pressures lead to a seemingly contradictory stance of ethnic separatism versus racial solidarity. But the reality is that these identities shift with time and context. Thus “Blackness” here is complicated, with most reporting being Black and West Indian rather than either-or (Bryce-Laporte, 1993; Butterfield, 2004).

The literature on racial color lines offers further insight on the nature of the relationships we examine here. One view is that race relations remain important in American life, such that there is an interminority process whereby all minorities are part of and identify with a minority experience. The idea of a collective minority identity reflects a current trend in research stressing shifting racial borders and a widening divide between Whites and racial minorities. Reflecting the role of minority status, minorities as a group experience race as a crucial roadblock to life chances and prospects (Bonilla-Silva & Embrick, 2005; Lee & Bean, 2007). As a result, some construct race as an experience going beyond what happens to a single racial minority group, a process linking all people of color via parallel racial experiences (Hollinger, 2005). Thus, some Asian Americans identify with other minorities by adopting Black material culture, advocating for other minority organizations, or sharing a common sense of alienation as non-Whites (Khandelwal, 2002; Maira, 2000; Singh, 1996). A panethnic identity for some Latinos is linked to positive bonds with Blacks (McClain et al, 2006; Meier, McClain, Polinard, & Winkle, 2004), who in turn often feel close to other groups of color (Thornton & Mizuno, 1995). For this group, interminority processes that are based on a lived experience of race in the United States (e.g., discrimination) produce generational shifts in rapport with native Blacks.

In contrast, some argue that race boundaries are changing, becoming more complex, with minority groups increasingly assimilating into the broader spheres of American life. Thus some racial minorities are detached because they see other minorities as an undesired class and/or due to concern about potential loss of their own distinct identities. This process results in a Black/non-Black divide because many immigrant groups entering the United States in time lose their ethnic identities and assimilate into the wider society (Roediger, 1991; Spickard, 1989). For some, this is a “Whitening” process (Gallagher, 2004; Lee & Bean, 2007) coupled with antipathy toward and distancing from the eternally stigmatized Black group (Murguia & Forman, 2003; Yancey, 2003). For example, having achieved economic parity with Whites, some Asian Americans see themselves as above Blacks (Dhingra, 2003; O’Brien, 2008). South Asians may dissociate from Blacks to avoid having their own dark skin linked to Blackness and to escape reducing their own status (George, 1997). In turn, some West Indians distance themselves from the stigma associated with Blackness in the United States (Kasinitz, 1992; Woldemikae, 1989). Similarly, certain West Indians and Hispanics identify more with Whites than with native Blacks (McClain et al., 2006).

Sometimes these feelings are reciprocal. Among Blacks there is a shifting hierarchy of closeness to other groups (Meier et al., 2004; Thornton, 2011; Thornton & Taylor, 1988a, 1988b). National Survey of Black American data point to African Americans feeling closest to other ethnic Blacks (i.e., Africans and West Indians), followed by American Indians, Hispanics, and least of all, Asian Americans (Thornton & Mizuno, 1995). When Whites are included in the list, Blacks feel closest to them, followed by West Indians and Latinos (Thornton & Mizuno, 1999). A 2001 Gallup Poll found that Blacks felt most connected to other Blacks, then equally to Whites and Hispanics, followed by Asian Americans (Ludwig, 2003)¹.

That African Americans may feel less close to Blacks outside the United States may be a relatively recent change. Under the pan-African movement, late-19th- to mid-20th-century intellectuals and leaders in Black American communities envisioned linking the experiences of all those who had a history with the transatlantic slave trade and/or racial oppression (Ackay, 1999; Esedebe, 1982; Magubane, 1987; Meriwether, 2002; Skinner, 1992; Tillery, 2011). This effort championed pride in Black history and culture, ties to Africa, and the liberation of people of African ancestry and commonly linked with other people of color who had a colonial legacy. With the arrival among Black leadership of post–civil rights activism and a focus on race on the domestic home front, “the Black American Pan-Africanist perspective turned increasingly inward, focusing less integratively on issues affecting Blacks in the Caribbean and the African context of the Black diaspora” (Nunnally, 2010, p. 338; see also Nesbitt, 2004; Tillery, 2011; Von Eschen, 1997).

For Whites, research suggests that they feel closest to other Whites, then Blacks, Hispanics, and Asian Americans (Ludwig, 2003). Other studies describe Blacks and Whites as feeling equally close to one another (McClain et al., 2006; Tropp, 2007) or report that Blacks feel closer to their own when compared to how Whites feel about their own (C. Wong & Cho, 2005).

The literature on racial boundaries suggests that race remains an important arbiter of life or, alternatively, that race has become less consequential, albeit with Blacks and Whites taking opposite sides on the question. In either case, both models envision African Americans being the anchor to one side of the boundary and some variation of groups on the other, which always includes Whites. The focus of this work has tended to examine how distant others have felt toward Black populations, seeing them as the ultimate “other.” The work on closeness notes that African American perspectives provide a much more delineated view of the racial landscape. In this case, Blacks often feel close to their racial compatriots but also show much less enmity toward Whites than the racial boundaries literature would suggest.

Together, these works point to two sets of expectations (Bonilla-Silva & Embrick, 2005). The first model of racial boundaries, the non-White/White model, predicts that Black respondents would feel close to other people of color but not to Whites. In this panethnic view, we would predict that African Americans and Black Caribbeans feel especially close to each other and Africans, followed by Hispanics, American Indians, Asian Americans, and then Whites, to whom they would feel most distant (e.g., Thornton & Mizuno, 1995; Oliver, 2011). In turn, Whites should not feel close to any of the target groups, since here, non-White status is a strict arbiter. In a relative sense, Whites should perhaps feel closest to Asian Americans. Alternatively, in the non-Black/Black model, we would expect that African Americans and Black Caribbeans would feel close to people of African ancestry but would generally distance themselves from those not of their racial heritage. We would predict that Whites would feel less close particularly to Black groups and closer to the other groups. The difference here is that in the non-White/White model, both African Americans and Black Caribbeans are expected to feel closer to all other groups than they do to Whites, whereas in the non-Black/Black model, we would expect that they feel close only to their own kind. In both models, Whites should feel least close to all people of the African diaspora and not especially close to any group, except perhaps Asian Americans.

Work on Blacks’ racial attitudes highlights in-group closeness as a measure of the strength of in-group attachments. Typically missing is an examination of how in-group ties are linked to out-group perceptions, except to suggest that strong in-group ties lead to negative out-group perceptions. The present research addresses this gap by examining African Americans’, Black Caribbeans’, and non-Hispanic Whites’ feelings of closeness to several ethnic and racial groups, using a measure that allows us to compare closeness to several groups (Jackson et al., 2004; Lau, 1989; C. Wong & Cho, 2005). This analysis uses data from the National Survey of American Life: Coping With Stress in the 21st Century (NSAL), a nationally representative sample of these three racial-ethnic groups. The NSAL includes the first national sample of Black Caribbeans, and as such, this is the first survey-based inquiry of the correlates of closeness to other groups among the Black Caribbean population. In addition, to our knowledge, this is the first examination of the link between closeness and intergroup attitudes among non-Hispanic Whites.

Method

Sample

The NSAL was collected by the Program for Research on Black Americans at the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research. The fieldwork for the study was completed by the Institute for Social Research’s Survey Research Center in cooperation with the Program for Research on Black Americans. The NSAL sample has a national multistage probability design that consists of 64 primary sampling units. Fifty-six of these primary areas overlap substantially with existing Survey Research Center’s national sample primary areas. The remaining eight primary areas were chosen from the South in order for the sample to represent African Americans in the proportion in which they are distributed nationally.

The NSAL includes the first major probability sample of Black Caribbeans. For the purposes of this study, Black Caribbeans are defined as people who trace their ethnic heritage to a Caribbean country but who now reside in the United States, are racially classified as Black, and are English speaking (but may also speak another language). In both African American and Black Caribbean samples, respondents self-identify their race as Black. Those identifying as Black were included in the Black Caribbean sample if they (a) answered affirmatively when asked if they were of West Indian or Caribbean descent, (b) said they were from a country included on a list of Caribbean countries presented by the interviewers, or (c) indicated that their parents or grandparents were born in a Caribbean-area country.

Data collection was conducted from February 2001 to June 2003. The interviews were administered face-to-face and conducted within respondents’ homes; respondents were compensated for their time. A total of 6,082 face-to-face interviews were conducted with persons age 18 or older, including 3,570 African Americans, 891 non-Hispanic Whites, and 1,621 Blacks of Caribbean descent. The overall response rate was 72.3%. Response rates for individual subgroups were 70.7% for African Americans, 77.7% for Black Caribbeans, and 69.7% for non-Hispanic Whites. The response rate is excellent given that African Americans (especially lower-income African Americans) are more likely to reside in major urban areas, which are more difficult and expensive with respect to survey fieldwork and data collection. Final response rates for the NSAL two-phase sample designs were computed using the American Association of Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) guidelines (for Response Rate 3 samples; AAPOR, 2006; see Jackson et al., 2004, for a detailed discussion of the NSAL sample). The NSAL data collection was approved by the University of Michigan Institutional Review Board.

Measures

Dependent variables

Seven indicators of subjective closeness to in-groups and out-groups are used. Respondents were asked how close they felt in their ideas and feeling about things to (a) Black people in this country; (b) White people in this country; (c) Spanish-speaking groups in this country, such as Puerto Ricans, Cubans, or Mexican Americans; (d) American Indians; (e) Asian Americans, such as Chinese or Japanese in this country; (f) Black people from the Caribbean, such as people from Jamaica, Bermuda, or Haiti; and (f) Black people in Africa. Respondents were asked whether they felt very close, fairly close, not too close, or not close at all to these groups. Scores for these variables ranged from 4 for very close to 1 for not close at all. Generalized feelings of closeness are especially useful for assessing racial attitudes, as affective indicators of attitudes typically show stronger relationships with contact than do other kinds of indicators (see Jackman & Crane, 1986; Tropp & Pettigrew, 2005b).

Control variables

Demographic variables (i.e., age, gender, income, education, and marital status) are control variables used in multivariate analyses examining the influence of race-ethnicity on intra- and intergroup attitudes toward various groups. Missing data for household income were imputed for 773 cases (12.7% of the NSAL sample); 74 cases were imputed for education. Imputations used an iterative regression-based multiple imputation approach, which included information about age, gender, region, race, employment status, marital status, home ownership, and nativity of household residents. Income is coded in dollars and, for the multivariate analysis only, has been divided by 5,000 in order to increase effect sizes and provide a better understanding of the net impact of income on the dependent variables. The distribution of the demographic variables in this analysis is presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Demographic Distribution of Sample

	African Americans		Black Caribbeans		Non-Hispanic Whites
Demographic variable	% (M)	n (SD)	% (M)	n (SD)	% (M)	n (SD)
Age	42.32	14.49	40.27	5.77	44.98	31.11
Education	12.43	2.23	12.88	1.01	13.31	4.98
Income	36,833	33,068	47,044	15,190	47,355	74,967
Gender
Male	44.02	1,271	50.87	643	47.25	372
Female	55.97	2,299	49.13	978	52.74	519
Marital status
Married	32.91	960	37.56	559	47.35	383
Partner	8.74	260	12.57	131	6.59	44
Separated	7.16	286	5.36	128	3.10	37
Divorced	11.74	524	9.29	178	13.05	147
Widowed	7.89	353	4.28	78	7.83	103
Never married	31.54	1,170	30.91	542	22.05	173

Note: Percentages and n’s are provided for categorical variables (Gender and Age) and Means and Standard Deviations are provided for continuous variables. Percentages are weighted; frequencies are unweighted.

Analysis Strategy

First, we present bivariate analyses of racial-ethnic disparity in the measures of closeness. The percentages are weighted on the basis of the sample’s race-adjusted weight measure. The bivariate analysis uses the Rao-Scott chi-square, a complex design-corrected measure of association. Analytic tests (skewness and kurtosis) indicated that linear regression could be appropriately used with the seven dependent variables. Next, using demographic control factors, we present multivariate analyses of closeness attitudes by race-ethnicity. Two sets of regressions used race-ethnicity as a predictor represented by a set of dummy variables. In the first set, African Americans are used as the excluded category, whereas in the second set, Black Caribbean is the comparison category. All analyses were conducted using SAS 9.13, which uses the Taylor expansion approximation technique for calculating the complex design-based estimates of variance. All statistical analyses accounted for the complex multistage clustered design of the NSAL sample, unequal probabilities of selection, nonresponse, and poststratification to calculate weighted, nationally representative population estimates and standard errors.

Results

Table 2 presents the bivariate cross-tabulations of the differences in closeness toward in-groups and out-groups by race. Both African Americans (54.4%) and Black Caribbeans (48.6%) are more likely to indicate that they are very close to Black people in the United States than are non-Hispanic Whites (20.8%). Conversely, a higher percentage of non-Hispanic Whites (29.6%) indicate that they are very close to White people in the United States than both African Americans (14.8%) and Black Caribbeans (12.3%). There were no significant differences in the degree to which respondents felt close to Spanish-speaking people in the United States and American Indians. Non-Hispanic Whites (40.2%) were more likely to feel fairly close to Asian Americans than were both African Americans (29.0%) and Black Caribbeans (29.1%). Black Caribbeans were more likely than others to feel very close to Black people from the Caribbean and Africa.

Table 2.

Bivariate Cross-Tabulation of Race and Ethnic Differences in Perceived Closeness to In-Groups and Out-Groups

Group	African Americans	Black Caribbeans	Non-Hispanic Whites
Black people in United States
Very close	54.40	48.63	20.83
Fairly close	36.75	35.61	56.31
Not too close	7.15	13.59	19.08
Not close at all	1.70	2.16	3.77
n	3,497	1,590	846
Rao-Scott chi-square	581.09***
White people in United States
Very close	14.86	12.13	29.63
Fairly close	41.28	39.46	59.65
Not too close	32.86	36.42	8.74
Not close at all	11.0	12.0	1.96
n	3,493	1,585	852
Rao-Scott chi-square	342.35***
Spanish-speaking people in United States
Very close	12.36	18.94	11.81
Fairly close	36.63	44.17	40.09
Not too close	35.96	28.17	34.30
Not close at all	15.04	8.7	13.78
n	3,487	1,589	841
Rao-Scott chi-square		11.85
American Indians
Very close	14.43	13.99	14.48
Fairly close	33.57	37.04	34.90
Not too close	33.90	33.71	32.53
Not close at all	18.08	15.24	18.08
n	3,482	1,573	836
Rao-Scott chi-square		0.963
Asian Americans
Very close	9.0	9.71	9.47
Fairly close	29.07	29.18	40.20
Not too close	40.12	43.63	33.93
Not close at all	21.80	17.46	16.38
n	3,485	1,584	844
Rao-Scott chi-square		39.33***
Black people from the Caribbean
Very close	17.55	51.95	10.62
Fairly close	41.05	31.93	34.73
Not too close	29.11	13.88	34.35
Not close at all	12.27	2.22	20.28
n	3,482	1,589	830
Rao-Scott chi-square		136.03***
Black people in Africa
Very close	21.03	28.27	8.26
Fairly close	37.43	43.95	28.75
Not too close	28.63	20.70	37.92
Not close at all	12.89	7.06	25.05
n	3,481	1,584	825
Rao-Scott chi-square		294.43***

Note: Frequencies are unweighted. Percentages are weighted to be nationally representative of the given population and subpopulations in the United States. Rao-Scott chi-square statistics are adjusted for the sampling stratification, clustering, and weighting of the data.

An examination across the seven dependent variables indicates that African Americans were least close to Asian Americans, with 18% of them reporting that they were not close at all to Asian Americans. Similarly, 17% of Black Caribbeans reported not feeling close at all to Asian Americans. Non-Hispanic Whites, however, were least close to Black people in Africa (25% were not close at all) and Black people from the Caribbean (20% were not close at all).

Table 3 presents regression coefficients for the effects of race-ethnicity on feelings of closeness. Race-ethnicity is represented by a dummy variable with African Americans as the excluded category in regression results reported in column 1; Black Caribbeans are the excluded category in regression results reported in column 2. For each dependent variable, the regression models assess the impact of race-ethnicity while controlling for the effects of demographic factors (i.e., age, gender, marital status, education, and family income). Column 1 regression coefficients indicate that in comparison to non-Hispanic Whites, African Americans reported feeling closer to Black Americans and Black people from the Caribbean and Africa. Conversely, non-Hispanic Whites reported feeling closer to White Americans and Asian Americans.

Table 3.

Regression Coefficients for Race-Ethnicity Differences in Perceived Closeness to In-Groups and Out-Groups

	African Americans excluded category					Black Caribbeans excluded category
Group	b	SE	B	n	Group	b	SE	B	n
Black people in United States					Black people in United States
Black Caribbeans	−.12*	.05	−.03*	5,933	African Americans	.12*	.05	.08*	5,933
Non-Hispanic Whites	−.47***	.05	−.31***		Non-Hispanic Whites	−.35***	.06	−.23***
White people in United States					White people in United States
Black Caribbeans	−.07	.06	−.01	5,930	African Americans	.07	.06	.04	5,930
Non-Hispanic Whites	.57***	.03	.35***		Non-Hispanic Whites	.64***	.06	.39***
Spanish-speaking people in United States					Spanish-speaking people in United States
Black Caribbeans	.26***	.05	.05***	5,917	African Americans	−.26***	.05	−.15***	5,917
Non-Hispanic Whites	.03	.04	.02		Non-Hispanic Whites	−.23***	.05	−.13***
American Indians					American Indians
Black Caribbeans	.07	.06	.01	5,891	African Americans	−.07	.06	−.04	5,891
Non-Hispanic Whites	.02	.06	.01		Non-Hispanic Whites	−.05	.08	−.03
Asian Americans					Asian Americans
Black Caribbeans	.06	.05	.01	5,913	African Americans	−.06	.05	−.03	5,913
Non-Hispanic Whites	.16***	.04	.09***		Non-Hispanic Whites	.10	.06	.06
Black people from the Caribbean					Black people from the Caribbean
Black Caribbeans	.69***	.05	.14***	5,901	African Americans	−.69***	.05	−.37***	5,901
Non-Hispanic Whites	−.29***	.06	−.16***		Non-Hispanic Whites	−.99***	.06	−.53***
Black people in Africa					Black people in Africa
Black Caribbeans	.26***	.06	.05***	5,890	African Americans	−.26***	.06	−.14***	5,890
Non-Hispanic Whites	−.46***	.05	−.24***		Non-Hispanic Whites	−.72***	.06	−.38***

Note: This table presents the results of 14 regression models. In 7 models, African Americans was the excluded category, and in 7 other models, Black Caribbeans was the excluded category. All regression models controlled for the effects of age, gender, marital status, education, and imputed family income. Standard errors are adjusted for the sampling stratification, clustering, and weighting of the data.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Comparisons of Black Caribbeans and non-Hispanic Whites (Table 3, column 2) indicate five of seven significant differences. Black Caribbeans reported feeling subjectively closer to Black and Spanish-speaking people in the United States and Black people from the Caribbean and Africa. Similarly, non-Hispanic Whites reported feeling subjectively closer to White people in the United States. There were no significant differences between Black Caribbeans and non-Hispanic Whites in subjective closeness to Asian Americans and American Indians.

There were four significant differences between African Americans and Black Caribbeans (Table 3, column 1 or column 2). African Americans reported feeling closer to Black people in the United States, whereas Black Caribbeans felt closer than their African American counterparts to Spanish-speaking people and Black people from the Caribbean and Africa.

Discussion

Bean and Lee (2009) questioned the nature of existing U.S. color lines and suggested that the question of color is whether “Asians and Latinos, particularly the later-generation members of these groups, more closely resemble Whites or Blacks in the United States” (p. 210). Framing the issue in this way reflects a belief that despite a multiracial-multiethnic society, the one unitary racial boundary of Black and White continues to shape intergroup relations and attitudes. In contrast, our analyses suggest that there is no singular color line that delineates Black (and/or racial minorities) or White (and/or honorary Whites) America. Instead, multiple boundaries reflect how each in-group feels toward specific out-groups. Moreover, these multidimensional color lines belie the assertion that we have arrived at a postracial era made up of a plurality of ethnic groups where color is of little import.

Our analyses indicate that the three groups studied all felt closer to their respective in-group than to the various out-groups. African Americans were closest to Blacks in the United States, Black Caribbeans were closest to Black people from the Caribbean, and non-Hispanic Whites were closest to Whites in the United States. Other than that, the only other consistent pattern for all three groups was that they felt least close to Asian Americans and American Indians.

Previous work suggests that West Indians have a special rapport with non-Hispanic Whites, who hold them in singular regard when compared to African Americans. Waters (1999) described this as “the comfort factor” (p. 172), meaning that Black Caribbeans are less angry at non-Hispanic Whites and do not feel that America “owes” them something, marked in part in not having a “chip on their shoulders” (p. 174). Non-Hispanic Whites appear to prefer Black Caribbeans to African Americans as employees, coworkers, and even neighbors, which is reinforced by Black Caribbeans’ perceptions that Whites treat them more favorably than they do other Blacks (Foner, 1985; Waters, 1994; Vickerman, 1994).

Our findings are not consistent with previous work. Instead, we found that non-Hispanic Whites do not feel particularly close to Black Caribbeans. In fact, the percentages in Table 2 indicate that non-Hispanic Whites feel closer to Black people in the United States than to Black Caribbeans. These discrepant findings are probably due to the fact that previous research (e.g., Waters, 1999) tends to be ethnographic and based in the Northeast (e.g., New York), where large concentrations of Black Caribbeans reside. Our findings, however, are based on a national sample and thus also represent the views of non-Hispanic Whites in other areas of the country who have little or no contact with Black Caribbeans.

Of the three groups examined here, Black Caribbeans fit closest to the notion of being on the opposing side of the racial divide from Whites. They feel notably closer to groups of the African diaspora than do either non-Hispanic Whites or African Americans. This pattern is consistent with work indicating that West Indians are most likely of all racial-ethnic groups to marry other African-descent groups (including Black Puerto Ricans; Batson, Qian, & Lichter, 2006; Model & Fisher, 2002). Our analysis reveals that Black Caribbeans feel equally close to their own group and to African Americans (83.9% vs. 84.2%) and at levels that dwarf their closeness with Whites. Indeed, our results are consistent with the idea that with longer residency, Black Caribbeans draw closer to African Americans and not to non-Hispanic Whites (Kasinitz, Battle, & Miyares, 2001).

Black Caribbeans felt closer to Spanish-speaking people in the United States than did their native African American and non-Hispanic White counterparts. This pattern is probably due to the fact that a portion of Black Caribbeans are from Spanish-speaking countries, such as Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Dominican Republic. Conversely, non-Hispanic Whites’ and African Americans’ lower levels of closeness to those from Spanish-speaking countries may reflect ambivalence about this group’s fairly recent dramatic growth as well as public debate about the effect of illegal immigration (see Zarate & Shaw, 2010). Large portions of the United States blame undocumented workers for taking “American” jobs, suppressing wages, contributing to higher joblessness, and imposing a fiscal burden on taxpayers (Deaux, 2006).

Additionally, for Black Caribbeans, the connection to other Black ethnics is perhaps somewhat different than is the case for African Americans and reflects two sets of issues. First, since most Black Caribbeans are themselves immigrants with direct connections and active kinship ties to the region, “closeness to Blacks from the Caribbean” represents expressed ties to their own ethnic in-group. Second, their status as immigrants may make them more aware of transnational ties to other Black ethnic groups (i.e., Black people from Africa; Nunnally, 2010).

African Americans and Black Caribbeans demonstrate both similarities and significant differences in their closeness to other groups. African Americans and Black Caribbeans are not significantly different in their levels of closeness to Whites, American Indians, and Asian Americans. However, Black Caribbeans feel significantly closer to Spanish-speaking people, Black people from the Caribbean, and Black people in Africa. Conversely, African Americans feel significantly closer to Black people in the United States than do Black Caribbeans. Additionally, comparison of the percentages in Table 2 indicates that African Americans feel as close to Black Caribbeans (58.6%) as they do to Blacks in Africa (58.5%).

While African Americans feel relatively close to Whites and ethnic Blacks, these feelings are less pronounced than are those found among Black Caribbeans. In a relative sense, results suggest that compared to Black Caribbeans, African Americans do not feel as strong a bond with these out-groups (Jackson & Cothron, 2003). The close ties that African Americans have with Black Caribbeans and Africans point to a sense of racial solidarity. In contrast, most African Americans are not close or not close at all to Hispanics (51%), American Indians (52%), and Asian Americans (61.9%). However, these percentages are somewhat lower than what was found previously using data from the National Survey of Black Americans (1979-1980), in which about 66% of Blacks were not close or not close at all to Hispanics, 58% felt similarly toward American Indians, and 77% distanced themselves from Asian Americans (Thornton & Mizuno, 1995, 1999).

That African Americans feel less close to Blacks in Africa or the Caribbean when compared to Black Caribbeans is not surprising. However, it is important to note that overall, 6 of 10 African Americans feel either very or fairly close to Black ethnics here and internationally. This attachment to other ethnic Blacks is probably due to a shared African heritage and the maintenance and substance of a certain “affirmation of race” (Shaw-Taylor, 2007, p. 32). Furthermore, African Americans’ awareness of significant events within Caribbean and African countries (e.g., dismantling of apartheid in South Africa, “Haitian boat people”) and prominent persons of African and Caribbean descent (e.g., Nelson Mandela, Colin Powell, Wyclef Jean, Rihanna, Nicki Minaj) reinforce a shared racial heritage often marked by discrimination. These findings indicate that African Americans’ perceived closeness to others of African heritage across national and cultural boundaries may be, in some sense, abstract but is nonetheless real.

In debates about racial boundaries, Whites’ perceptions are characterized as more isolated and distant from racial minorities and, above all others, from African Americans. Our data show that non-Hispanic Whites feel close to only one out-group, African Americans. At the other end of the closeness scale are Black Caribbeans and Africans, a clear sign that non-Hispanic Whites differentiate among people of African ancestry. Moreover, non-Hispanic Whites feel closer than do African Americans to Asian Americans. It is common that Whites consider Asian Americans a “model minority,” as “honorary Whites” (O’Brien, 2008). Yet the percentages reveal that non-Hispanic Whites are less close to Hispanics and Asian Americans than they are to Black people in the United States. This may reflect the sentiment that these groups are considered foreign. Dovidio, Gluszek, John, Ditlmann, and Lagunes (2010) found that non-Hispanic Whites see themselves as the typical American, African Americans as relatively close to them culturally, and Hispanics and Asian Americans as more distant.

These results suggest that racial boundaries are both complex and simple, depending on the group in question. They are complex for Black Caribbeans, who are as close to their own group as they are to other Black ethnics and closer than African Americans and non-Hispanic Whites in their feelings toward people who speak Spanish. For Black Caribbeans, Whites (and American Indians and Asian Americans) represent a distinctive category of people. Racial boundaries are simpler among African Americans, who while feeling less close to other Black ethnics than to their own group also feel especially close to Whites. African Americans hold no special feelings toward American Indians and Hispanics but seem especially distant to Asian Americans. Finally, non-Hispanic Whites have a special feeling of closeness toward Asian Americans (as compared to African Americans’ and Black Caribbeans’ perceptions of Asian Americans) but otherwise are the least complex in their views of the racial landscape: They are close only to African Americans. Recall that both the Black/non-Black and White/non-White models of racial boundaries would predict that Whites should feel least close to all people of the African diaspora and not especially close to any group (except perhaps Asian Americans). This study’s findings differ from these predictions and suggest that both models of racial boundaries require a more nuanced understanding of intergroup attitudes.

The present “color-blind era” reflects a long history of denying, confronting, and obfuscating the role of race in U.S. society. Race has many meanings that is reflected in a world of multiple color lines, affiliations, and group ties that change over time. Our findings indicate that measures of closeness to various racial groups access one aspect of this construct and highlight the value of exploring attitudes toward multiple racial groups. Measures of closeness offer insight about one aspect of perceived identity, hinting at a construct that can expand to include pan-national boundaries and that can contract in ways that defy racial categories in favor of culturally distinct elements of groups (Okamoto, 2003). Notably, our findings support the growing literature illustrating how America has become more, and not less, complex in regard to race. Our findings overall emphasized the intricacy of intergroup attitudes and the need for future research on how contact, personal and racial experience, and shared culture shape these processes.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the reviewers for their comments, which helped to strengthen our article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study used data collected with support from the National Institute of Mental Health (U01-MH57716) with supplemental support from the Office of Behavioral and Social Science Research at the National Institutes of Health and the University of Michigan. The preparation of this manuscript was supported by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health to Drs. Chatters and Taylor (R01-MH082807) and to Dr. Chatters (R01-MH084963) and from the National Institute on Aging to Dr. Taylor (P30-AG15281).

Notes

Bios

Michael C. Thornton is a professor in the Departments of Afro-American Studies and Sociology, and the Asian American Studies Program. The focus of Dr. Thornton’s research is the study of racial attitudes among and between Asian Americans and African Americans. Recently this work has highlighted African American and Asian American newspaper perspectives on Michelle Obama and Kultida Woods, South Asian news characterizations of African America, and African American newspaper coverage of multiracial people. Other work explores African American newspaper views of Chinese in Atlanta, Georgia, New York City and Chicago from 1930-1945, and mutual perceptions of Native Americans and African Americans in their respective newspapers over the past twenty years.

Robert Joseph Taylor is the Sheila Feld Collegiate Professor of Social Work at the University of Michigan. He is also a faculty associate with the Program for Research on black Americans at the Institute for Social Research. Professor Taylor has published extensively on the informal social support networks (i.e., family, friends, and church members) of adult and elderly Black Americans. He has been principal investigator of several grants from the National Institute on Aging that examine the role of religion in the lives of Black and White elderly adults. He has been co-principal investigator with James Jackson on several grants from the National Institute of Mental Health on the correlates of mental health and mental illness among Black Americans, including the only major national study of the prevalence of mental illness among Black Americans (The National Survey of American Life).

Linda M. Chatters is a professor in the Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, School of Public Health and professor in the School of Social Work at the University of Michigan. She is a faculty associate with the Program for Research on Black Americans at the Institute for Social Research and the Center for Research on Ethnicity, Culture and Health. The focus of Dr. Chatters’ research is the study of adult development and aging in relation to the mental and physical health status and functioning of older persons in a variety of social contexts (i.e., the family, church, and community). She is also interested in religious involvement among African Americans and the independent effects of religious, personal, and social status factors on personal well-being. Dr. Chatters is a Fellow, Behavioral and Social Sciences Section of The Gerontological Society of America and has been designated by Thomson-ISI as a Highly Cited Researcher in the Category of General Social Sciences.

References

Ackay

(1999). Pan-Africanism: Exploring the contradictions. Politics, identity and development in Africa and the African diaspora. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

American Association for Public Opinion Research. (2006). Standard definitions: Final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys. 4th ed. Lenexa, KS: American Association for Public Opinion Research.

Batson

Qian

Lichter

(2006). Interracial and intraracial patterns of mate selection among America’s diverse Black populations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 658-672.

Bean

Lee

(2009). Plus ca change . . . ? Multiraciality and the dynamics of race relations in the United States. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 205-219.

Bobo

(2001). Racial attitudes and relations at the close of the twentieth century. In Smelser

N. J.

Wilson

W. J.

Mitchell

(Eds.), America becoming: Racial trends and their consequences, (Vol. 1, pp. 264-301). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Bobo

Suh

(2000). Surveying racial discrimination: Analyses from a multiethnic labor market. In Bobo

L. D.

Oliver

M. L.

Johnson

J. H.

Valenzuela

(Eds.), Prismatic metropolis: Inequality in Los Angeles (pp. 527-564). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Bonilla-Silva

Embrick

(2005). Black, honorary White, White: The future of race in the United States. In Brunsma

(Ed.), Mixed messages: Multiracial identities in the color-blind era (pp. 33-48). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

Brewer

(2001). The many faces of social identity: Implications for political psychology. Political Psychology, 22, 115-125.

Bryce-Laporte

R. S.

(1993). Voluntary immigration and the continuing encounters between Blacks: The post quincentenary challenge. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 530, 29-41.

10.

Butterfield

(2004). Challenging American conceptions of race and ethnicity: Second generation West Indian immigrants. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy,24,75-102.

11.

Chou

Feagin . (2010). The myth of the model minority: Asian Americans facing racism. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.

12.

Conover

P. J.

(1984). The influence of group identifications on political perception and evaluation. Journal of Politics, 46, 760-785.

13.

Cooper

(2011). Black like us. Crisis, 118, 24-30.

14.

Craemer

(2008). Nonconscious feelings of closeness toward African Americans and support for pro-Black policies. Political Psychology, 29, 407-436.

15.

Deaux

(2006). To be an immigrant. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

16.

Dhingra

(2003). Being American between Black and White: Second-generation Asian American professionals’ racial identities. Journal of Asian American Studies, 6, 117-147.

17.

Dovidio

Gluszek

John

Ditlmann

Lagunes

(2010). Understanding bias toward Latinos: Discrimination, dimensions of difference and experience of exclusion. Journal of Social Issues, 66, 59-78.

18.

Dovidio

Saguy

Shnabel

(2009). Cooperation and conflict within groups: Bridging intragroup and intergroup processes. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 429-449.

19.

Ellison

Powers

(1994). The contact hypothesis and racial attitudes among Black Americans. Social Science Quarterly, 75, 385-400.

20.

Esedebe

(1982). Pan-Africanism: The idea and movement, 1776-1963. Washington, DC: Howard University Press.

21.

Foner

(1985). Race and color: Jamaican migrants in London and New York. International Migration Review, 19, 708-722.

22.

Foner

(2001). West Indian migration to New York: An overview. In Foner

(Ed.), Islands in the city: West Indian migration to New York (pp. 1-22). Berkeley: University of California Press.

23.

Gallagher

(2004). Racial redistricting: Expanding the boundaries of Whiteness. In Dalmage

(Ed.), The politics of multiracialism: Challenging racial thinking (pp. 59-76). Albany: State University of New York Press.

24.

George

(1997). From expatriate aristocrat to immigrant nobody: South Asian racial strategies in the Southern California context. Diaspora, 6, 31-60.

25.

Gurin

(1985). Women’s gender consciousness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 49, 143-163.

26.

Gurin

Hatchett

Jackson

(1989). Hope and independence. New York, NY: Russell Sage.

27.

Gurin

Miller

A. H.

Gurin

(1980). Stratum identification and consciousness. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43, 30-47.

28.

Herring

Jankowski

Brown

(1999). Pro-Black doesn’t mean anti-White: The structure of African-American group identity. Journal of Politics, 61, 363-386.

29.

Hewstone

Rubin

Willis

(2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 575-604.

30.

Hollinger

(2005). The one-drop rule and the one-hate rule. Daedalus, 134, 18-28.

31.

Hollinger

(2011). The concept of post-racial: How its easy dismissal obscures important questions. Daedalus, 140, 174-182.

32.

Jackman

Crane

(1986). Some of my best friends are Black . . . : Interracial friendship and Whites’ racial attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50, 459-486.

33.

Jackson

Cothran

(2003). Black versus Black: The relationship among African, African American, and African Caribbean Persons. Journal of Black Studies, 33, 576-604.

34.

Jackson

J. S.

Torres

Caldwell

C. H.

Neighbors

H. W.

Nesse

R. N.

Taylor

R. J.

. . . Williams

D. R.

(2004). The National Survey of American Life: A study of racial, ethnic and cultural influences on mental disorders and mental health. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 13, 196-207.

35.

Kasinitz

(1992). Caribbean New York: Black immigrants and the politics of race. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

36.

Kasinitz

Battle

Miyares

(2001). Fade to Black: The children of West Indian immigrants in southern Florida. In Rumbaut

Portes

(Eds.), Ethnicities: Children of immigrants in America (pp. 267-300). Berkley: University of California Press.

37.

Kaufmann

(2003). Cracks in the rainbow: Group commonality as a basis for Latino and African-American political coalitions. Political Research Quarterly, 56, 199-210.

38.

Kent

(2007). Immigration and America’s Black population. Population Bulletin, 62, 4.

39.

Khandelwal

(2002). Becoming American, being Indian. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

40.

Kinder

Winter

(2001). Exploring the racial divide: Blacks, Whites and opinion on national policy. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 439-453.

41.

Lau

(1989). Individual and contextual influences on group identification. Social Psychology Quarterly, 52, 220-231.

42.

Lee

Bean

(2007). Reinventing the color line: Immigration in America’s new racial/ethnic divide. Social Forces, 86, 561-586.

43.

Ludwig

(2003). Q&A: Black-White relations in the U.S., Part II. Retrieved form http://www.gallup.com/poll/8638/qa-BlackWhite-relations-us-part.aspx

44.

Magubane

(1987). The ties that bind: African-American consciousness of Africa. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press.

45.

Maira

(2000). Desis in the house: Indian American youth in New York City. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

46.

McClain

Carter

DeFrancesco Soto

Lyle

Grynaviski

Nunnally

. . . Cotton

(2006). Racial distancing in a southern city: Latino immigrants’ views of Black Americans. Journal of Politics, 68, 571-584.

47.

Meier

McClain

Polinard

Winkle

(2004). Divided or together? Conflict or cooperation between African Americans and Latinos. Political Research Quarterly, 57, 399-409.

48.

Meriwether

(2002). Proudly we can be Africans: Black Americans and Africa, 1935-1961. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

49.

Model

Fisher

(2002). Unions between Blacks and Whites: England and the US compared. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 25, 728-754.

50.

Murguia

Forman

(2003). Shades of Whiteness: The Mexican American experience in relation to Anglos and Blacks. In Doane

Bonilla-Silva

(Eds.), White out: The continuing significance of racism (pp. 63-79). New York, NY: Routledge.

51.

Nesbitt

(2004). Race for sanctions: African Americans against apartheid, 1946-1994. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

52.

Nunnally

(2010). Linking Blackness or ethnic othering? African Americans’ diasporic linked fate with West Indian and African peoples in the United States. Du Bois Review, 7, 335-355.

53.

O’Brien

(2008). The racial middle: Latinos and Asian Americans living beyond the racial divide. New York: New York University Press.

54.

Okamoto

(2003). Toward a theory of panethnicity: Explaining Asian American collective action. American Sociological Review, 68, 811-842.

55.

Oliver

(2011). The paradoxes of integration: Race, neighborhood and civic life in multiethnic America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

56.

Roediger

(1991). The wages of Whiteness: Race and the making of the American working class. New York, NY: Verso.

57.

Rogers

(2006). Afro-Caribbean Immigrants and the politics of incorporation: Ethnicity, exception or exit. London, UK: Cambridge University Press.

58.

Sanchez

(2008). Latino group consciousness and perceptions of commonality with African Americans. Social Science Quarterly, 89, 428-444.

59.

Shaw-Taylor

(2007). The intersection of assimilation, race, presentation of self and transnationalism in America. In Shaw-Taylor

Tuch

(Eds.), The other African Americans: Contemporary African and Caribbean immigrants in the United States (pp. 1-48). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

60.

Singh

(1996). African Americans and the new immigrants. In Bahir

Vasudeva

(Eds.), Between the lines: South Asians and postcoloniality (pp. 93-109). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

61.

Skinner

(1992). African Americans and U.S. policy toward Africa, 1850-1924: In defense of Black nationality. Washington, DC: Howard University Press.

62.

Spickard

(1989). Mixed blood. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

63.

Stafford

(1987). The Haitians: The cultural meaning of race and ethnicity. In Foner

(Ed)., New immigrants in New York City (pp. 131-158). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

64.

Sumner

(1906). Folkways. Salem, NH: Ayer.

65.

Tajfel

(1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223, 96-102.

66.

Tajfel

Turner

(1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Worchel

Austin

(Eds.), Psychology of integroup relations (pp. 21-61). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.

67.

Thornton

M. C.

(2011). Meaningful dialogue? The Los Angeles Sentinel’s depiction of Black and Asian American relations, 1993-2000. Journal of Black Studies, 42, 1275-1298.

68.

Thornton

M. C.

Mizuno

(1999). Economic well-being and Black adult feelings toward immigrants and Whites, 1984. Journal of Black Studies, 30, 40-69.

69.

Thornton

M. C.

Mizuno

(1995). Religiosity and Black adult feelings toward Africans, American Indians, West Indians, Hispanics and Asian Americans. Sociological Focus, 28, 113-128.

70.

Thornton

M. C.

Taylor

(1988a). Black American perceptions of Black Africans. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 11, 139-150.

71.

Thornton

M. C.

Taylor

(1988b). Intergroup attitudes: Black American perceptions of Asian Americans. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 11, 474-488.

72.

Tillery

(2011). Africa, U.S. foreign policy, and Black leadership in America. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

73.

Tropp

(2007). Perceived discrimination and interracial contact: Predicting interracial closeness among Black and White Americans. Social Psychology Quarterly, 70, 70-81.

74.

Tropp

Pettigrew

(2005a). Differential relationships between intergroup contact and affective and cognitive dimensions of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1145-1158.

75.

Tropp

Pettigrew

(2005b). Intergroup contact and prejudice among minority and majority status groups. Psychological Science, 16, 951-957.

76.

Vickerman

(1994). The responses of West Indians to African-Americans: Distancing and identification. In Rutledge

(Ed.), Research in race and ethnic relations (Vol. 7, pp. 83-128). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

77.

Vickerman

(1999). Crosscurrents: West Indian immigrants and race. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

78.

Vickerman

(2001). Tweaking a monolith: The West Indian immigrant encounter with “Blackness.” In Foner

(Ed)., Islands in the city: West Indian migration to New York (pp. 237-256). Berkeley: University of California Press.

79.

Von Eschen

(1997). Race against empire: Black Americans and anticolonialism, 1937-1957. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

80.

Waters

(1994). Ethnic and racial identities of second-generation Black immigrants in New York City. International Migration Review, 28, 795-820.

81.

Waters

(1999). Black identities: West Indian immigrant dreams and American realities. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

82.

Waters

(2001). Growing up West Indian and African American: Gender and class differences in the second generation. In Foner

(Ed.), Islands in the city: West Indian migration to New York (pp. 193-215). Berkeley: University of California Press.

83.

Woldemikae

(1989). Becoming Black American: Haitians and American institutions in Evanston, Illinois. New York, NY: AMS Press.

84.

Wong

Cho

(2005). Two-headed coins or Kadinskys: White racial identification. Political Psychology, 26, 699-720.

85.

Wong

Lai

Nagasawa

Lin

(1998). Asian Americans as a model minority: Self-perceptions and perceptions by other racial groups. Sociological Perspectives, 41, 95-118.

86.

Yancey

(2003). Who is White? Latinos, Asians, and the new Black/nonblack divide. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

87.

Zarate

Shaw

(2010). Reactions to immigration on the US/Mexico border: Empirical and theoretical considerations. Journal of Social Issues, 66, 45-57.