The Relation Between Parental Racial Socialization and African Americans’ Racial Ideologies

Abstract

Racial ideology shapes how African Americans interpret the world and cope with race-related issues and events. A complex interaction of individual, family, and group experiences in one’s sociocultural and historical context is critical to the development of racial ideology. While parental racial socialization has been associated with racial identity, the more specific relationship between parental racial socialization and racial ideology is less understood. The present study examined the association of four dimensions of racial socialization messages reported by participants (cultural socialization, preparation for bias, promotion of mistrust, and egalitarian socialization) with four dimensions of racial ideology (assimilationist, humanist, oppressed minority, and nationalist) using hierarchical linear regression (n = 89 African American college students). Participants’ endorsement of assimilationist and oppressed minority ideologies was not predicted by racial socialization messages. However, endorsement of humanist and nationalist ideologies was predicted by cultural and egalitarian socialization messages in opposing directions. Cultural socialization was associated with endorsement of higher nationalist and lower humanist ideology, whereas egalitarian socialization was associated with the endorsement of lower nationalist and higher humanist ideology.

Keywords

racial ideology parental socialization

For African Americans, the issue of racial identity is linked to sociopolitical attitudes and beliefs about the way one should live and interact with others in society—namely, one’s racial ideology (Sellers, Smith, Shelton, Rowley, & Chavous, 1998). Racial ideology is important because it shapes how African Americans experience and interpret the world and how they cope with and adapt to race-related issues and events (Smalls, White, Chavous, & Sellers, 2007). How such attitudes and beliefs develop depends on a complex interaction of individual, family, and group differences in a sociocultural and historical context. While parental racial socialization has been associated with the development of racial identity in African American youth (Hughes, Hagelskamp, Way, & Foust, 2009), the specific relationship between parental racial socialization and the racial ideologies that their children endorse is less understood and requires more research. The present study examined the association of participants’ reports of four dimensions of parental racial socialization messages with four dimensions of racial ideology for African American college students attending a racially diverse university.

Dimensions of Racial Ideology

Racial ideology is one of four dimensions of the Multidimensional Model of Racial Identity (MMRI) developed to understand African American racial identity (Sellers, Smith, et al., 1998). Consistent with earlier research on African American identity, the MMRI suggests that coming to terms with racism and oppression is critical to a healthy sense of self as a member of one’s racial group (Cross, 1991; Sellers, Smith, et al., 1998). Racial ideology, as conceived of in the MMRI, refers to how African Americans interpret their experience relative to racism and discrimination and reflects their beliefs about how African Americans should act in society. Sellers, Rowley, Chavous, Shelton, and Smith (1997) distinguish racial ideology as described in the MMRI from earlier models of Black identity described by Baldwin and Bell (1985) and Cross (1971) that view racial ideology as parallel to racial identity but not a distinct dimension of it. Whereas the earlier models viewed racial ideology on a continuum ranging from nationalist to assimilationist, the MMRI describes four distinct dimensions of racial ideology that can overlap. There are four ideologies that are not mutually exclusive and may vary in salience across time and context. A nationalist ideology distinguishes the oppression of African Americans from that of other ethnic minority groups. It is characterized by beliefs that African Americans should be politically and economically self-sufficient and socially and culturally unified. An oppressed minority ideology, on the other hand, links African Americans’ struggle as an ethnic minority group to the struggle of other oppressed groups. Assimilationist and humanist ideologies both deemphasize African Americans’ minority group status. An assimilationist ideology stresses the importance of being American and of successfully integrating into mainstream culture, whereas a humanist ideology stresses people’s common humanity as being more important than race and racial differences. Previous research has highlighted the link between African Americans’ racial ideological views, context, and academic achievement (Sellers, Chavous, & Cooke, 1998). Among a large sample of African American college students, Rowley, Chavous, and Cooke (2003) found that participants who grew up in mostly Black neighborhoods and went to mostly Black schools tended to endorse nationalist ideological views more strongly, and assimilationist views less strongly, than those who grew up around fewer African Americans. They also suggest that participants’ ideological views relate to choices regarding friendship and academics; those with stronger nationalist views tended to report having a Black best friend and taking Black studies classes. Nationalist views (Sellers, Chavous, et al., 1998) and assimilationist views have been associated with poorer academic outcomes among both African American adolescents and college students (Rowley, 2000; Sellers, Chavous, et al., 1998; Smalls et al., 2007). Conversely, oppressed minority ideology has been associated with better academic outcomes (Sellers, Chavous, et al., 1998; Smalls et al., 2007). In addition, participants who reported being discriminated against reported lower academic identification when they endorsed assimilationist ideological views more strongly (Sellers, Chavous, et al., 1998). These findings suggest that African Americans’ endorsement of racial ideologies can be related to contextual factors such as the racial makeup of neighborhoods and schools and may affect the relationship between discrimination and academic success.

Racial Socialization and Racial Ideology

Less research examines factors that may influence the development of racial ideology for African Americans. Ideological views around race develop in a complex sociocultural and historical context. In their theoretical model, Stevenson and Arrington (2009) suggest that both racial socialization and racial ideology serve largely interpretive roles in the context of coping with racism and discrimination, suggesting a conceptual link between dimensions of each. Studying the family context and parental racial socialization in particular may provide theoretical insight into the development of racial ideology among African Americans. The goal of socialization by parents is to prepare their children for life, and the goal of racial socialization by African American parents more specifically is to prepare their children for life in a racialized society (Hughes et al., 2006). Parental racial socialization refers to the ways in which parents communicate to their children about being members of their racial groups. These messages are thought to have an impact on a variety of psychosocial outcomes for youth of color. Stevenson (1994) has framed this kind of communication in terms of proactive and protective socialization. Proactive messages are those that promote knowledge of African American culture and the strengths associated with it, whereas protective messages prepare African American youth to cope in a racially hostile environment. Increasing attention has been given to the relation between parental racial socialization and child racial identity for African Americans (Hughes & Chen, 1999; Hughes et al., 2006; Stevenson, 1995). Thus, a necessary extension of this work is to examine parental racial socialization in relation to child racial ideological beliefs as well.

The present study examined four dimensions of racial socialization. Cultural socialization involves parents’ transmission of knowledge of cultural history and practices and a sense of group pride to their children. Cultural socialization can be categorized as a proactive strategy according to Stevenson’s (1994) framework and is similar to nationalist ideology in that they both emphasize the strengths associated with African American culture and history. Preparation for bias refers to the ways in which parents teach children to cope with prejudice and discrimination. Promotion of mistrust messages are meant to warn children not to interact with members of other racial or ethnic groups and to warn them about social barriers posed by racism. Both preparation for bias and promotion of mistrust can be thought of as protective, given their emphasis on the threat of racism (Stevenson, 1994). As such, they both share conceptual space with nationalist ideology. Given the emphasis on coping with racism, preparation for bias could also be linked to assimilationist ideology to the extent that assimilationist views stress integration into mainstream society as a strategy to overcome a history of oppression (Hughes et al., 2006). The fourth dimension of racial socialization, egalitarian socialization (Fisher, Wallace, & Fenton, 2000), are messages that communicate to youth that all racial groups have equal status and can be considered proactive in that they deemphasize oppression (Stevenson, 1994). Egalitarian messages have most in common with assimilationist ideology. We chose these constructs because they have been used in studies with African Americans and other racial and ethnic groups and this study is part of a larger study that examines college students across multiple racial and ethnic groups.

Few studies have investigated how parental racial socialization is related to African Americans’ racial ideological beliefs. Barr and Neville (2008) examined the relationships between socialization and racial ideology as reported by African American parents and African American college students attending a predominantly White university. They found that parents who reported color-blind attitudes reported providing fewer messages about racial mistrust and that color-blind attitudes were negatively related to their reports of providing less protective racial socialization, which emphasizes racial barriers and mistrust. Results from college students’ reports showed that preparation for bias messages were associated with the belief that institutional racism exists, which may reflect nationalist or oppressed minority ideologies that are largely in response to African Americans’ social marginalization, although assimilationist and humanist ideologies also acknowledge marginalization (Sellers, Smith, et al., 1998). Among African American adolescents in the 6th through 12th grades, attending predominantly White schools, Stevenson and Arrington (2009) found that preparation for bias was associated with lower endorsement of assimilationist ideology, whereas mainstream socialization, which Hughes et al. (2006) have related to egalitarian socialization, was associated with a greater endorsement of assimilationist ideology. Additionally, cultural socialization messages were associated with a stronger endorsement of nationalist ideology; however, egalitarian messages were associated with a lower endorsement of nationalist ideology.

These two studies represent current theory regarding the link between parents’ racial socialization practices and racial ideology among African American youth. Racial socialization is meant to help children interpret their place in the world as African Americans, particularly in relation to racism, and it shapes children’s interpretations as represented by their racial ideologies (Hughes et al., 2006; Stevenson & Arrington, 2009). However, theory in this area is still developing. The present research is needed to determine whether previous findings are replicable in other samples. The sample for this study comes from a setting that is more racially diverse than those of previous studies on this subject. This distinction is important to the current study’s contribution to the further development of theory relevant to racial socialization and racial ideology.

Current Investigation

Our primary research question for this study was the following: What is the association between dimensions of parental racial socialization and dimensions of participants’ racial ideology? We hypothesized that socialization messages that warn about racism and discrimination (i.e., preparation for bias and promotion of mistrust) would positively predict participants’ endorsement of nationalist and oppressed minority ideologies and negatively predict participants’ endorsement of assimilationist and humanist ideologies. We also expected that cultural socialization would positively predict participants’ endorsement of nationalist ideology. Last, we hypothesized that egalitarian messages, which deemphasize racial differences, would positively predict participants’ endorsement of assimilationist ideology and humanist ideology, and negatively predict participants’ endorsement of nationalist and oppressed minority ideologies.

Method

Participants

Data are part of the Transition to College Project, conducted at an ethnically diverse southern California university. This project examined the academic and race- and ethnicity-related experiences of an ethnically diverse college student sample. The participants in this study attended a university where no single racial-ethnic group was in the majority (6% African American, 35% Asian/Pacific Islander, 22% Latino, 25% White, 12% Other/unreported). There were a total of 89 participants: 84 self-identified mono-racial African Americans and five biracial participants (half-Black and half-White; 62 females, 27 males). Participants’ ages ranged from 17 to 25 years, with a mean age of 18.63 years (SD = 1.23; median = 18). The sample consisted of 67% freshmen, 23% sophomores, 7% juniors, 2% seniors and 1% fifth year or more. The annual family income reported to the university ranged from $0 to $181,000, with a mean family income of $43,965 (SD = $39,116; median = $30,500). The participants in the larger study matched the demographics of the university in terms of race/ethnicity and income. The gender composition the African American students at the university matches our sample, in that, there was a much larger percentage of females than males as is found in our sample.

Procedure

Participants were sampled from the psychology subject pool and received course credit during the fall quarter of 2001 and the winter quarter of 2002. Informed consent was obtained and all participants completed a two-part survey. The survey was divided into two sections to maintain participants’ attention across our lengthy questionnaire. Participants were instructed to complete Part I at home alone. Part I included demographic and academic information. Part II contained measures judged to be relatively sensitive regarding race/ethnicity. Students completed Part II in a laboratory setting in a group, with an African American research assistant and all African American participants, so that they (a) would feel comfortable answering honestly and (b) would not discuss the questions with friends/family while responding to the survey. Debriefing included giving participants a paragraph about the goals of the study.

Measures

Demographics

Race/ethnicity was assessed by, “What is your race/ethnicity?” Choices were African American/Black, Asian/Pacific Islander, Caucasian/White, Hispanic/Latino, Native American/American Indian, Southeast Asian, Middle Eastern, Biracial, and Other. Participants choosing “Biracial” would then choose two of the race/ethnicities listed above. If they chose “Other,” they would write in what they considered themselves to be. Gender was assessed with the word “Gender,” and the choices were Female and Male. Class year was assessed with, “What is your year in college?” Choices were Freshman (1st year), Sophomore (2nd year), Junior (3rd year), Senior (4th year), and 5th year or more. Family annual income data were obtained from the university registrar’s office.

Racial socialization

We used two measures of racial socialization. First, Hughes and Chen’s (1997) measure assessed three dimensions of racial socialization: cultural socialization (6 items, e.g., “Did your parents ever take you to Black cultural events?” α = .82), preparation for bias (6 items, e.g., “Did your parents ever tell you that others would try to limit you because you are Black?” α = .87), and promotion of mistrust (2 items, i.e., “Did your parents ever teach you not to trust people of other ethnic/racial groups?” and “Did your parents encourage you to socialize solely with Black people?” r = .23). Cronbach’s alphas reported by Hughes and Chen (1997) were .84 and .91, respectively, and the correlation for promotion of mistrust was r = .68. Second, we used the egalitarian subscale by Fisher et al. (2000; 10 items, e.g., “American society is fair to all races.” α = .75). The reported Cronbach’s alphas are from our sample. The alpha was not reported by Fisher et al. (2000). Participants responded from 1 = never to 5 = always for all items; scores were computed by averaging across all items.

Racial ideology

We used the racial ideology subscales of the Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity developed by Sellers et al. (1997) to reflect the Multidimensional Model of Racial Identity: assimilation (9 items; e.g., “A sign of progress is that Blacks are in the mainstream of America more than ever before”; α = .49), humanist (9 items; e.g., “Being an individual is more important than identifying oneself as Black”; α = .62), oppressed minority (9 items; e.g., “Blacks should learn about the oppression of other groups”; α = .66), and nationalist (9 items; e.g., “Black people must organize themselves into a separate Black political force”; α = .69). Participants responded from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree; scores were computed by averaging across all items. Cronbach’s alphas reported by Sellers et al. (1997) are .73, .70, .76, and .79, respectively.

Missing Data

To maximize the sample size, we conducted missing value analysis using expectation maximization (EM) to impute values for missing data (Schafer & Graham, 2001). EM estimates the means and the covariance matrix of quantitative variables with missing data, with an iterative process. This procedure is effective with small samples when the data are missing at random, as in this study. EM was used to impute missing data at the item level separately for the racial socialization and ideology variables. The items had from 2.2% to 10% missing data (n = 2-9).

Results

The means, standard deviations, and Pearson’s correlations among all the variables are reported in Table 1. Among the racial socialization subscales, only preparation for bias was significantly positively correlated with cultural socialization, r = .47, p < .001, and promotion of mistrust, r = .27, p = .009. Among the ideology subscales, the assimilationist ideology was positively associated with humanist, r = .42, p < .001, and oppressed minority ideologies, r = .35, p = .001. The humanist ideology was positively correlated with oppressed minority, r = .34, p = .001, but negatively correlated with the nationalist ideology, r = −.52, p < .001. Examining the correlations between racial ideology and racial socialization, the humanist ideology was negatively correlated with cultural socialization, r = −.28, p = .008, and positively correlated with egalitarian socialization, r = .24, p = .023. The nationalist ideology was positively correlated with both preparation for bias, r = .25, p = .019, and cultural socialization, r = .26, p = .014.

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Between Racial Socialization Variables and Racial Ideology Variables.

	Mean	SD	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Bias	3.44	0.86	.47***	.27*	.09	−.10	−.04	−.00	.25*
2. Cultural	3.03	0.79		.04	.20	−.14	−.28**	−.10	.26*
3. Mistrust	1.51	0.62			.09	−.07	−.10	.00	.11
4. Egalitarian	2.88	0.63				.17	.24*	.11	−.20
5. Assimilationist	5.18	0.08					.42***	.35***	−***.14
6. Humanist	5.49	0.10						.34***	−.52
7. Oppressed	5.01	0.78							.01
8. Nationalist	4.09	0.12

Note: Bias = Preparation for Bias; Cultural = Cultural Socialization; Mistrust = Promotion of Racial Mistrust; Egalitarian = Egalitarian Racial Socialization; Assimilation = Assimilationist Ideology; Humanist = Humanist Ideology; Oppressed = Oppressed Minority Ideology; Nationalist = Nationalist Ideology.

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

We conducted two multivariate analyses of variance to explore gender differences in terms of (a) racial socialization variables and (b) racial ideology variables. Neither multivariate analyses of variance was significant, (a) F(4, 84) = 1.59, p = .424 and (b) F(4, 84) = 0.97, p = .424, respectively. We examined the correlations between income and all the racial socialization and ideology variables. The only significant correlation was for cultural socialization, r = .24, p = .024. Higher incomes were associated with higher reports of cultural socialization messages.

To examine the relationship between racial socialization and racial ideology, we conducted a multiple linear regression analysis for each of the four ideology variables (see Table 2). We included the four racial socialization variables in each analysis. We included gender and income in the first step of the hierarchical linear regression analysis to determine their effect on racial ideology. Consistent with prior research, neither gender nor income significantly predicted any of the four ideologies. Thus, they were dropped from the analyses to maximize statistical power. The pattern of results was identical with and without gender and income in the analyses.

Table 2.

Regression Table for Racial Socialization as a Predictor of Racial Ideology.

	Assimilationist Ideology				Humanist Ideology
	b	SE	β	p	b	SE	β	p
Bias	−.01	.09	−.02	.882	.15	.09	.18	.117
Cultural	−.13	.09	−.18	.157	−.38	.10	−.42	.000
Mistrust	−.07	.11	−.07	.514	−.19	.12	−.17	.103
Egalitarian	.21	.10	.21	.052	.37	.11	.33	.002
Total	R² = .07, F(4, 84) = 1.53			.202	R² = .21, F(4, 84) = 5.50			.001

	Oppressed Minority Ideology				Nationalist Ideology
	b	SE	β	p	b	SE	β	p

Bias	.06	.11	.07	.610	.13	.12	.13	.279
Cultural	−.15	.12	−.16	.218	.27	.12	.25	.035
Mistrust	−.03	.14	−.02	.827	.12	.14	.09	.414
Egalitarian	.16	.13	.13	.231	−.35	.14	−.27	.011
Total	R² = .03, F(4, 84) = 0.63			.645	R² = .16, F(4, 84) = 3.95			.005

Note: Bias = Preparation for Bias; Cultural = Cultural Socialization; Mistrust = Promotion of Racial Mistrust; Egalitarian = Egalitarian Racial Socialization.

Racial socialization did not account for a significant amount of variance for the assimilationist ideology, R² = .07, F(4, 84) = 1.53, p = .202, or oppressed minority ideology, R² = .03, F(4, 84) = 0.63, p = .645. Racial socialization accounted for a significant amount of variance in humanist ideology, R² = .21, F(4, 84) = 5.50, p = .001. Higher cultural socialization, b = −.38, SE = .10, p < .001, was associated with lower humanist ideology. However, higher egalitarian socialization, b = .37, SE = .11, p = .002, was associated with higher humanist ideology. Racial socialization accounted for a significant amount of variance in nationalist ideology, R² = .16, F(4, 84) = 3.95, p = .005. Higher cultural socialization, b = .27, SE = .12, p = .035, was associated with higher nationalist ideology, whereas higher egalitarian socialization, b = −.35, SE = .14, p = .011, was associated with lower nationalist ideology.

Discussion

Consistent with previous research, our findings suggest a link between African American young adults’ reported parental racial socialization messages and their racial ideologies. Only cultural socialization and egalitarian socialization were related to racial ideology among our sample. They predicted humanist and nationalist ideologies, although in different patterns.

Cultural socialization messages were associated with higher nationalist ideology and lower humanist ideology. Stevenson and Arrington (2009) report a similar finding. Cultural socialization messages, which are proactive according to Stevenson’s (1994) framework, provide messages about cultural strengths and historical achievements that go beyond an orientation to the threat of racism. Although participants in this study came from a very diverse setting, those who received more cultural socialization messages may be less inclined to connect African Americans’ struggle to that of all humanity. Rather, the cultural socialization they received from parents may have contributed to their own interpretations that the African American struggle is unique and best addressed by political and economic self-determination. Another aspect of nationalist ideological beliefs is an emphasis on maintaining social and cultural connections among African Americans, which may relate to parents’ cultural socialization messages that stress African Americans’ social and cultural contributions. Alternatively, participants who have developed nationalist beliefs of their own accord may be more likely to recall parental socialization messages that support those beliefs.

Egalitarian socialization messages, on the other hand, were associated with higher humanist ideology and lower nationalist ideology. Although we found a positive correlation between assimilationist and humanist ideologies, egalitarian messages were not associated with an assimilationist ideology in the regression. Humanist ideology emphasizes common humanity over racial differences (Sellers, Smith, et al., 1998). The aspects of egalitarian messages that downplay the importance of racial differences may explain the association with humanist ideology. Assimilationist ideology stresses the similarities between African Americans and other Americans and the usefulness of working within the system to achieve equality (Sellers, Smith, et al., 1998). Rather than internalizing an assimilationist ideology that favors a mainstream American identity over one based on minority status, participants may have interpreted egalitarian messages with the realization that equality for African Americans remains unachieved, and that this is part of a larger human struggle against oppression that goes beyond group identification.

The negative relationship between egalitarian socialization and nationalist ideology is consistent with Stevenson and Arrington’s (2009) finding that nationalist ideology was associated with “minimizing messages of mainstream fit” (p. 133). They assert that a nationalist ideology presumes the experience of racism and rejects egalitarianism as denying African Americans their proper historical recognition. Egalitarian messages emphasize the desirability of integration which conflicts with a nationalist ideology. Those who received more egalitarian messages reject a nationalist stance in favor a humanist one. Additionally, we cannot rule out the possibility that participants who developed nationalist beliefs based on their own experiences may have rejected egalitarian messages they received from parents.

We were surprised that neither promotion of mistrust nor preparation for bias predicted ideology given that African American parents’ racial socialization practices have developed in the context of racism and discrimination. Both Barr and Neville (2008) and Stevenson and Arrington (2009) found that preparation for bias was related to racial ideology. Hughes et al. (2006) point out that socialization messages that promote mistrust of other racial/ethnic groups may be more likely to emerge in qualitative studies that employ intensive interviewing or observational techniques than in survey-based research. Our instrument may not have captured this dimension very well. The mean for promotion of mistrust was considerably lower than the other socialization dimensions among this sample and the correlation between the two items for this subscale was small to moderate. In addition, the correlation of r = .68 that Hughes and Chen (1997) reported was based on parents’, rather than children’s, report of socialization messages. This difference in perspective may be related to the lower correlation obtained in this study. Although preparation for bias was correlated with nationalist ideology, it was not significant once the other dimensions of socialization were included in the equation. The correlation between cultural socialization and preparation for bias was strong and positive. It is likely that these two dimensions of socialization shared variance in nationalist ideology. The part of preparation for bias that was not shared with cultural socialization may be due to the emphasis on coping with racism. These messages may be more situation specific, aimed at coping with particular instances of discrimination, and less ideological in nature than cultural or egalitarian socialization (Hughes et al., 2006). They may not have been linked to more general ideological beliefs in our participants’ minds.

Parental racial socialization messages were not associated with an oppressed minority ideology. The dimensions of racial socialization measured did not address the importance of interacting and working with people of color other than African Americans to address racism and social justice. Given the growing numbers of Latinos and Asian Americans in the United States, future research needs to expand racial socialization measures to incorporate items that assess parental messages about members of other racially and ethnically oppressed groups.

Limitations

One limitation of this study is the low internal consistency of the ideology subscales. In the article describing the development of this measure, the authors reported Cronbach’s alphas in the .70 to .79 range (Sellers et al., 1997). Also, the alphas were higher for participants from an African American university than for participants from a predominantly White university (.66-.78). Most interestingly, the alpha for assimilationist ideology was .66 in the predominantly White university and .74 in the African American university. Our participants attended a university that was racially and ethnically diverse, unlike the two universities in the original study; however, only approximately 6% of the student body was African American. Thus, it is possible that this ideology measure, and the assimilationist ideology subscale in particular, has a lower internal consistency when there are few African Americans in the setting and there is no majority group. Perhaps the meaning of assimilation is not clear when the setting is highly diverse. This poses an interesting question—does racial ideology mean the same thing to African Americans in different parts of the country, living in racially/ethnically diverse contexts, from different socioeconomic statuses? Although previous research suggests a relationship between the presence of other African Americans and racial ideology (Rowley et al., 2003; Sellers, Smith, et al., 1998), future research needs to explore the meaning of racial ideology and continue to test psychometric properties of this measure in a greater variety of contexts.

A second limitation of the study is that there are fewer males than females in the sample. While it would be ideal to have equal numbers of males and females, our gender composition accurately reflected the gender composition of the African American student body and was similar to that of Barr and Neville (2008). Also similar to Barr and Neville, the majority of the participants were freshmen and sophomores. We believe that it was best to include primarily younger students because they would be close to the racial socialization experience from home.

Conclusion

The goal of this study was to expand the literature on factors associated with racial ideology for African Americans. Our study adds to the literature regarding parental racial socialization and shows that parents are an important influence on African Americans’ racial ideologies. Cultural socialization messages that emphasize history and pride are important for African Americans to develop a sense of solidarity with other African Americans. Egalitarian socialization messages, on the other hand, weaken that sense of solidarity. These findings further the development of theory regarding racial ideology as a dimension of African American identity. Ideological beliefs shape the ways in which African Americans negotiate the meaning of race in society, and it is important to understand how parents may shape this aspect of racial identity.

Footnotes

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 research was funded by a seed grant from the university where the research was conducted. It was also funded by a subcontract grant from the Consortium for High Academic Performance from a larger grant from the James Irvine Foundation.

References

Baldwin

J. A.

Bell

(1985). The African Self Consciousness Scale: An Africentric personality questionnaire. Western Journal of Black Studies, 9(2), 61-68.

Barr

S. C.

Neville

H. A.

(2008). Examination of the link between parental racial socialization messages and racial ideology among black college students. Journal of Black Psychology, 34, 131-155. doi:10.1177/0095798408314138

Cross

W. E.

Jr. (1971). The negro-to-black conversion experience. Black World, 20, 13-27.

Cross

W. E.

Jr. (1991). Shades of black: Diversity in African-American identity. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Fisher

C. B.

Wallace

S. A.

Fenton

R. E.

(2000). Discrimination distress during adolescence. Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 29, 679-695. doi:10.1023/A:1026455906512

Hughes

Chen

(1997). When and what parents tell children about race: An examination of race-related socialization among African American families. Applied Developmental Science, 1, 200-214. doi:10.1207/s1532480xads0104_4

Hughes

Chen

(1999). The nature of parents’ race-related communications to children: A developmental perspective. In Tamis-LeMonda

(Ed.), Child psychology: A handbook of contemporary issues (pp. 467-490). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

Hughes

Hagelskamp

Way

Foust

M. D.

(2009). The role of mothers and adolescents perceptions of ethnic-racial socialization in shaping ethnic-racial identity among early adolescent boys and girls. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 605-626. doi:10.1007/s10964-009-9399-7

Hughes

Rodriguez

Smith

E. P.

Johnson

D. J.

Stevenson

H. C.

Spicer

(2006). Parents’ ethnic-racial socialization practices: A review of research and directions for future study. Developmental Psychology, 42, 747-770. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.42.5.747

10.

Rowley

S. J.

(2000). Profiles of African American College Students’ Educational Utility and Performance: A Cluster Analysis. Journal of Black Psychology, 26(1), 3-26. doi: 10.1177/0095798400026001001

11.

Rowley

S. J.

Chavous

T. M.

Cooke

D. Y.

(2003). A person-centered approach to African-American gender differences in racial ideology. Self and Identity, 2, 287-306. doi:10.1080/15298860390232859

12.

Schafer

J. L.

Graham

J. W.

(2002). Missing Data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7, 147-177. doi:10.1037//1082-989X.7.2.147

13.

Sellers

R. M.

Chavous

T. M.

Cooke

D. Y.

(1998). Racial ideology and racial centrality as predictors of African American college students’ academic performance. Journal of Black Psychology, 24, 8-27. doi:10.1177/00957984980241002

14.

Sellers

R. M.

Rowley

S. A. J.

Chavous

T. M.

Shelton

J. N.

Smith

M. A.

(1997). Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity: A preliminary investigation of reliability and construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 805-815. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.4.805

15.

Sellers

R. M.

Smith

M. A.

Shelton

J. N.

Rowley

S. A. J.

Chavous

T. M.

(1998). Multidimensional model of racial identity: A reconceptualization of African American racial identity. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 2, 18-39. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0201_2

16.

Smalls

White

Chavous

Sellers

(2007). Racial ideological beliefs and racial discrimination experiences as predictors of academic engagement among African American adolescents. Journal of Black Psychology, 33, 299-330. doi:10.1177/0095798407302541

17.

Stevenson

H. C.

(1994). Validation of the Scale of Racial Socialization for African American Adolescents: Steps Towards Multidimensionality. Journal of Black Psychology, 20, 445-468. doi:10.1177/00957984940204005

18.

Stevenson

H. C.

(1995). Relationship of adolescent perceptions of racial socialization to racial identity. Journal of Black Psychology, 21, 49-70. doi:10.1177/ 00957984950211005

19.

Stevenson

H. C.

Arrington

E. G.

(2009). Racial/ethnic socialization mediates perceived racism and the racial identity of African American adolescents. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 15, 125-136. doi:10.1037/a0015500