Racial Microaggressions and African American Undergraduates’ Academic Experiences: Preparation for Bias Messages as a Protective Resource

Abstract

Using a sample of 108 African American undergraduates at a minority serving institution, this quantitative study investigated the relationships among aspects of parental racial socialization messages, on-campus racial microaggressions, and academic outcomes. The analysis indicated a negative relationship between academic inferiority microaggressions and school belonging. Results showed a positive intercorrelation between the academic outcomes (academic engagement and school belonging). Findings from multiple linear regressions, using Hayes PROCESS model, revealed the frequency of receiving preparation for bias messages (PBM) moderated the relationship between academic engagement and academic inferiority microaggressions. For undergraduates who reported receiving a low amount of PBM from their parents, experiencing high amounts of academic inferiority microaggressions predicted lower academic engagement. In contrast, among students who reported receiving a high amount of PBM, experiencing more academic inferiority microaggressions predicted higher academic engagement. These results indicated PBM can serve as a protective factor for the extent to which African American undergraduates’ academic engagement is harmed by experiences of academic-related racial microaggressions.

Keywords

preparation for bias racial microaggressions academic outcomes African Americans college students

Researchers have consistently and rigorously demonstrated racial discrimination is present on college campuses and significantly impacts the lives of Black students (Banks & Kohn-Wood, 2007; Sellers et al., 2003; Swim et al., 2003). In 2015, Black college students at the University of Missouri led protests and hunger strikes to draw attention to the structural and interpersonal racism they experienced on their campus (Chung & Payne, 2015). They created the #BlackOnCampus movement, using Twitter to spark a national conversation about the plight of Black college students. The hashtag became viral as Black students across the country adopted it to express similar feelings, experiences of alienation, and lack of safety on their campuses. Other Black Student Unions (BSUs) followed by leading protests to demonstrate their solidarity and support for the Black students at the University of Missouri (Chung & Payne, 2015).

The national attention to the racial injustice occurring on the University of Missouri’s campus resulted in the resignation of the president of the University of Missouri System as well as the chancellor of the main campus in Columbia, Missouri (Chung & Payne, 2015). Moreover, many BSUs sported their own hashtags, such as #BlackBruinsMatter at the University of California, Los Angeles and #Sincerelythe4% at Oklahoma State University, to draw attention to the racial discrimination on their own campuses and to demand change. The current study addresses African American undergraduates’ negative experiences on campus. We quantitatively examined the relationships among academic inferiority racial microaggressions, school belongingness, and academic engagement. In addition, we examined the potentially protective functioning of two types of specific racial socialization messages by parents.

Theoretical Framework

Garcia Coll et al. (1996) developed the Integrative Model for the Study of Developmental Competencies in Minority Children to delineate the normative development of children of racial minorities, demonstrating their pathways that differ from children of the majority race. Previously most conceptual frameworks employed a “one model fits all” approach, disregarding or minimizing the impact of social stratification derivatives like racism on the development of racial minority youth (Coll et al., 1996). The integrative model highlights eight variables about the developmental process: (a) social stratification, (b) derivatives of social stratification such as racism, (c) segregation, (d) promotive/inhibitive environments, (e) adaptive culture, (f) child characteristics, (g) family, and (h) developmental competencies.

The model starts with social position factors like race, social class, ethnicity, and gender that stratify individuals in the social hierarchy (Coll et al., 1996). Then, the model moves to derivatives of social stratification (e.g., racism, prejudice, and oppression). Garcia Coll and colleagues argue social position factors do not directly influence racial minority children’s developmental outcomes, but instead their effect is mediated by social mechanisms such as racism and oppression. In many other ecological models (e.g., Bronfenbrenner, 1994), these macro-level factors are ignored or viewed as insignificant. Additionally, the integrative model shows how the interplay of these factors contributes to residential, economic, social, and psychological segregation. Segregated environments along with experiences of racism and discrimination create and influence the social interactions that racial minority children experience in various places like schools and neighborhoods (Coll et al., 1996). Moreover, experiences in promoting or inhibiting environments in turn directly contribute to a child’s adaptive culture: a set of goals, values, and attitudes that differ from the majority culture. An adaptive culture is informed by cultural history (e.g., traditions and politics) and current contextual demands. The model portrays how the individual’s environment, adaptive culture, and personal characteristics, like age, interact to influence family processes such as racial socialization messages (RS) and family member roles. Ultimately, all these factors interact to lead to normative developmental competencies of racial minority children and adolescents that can differ from the majority population.

Coll and colleagues’ (1996) integrative model specifies for racial minority children the general process of risk and resilience outlined in Fergus and Zimmerman’s (2005) protective model. The protective model is a part of a resilience framework in which assets and resources can moderate or reduce the negative impact of a risk factor on some outcome. Assets include factors within the individual like racial identity and self-esteem, and resources are external sources like parental support and socialization practices (Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005). They argue that investigations of resources illuminate the influence of the social environment in promoting resilience. Through this, variables that can be changed or improved are identified and can inform social policy. They posit that this approach is preferable to a conceptualization of resilience as a static, individual trait that is unchangeable.

Here, we explored whether parental racial socialization messages are a resource that can reduce the risk of academic inferiority racial microaggressions to school belonging and academic engagement among African American college students. Using the terms of the integrative model, we investigate five of the eight variables: social position (race), discrimination (academic inferiority racial microaggressions), promotive/inhibitive environments (school), family (racial socialization messages) and developmental competencies (academic outcomes).

Racial Microaggressions as Risk

Racial microaggressions, a type of racial discrimination, are demeaning comments and behaviors that occur on an interpersonal level directed towards members of racial minority groups (Sue et al., 2007). Racial microaggressions can be explicit, implicit, subtle, crude, intentional or unintentional (Sue et al., 2007). The intensity and intentionality of these messages are differentiated into three forms of microaggressions: microinsults, microinvalidations, and microassaults (Sue, 2010). Microinsults are rude and insensitive messages intended to degrade an individual’s racial heritage or identity; they are often unrecognized as such by the perpetrator (Sue et al., 2007). Microinvalidations occur when an individual excludes or negates the thoughts, feelings, and experiences of a person of color. Microassaults are explicit verbal or non-verbal racial attacks intended to hurt the victim. The hallmark of microaggressions is that they happen interpersonally and occur often. They are “commonplace daily…indignities” (Sue et al., 2007, p. 271), whereas macroaggressions are systematic forms of racism (Huber & Solorzano, 2014).

Sue et al. (2019) argue racial microaggressions differ from everyday impoliteness in four main ways: Microaggressions (a) are incessant, (b) cumulative, (c) reminders of the racial group’s second-class status, (d) and represent past governmental injustices. There is a large body of research demonstrating a relationship between experiencing racial microaggressions and physical and psychological health problems (Merritt et al., 2006; Nadal et al., 2014, 2017; Ong et al., 2013). For instance, Wright and Lewis (2020) reported a positive relationship between Black and African American women’s self-reported anxiety and the frequency and stress appraisal of racial microaggressions. Merritt et al. (2006) found that for Black men, subtle discrimination in ambiguous interpersonal events resulted in significantly higher elevations of blood pressure than blatant discrimination. Additionally, researchers found racial microaggressions were significantly and positively correlated with depression symptoms and negative affect (Nadal et al., 2014; Ong et al., 2013). Moreover, Nadal et al. (2017) demonstrated significant relationships between racial microaggressions and self-reported physical health problems; the more microaggressions a person experienced, the lower their energy levels and the higher their pain levels.

Less research has explored racial microaggressions at school and their effect on academic outcomes (e.g., academic engagement, school belonging, and performance). Drawing from focus group interviews, Solórzano et al. (2000) reported African American college students experienced racial microaggressions inside and outside the classroom. Students reported feeling invisible to professors, being seen as inferior by both professors and classmates, and noticing Black events on campus were more regulated than White events, all making them feel they did not belong. Additionally, students reported feeling discouraged, frustrated, and exhausted from dealing with constant microaggressions while striving to maintain a good academic standing. Some students stated that frequent racial microaggressions led them to make choices that affected their academic performance, such as being less engaged in the classroom, dropping classes, and transferring schools (Solórzano et al., 2000). Withdrawing from academic engagement can ultimately affect a student’s academic performance and success.

Furthermore, Keels et al. (2017) reported educational contexts with high race-related tension and hostility were related to poorer academic performance among racial minority undergraduate students. Specifically, they created and utilized the School-Based Racial and Ethnic Microaggressions (SB-REMA) scale. Using the scale, they found that academic inferiority microaggressions, racial microaggressions that emphasized negative stereotypes about intellectual capabilities, were associated with lower high school Grade Point Average (GPA) among Black and Latinx students. Moreover, Black students reported more such experiences than Latinx students, indicating this type of racial microaggression may be particularly salient among Black students.

Parental Messages as Protection

In the context of racial discrimination, racial minority parents may be prompted to prepare their children to deal with the challenges through specific socialization practices. Racial socialization (RS) is an overarching term that refers to intentional, unintentional, direct, and indirect messages and practices children experience about their racial group membership (Banerjee et al., 2011; Neblett et al., 2006; Smalls, 2009). Although RS messages can come from any African American adult, this review specifically focuses on RS messages from parents. Several studies indicate African American parents engage in RS in response to the discrimination they have faced and now find their children facing (Hughes et al., 2006).

In their model Coll et al. (1996) draw a direct link between familial socialization and child developmental outcomes, suggesting RS messages directly influence developmental outcomes among racial minority youth. The present study is focused on academic outcomes of African American undergraduates, but research findings on the relationship of RS and educational success among African American students have been mixed. Some studies have shown that RS messages may increase the negative effects of discrimination on educational outcomes (Banerjee et al., 2017; Marshall, 1995; Neblett et al., 2006). Others have found that RS has attenuated the effect of racial discrimination on African Americans’ academics (Banerjee et al., 2017; Caughy et al., 2002; Neblett et al., 2006; Wang & Huguley, 2012). Moreover, Miller and MacIntosh (1999) provided evidence that RS messages did not influence the known relationship between discrimination and academics. A closer look at the various types of RS messages that have been studied may explain the conflicting findings.

Cultural Socialization

Cultural socialization messages (CSM) are a type of RS used to teach cultural knowledge and instill racial and ethnic pride (Banerjee et al., 2011, 2017; Wang & Huguley, 2012). CSM are also often referred to as racial pride (Neblett et al., 2006; Smalls, 2009). Examples of CSM include conversations appreciating Black history and loving one’s skin color and other physical features associated with race. Research has shown that CSM were the most common among RS, as reported by both African American parents and students (Hughes, 2003; Hughes et al., 2006). Thus, many studies on RS have specifically focused on cultural socialization (Banerjee et al., 2017; Smalls, 2009; Wang & Huguley, 2012).

Messages about racial pride and cultural traditions tend to be positively associated with educational outcomes among African American students. African American middle school students who reported receiving more racial pride messages were more academically engaged (Smalls, 2009). Similarly, Wang and Huguley (2012) found CSM to positively predict GPA, educational aspirations, and cognitive engagement. Further, Banerjee et al. (2017) observed a positive relationship between CSM and college student academic engagement.

Preparation for Bias

Another commonly studied dimension of racial socialization is preparation for bias messages (PBM). PBM are messages that intend to emphasize awareness of racial inequalities and teach coping mechanisms (Banerjee et al., 2017; Hughes et al., 2006). This same construct has also been referred to as racial barrier messages (Neblett et al., 2006; Smalls & Cooper, 2012). Many researchers argue PBM is a critical component of racial socialization, and most studies investigating RS include PBM in their operational definition. African Americans engage in PBM significantly more than other racial/ethnic groups, such as Puerto Rican, Dominican, and Mexican groups (Hughes, 2003; Phinney & Chavira, 1995). However, most studies using open-ended questions to measure RS showed that only a small number of parents extemporaneously and readily discussed engaging in PBM with their children (Hughes et al., 2006).

While studies exploring the impact of CSM on academic outcomes generally report a positive relationship, studies investigating PBM have more mixed findings. When parents of 6th to 12th grade African American students reported sending more PBM, their children reported a stronger sense of school belonging and confidence in their academic abilities (Dotterer et al., 2009). Similarly, Wang and Huguley (2012) found that African American parents who reported more PBM had children who reported stronger school belonging and valuing of education.

In contrast, Smith et al. (2003) showed a negative association between parents’ report of PBM and their fourth-grade students’ grades and standardized test scores. Likewise, African American adolescents’ report of receiving PBM negatively predicted self-reported course grades (Smalls & Cooper, 2012). Similarly, Banerjee et al. (2017) suggested receiving more PBM from parents was negatively associated with college GPA for African American students attending a predominantly White institution (PWI). It is important to note that most studies showing a positive relationship between PBM and educational success used parent reports of their messages. On the other hand, the studies showing a negative relationship between PBM and educational success tended to use student reports. This difference suggests parents and children may understand or report PBM messages differently. Students may not understand the purpose of PBM and thus cannot always identify them when parents give them, or they may ignore these conversations altogether.

The Current Study

Few studies have focused on the effect of racial microaggressions on students’ academic outcomes and even less have done so quantitatively. Specifically, we were interested in how racial microaggressions related to one’s intellectual capabilities affect cognitive and behavioral academic outcomes. Therefore, we assessed the relationship among frequency of academic inferiority racial microaggressions African American undergraduates experience and two types of academic outcomes: academic engagement and school belonging. Additionally, we utilized retrospective student report to investigate whether CSM and PBM protected against the effects of racial microaggressions on academic outcomes. Thus, four possible combinations of variables will be examined: (a) academic inferiority racial microaggressions, CSM, and academic engagement, (b) academic inferiority racial microaggressions, CSM, and school belonging, (c) academic inferiority racial microaggressions, PBM, and academic engagement, and (d) academic inferiority racial microaggressions, PBM, and school belonging. This quantitative investigation will extend our understanding of the impact of academic-related racial microaggressions as well as explore racial socialization as a protective resource among African American undergraduates.

The current study aims to answer the following two research questions (RQ) and proposes three associated hypotheses (HYP):

RQ1: What is the relationship among on-campus academic inferiority racial microaggressions, school belongingness, and academic engagement among African American undergraduates?

HYP1: There will be an overall negative, but weak relationship between exposure to academic-inferiority racial microaggressions and academic outcomes.

HYP2: Academic engagement and school belonging scores will be positively correlated.

RQ2: Do the frequency and type of parental racial socialization messages (cultural socialization and PBMs) prior to college as reported by students moderate the relationship between exposure to academic inferiority racial microaggressions and academic outcomes (school belongingness and academic engagement)?

HYP3: The frequency of CSMs was hypothesized to moderate the relationship between academic inferiority microaggressions and academic outcomes. Specifically, CSMs were expected to serve as a protective resource such that it weakens or changes the direction of the hypothesized negative relationship.

Method

Sample

Participants were 108 self-identified African American undergraduates at a racial minority serving institution (MSI) in the southern region of the United States. Participants ranged from 19 to 66 years of age (M_age = 24.9 years, SD = 7.6). Black students make up about 41.8% of undergraduate students enrolled at the institution. The sample consisted of 23 males, 83 females, 1 non-binary individual, and 1 individual who refrained from identifying a gender. Nonbinary and nonreporting individuals were excluded from any analyses containing gender. The online participant pool consisted of mainly psychology and education majors.

Approximately 7% of the sample identified as being in their second year, 32% in their third year, 33% in their fourth year, and 24% in their fifth year or more. The remaining students did not report their academic classification (4%). Approximately 4% reported their parents had less than a high school degree, 44% a high school degree, 14% a 2-year degree, 18% a 4-year degree, 17% a professional degree, and about 3% a doctorate degree.

Measures

Racial Microaggressions

This study used the Academic Inferiority subscale (seven items), one of three subscales in the 14-item self-report SB-REMA scale to measure the type and frequency of racial microaggressions that students experience while on their college campus (SB-REMA; Keels et al., 2017). Researchers instructed participants to only report on racial microaggressions that occurred on their college campus or in a school-related interaction. Among microaggression measures, the SB-REMA scale is unique as it is a published, quantitative scale that focuses on racial microaggressions occurring in educational settings.

The SB-REMA contains three subscales: Academic Inferiority, Expectations of Aggression, and Stereotypical Misrepresentations. Each subscale includes items that refer to microinsults, microinvalidations, and microassaults. Subscales were derived by means of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), which supported the three-factor structure (Keels et al., 2017). An EFA was conducted to test the structural validity, using the principal component analysis with a promax rotation. The three-factor solution resulting from the EFA was entered into a CFA, demonstrating the model was a good fit for the data among male and female Black college students. Additionally, the fit indices also indicated a good level of fit (Keels et al., 2017).

In the current study only the seven-item Academic Inferiority subscale was used because it was the strongest of the three factors and focuses solely on academic-related microaggressions. The intercorrelations among the subscales indicate they are related, but able to be examined independently (Keels et al., 2017). The Academic Inferiority subscale includes statements such as, “People at school made me feel intellectually inferior because of my race/ethnicity.” Students report on a 3-point Likert-type scale (1 = never, 2 = sometimes, 3= regularly). Responses to each item were averaged to create one composite score. Higher scores represent experiencing more academic inferiority microaggressions.

Participants’ scores on the Academic Inferiority subscale were measured reliably in the current study (α = .88). Similarly, participants’ scores on the Academic Inferiority subscale were measured reliably among Keel et al.’s (2017) sample of Black college students (α = .92). Unfortunately, although two existing racial discrimination scales were used to inform the items in the SB-REMA, its convergent and divergent validity have yet to been assessed.

Parental Messages

Messages about cultural socialization (CSM) and preparation for bias (PBM) were assessed using the Racial Socialization Questionnaire-teen (RSQ-t; Lesane-Brown et al., 2006). Although originally created to measure adolescents, the RSQ-t is often used amongst college students (Banerjee et al., 2017). The current study used two of the six racial socialization subscales of the RSQ-t, as has been done previously (Smalls, 2010). CSM was measured using the Racial Pride subscale. It consists of three items that evaluate messages about cultural traditions and pride. For PBM, the Racial Barriers subscale was used; it includes four items measuring awareness of racial inequalities. Theoretically, preparation for bias includes messages emphasizing awareness of racial inequalities as well as teaching coping mechanisms, but the Racial Barriers subscale solely captures messages regarding awareness. The researchers asked participants to indicate how often they received each message on a 3-point Likert-type scale (1 = Never, 2 = Once or Twice, 3 = Twice or More). Scores on each subscale were averaged, and higher scores indicate a higher frequency of receiving that type of message from a parent.

In the current study, scores on both the Racial Pride subscale (α = .81) and the Racial Barrier subscale (α = .91) were reliable. Previous studies also reported reliable measurement using the subscales among Black college students (α = .81–.89 for Racial Pride; α = .79–.81 for Racial Barriers; Banerjee et al., 2017; White-Johnson, 2015). Moreover, a CFA of these scales was conducted indicating the subscales were separate factors (Lesane-Brown et al., 2006). Model fit statistics indicated the model was a good fit for an African American sample. No prior studies have been published on the convergent and discriminant validity of the RSQ-t.

Academic Outcomes

Academic engagement was assessed through the 20-item National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) which measures how frequently students report both cognitive and behavioral engagements on a scale from 1 (never) to 4 (very often) (Nelson Laird et al., 2007; Zilvinskis et al., 2017). The student engagement scale is comprised of three subscales: active and collaborative learning, student–faculty interaction, and supportive campus environment. A CFA indicated this three-factor structure among a national sample (Zilvinskis et al., 2017); participant race was not described, Scores on the three subscales are averaged, and higher mean scores indicate more overall academic engagement.

In the current study, scores on the NSSE were reliable (α = .91). Similarly, Pike (2006) reported reliability using the NSSE (α = .70 or greater) among college students, race unspecified. Moreover, Zilvinskis et al. (2017) established strong convergent validity with strong positive canonical correlations between NSSE subscale scores and self-reported learning gains. Moreover, they found different engagement subscales were related to different self-report learning measures demonstrating discriminant validity of NSSE scores.

A student’s sense of belonging at the university was measured using the School Belonging Scale (SBS), 12 items measured on a six-point Likert-type scale, 1 = Completely Disagree to 6 = Agree (Parada, 2019). The SBS consisted of three subscales: support, rule acceptance, and attachment. Higher scores represent a stronger connectedness with the university.

In the current study scores on SBS were reliable (α = .95), as were scores reported by Parada (2019; α = .87–.88); race was not described. The internal consistency reliability estimates among the three subscales were high considering the few items per scale. Additionally, a CFA and multi-group CFA were conducted, demonstrating all three factors are well defined across gender and consistent with the theoretical literature (Marsh et al., 2005; Parada, 2019). Convergent and discriminant validation studies have yet to be conducted.

Demographics

Demographic variables obtained were participants’ gender, age, parent education, and year in college (classification). Parent education contained seven choices ranging from less than a high school diploma to a doctoral degree. To measure classification, students responded on a 1–5 scale (1= first year, 2 = second year, 3 = third year, 4 = fourth year, 5 = fifth year or higher).

Procedures

The Institutional Review Board of the authors’ university approved the study procedures. The researchers recruited students through the university’s online participant pool and management system, where they can receive course credit for their participation. Participants provided informed consent. The measures were presented in the same order for each participant: Parental Messages, Racial Microaggressions, and Academic Outcomes. This order was carefully chosen to prevent more sensitive questions like those related to microaggressions from influencing the participants’ reporting of parental socialization messages. On average, participants took 21 minutes and 46 seconds to complete the survey.

Data Analysis Plan

First, we used demographic data to describe the participants. Second, we investigated the relationship among experiences of on-campus racial microaggressions, school belongingness, and academic engagement using Pearson’s r correlational analyses. Point-biserial correlations were used in analyses containing gender. Finally, we determined whether certain parental messages protected students from the negative academic consequences associated with discrimination via multiple linear regressions using the Hayes PROCESS model (Hayes, 2018).

The Hayes PROCESS model is a computational aid for researchers in estimating regression models, calculating various effects, implementing methods of inference. It is a single integrated command conducted in SPSS version 26, a statistical software commonly used for psychological research. PROCESS calculates mean centers such that the mean of a variable is subtracted from every value. This was done for each variable of interest. Mean-centering allows comparison across variables since they are on different scales and do not have a true zero such as the SBS scale, where responses ranged from 1 to 6 (Hayes, 2018). Additionally, the Hayes PROCESS model tests for multicollinearity and automatically calculates the proportion of variance in the dependent variable that is uniquely attributable to the moderation effect. Furthermore, when prompted, PROCESS generates a scatterplot from a set of estimates of Y from several combinations of the predictor variable and the moderating variable using the regression model. Finally, the Hayes PROCESS model probes the interaction to determine where in the distribution of the moderator variable the predictor variable has an effect on the dependent variable that is different from zero and where it does not. Specifically, the Johnson-Neyman technique was used. Statistical significance (p < .05) is determined when confidence intervals do not include the value of zero.

Results

One individual out of the 108 participants did not receive an academic inferiority microaggressions score due to missing data. Thus, all statistical tests performed with the academic inferiority microaggressions measure included 107 participants. PROCESS automatically addresses missing data by using listwise deletions and thus, missing data were accounted for in the moderation model (Hayes, 2013). No other data were missing and there were no extreme outliers on demographic or main study variables within this sample. Multiple linear regression assumptions (i.e., normality of errors, linearity, homoscedasticity, and multicollinearity) were tested. Normality of errors was tested by examining Q-Q plots. All Q-Q plots indicated the residuals were normally distributed. The assumption of linearity was confirmed through analyzing a scatterplot containing all predictors and outcome variables. Similarly, homoscedasticity was tested by analyzing scatterplots. Patterns were noted suggesting the data were not homoscedastic. Finally, multicollinearity was assessed using variance inflation factor (VIF) values of each independent variable. There was no evidence of multicollinearity among academic inferiority microaggressions (VIF = 1.04), CSM (VIF = 1.19), and PBM (VIF = 1.23).

Descriptive Statistics

In this study, African American students reported experiencing few academic inferiority racial microaggressions. On average, participants had a low mean score of 1.21 on a scale of 1–3, where 1 was never and 2 was sometimes (SD = 0.36). In contrast, participants, on average, scored high on the PBM subscale (M = 2.51, SD = 0.73) and CSM subscale (M = 2.60, SD = .59) on a scale of 1 (never) to 3 (twice or more). Moreover, students reported being generally academically engaged (M = 2.86, SD = 0.58) and feeling like they belonged at their university (M = 4.20, SD = 1.15). Means and SDs of the main study variables are listed in Table 1.

Table 1.

Means, SDs, and Intercorrelations.

Variable	n	M	SD	2	3	4	5	6	7
1.Age	108	24.9	7.60
2.Gender^a	106	-	-	-
1.Academic engagement	108	2.89	.58	−.08	-
2.School belongingness	108	4.20	1.15	−.04	.53**	-
3.Microaggressions	107	1.21	.36	.03	.09	.28**	-
4. CSM	108	2.60	.59	.13	.23*	.09	.04	-
5. PBM	108	2.51	.73	.04	.25**	.08	.20*	.40**	-

Note. N = 108. Microaggressions = Academic Inferiority Microaggressions; CSM = cultural socialization messages; PBM = preparation for bias messages.

^aPoint-biserial correlation was used for all correlations with gender (Male = 0, female = 1).

*p < .05, two-tailed. **p < .01, two-tailed.

Correlational Analyses

Pearson’s r (α = .05) was conducted to examine the relationships among the main study variables. The two academic variables of interest, academic engagement and school belonging, were highly, positively intercorrelated (r = .53, p < .001). Students who were highly engaged tended also to feel a strong sense of connection with their institution. Similarly, the types of parental messages, cultural socialization and preparation for bias, were positively intercorrelated (r = .40, p < .001). African American students who received many messages about racial pride from their parents also received many messages about potential barriers they may face because of their race. Both CSM (r = .23, p = .02) and PBM (r = .25, p = .01) were positively related to students’ academic engagement scores. The more messages students received from their parents, the more engaged in their studies they tended to be. In contrast, neither type of message was related to school belongingness. However, academic inferiority microaggressions were negatively correlated with school belongingness (r = −.28, p = .003). The more experiences of academic inferiority microaggressions students reported, the less connected they felt to the university. There was not a significant relationship between academic inferiority microaggressions and academic engagement. These correlations are presented in Table 1.

Moderation Analyses

Using the Hayes PROCESS model, all possible simple moderation models were tested to identify and understand possible moderated effects of racial microaggressions on the academic outcomes (school belongingness and academic engagement). Both the racial pride subscale (cultural socialization) and racial barrier subscale (preparation for bias) were used as moderators for each possible predictor and outcome variable pairing. In total, there were four simple moderation models conducted.

Among these four moderation models, there was one model with a significant interaction. Specifically, PBM moderated an observed negative relationship between academic inferiority microaggressions and academic engagement, β = .87, t(3, 103) = 2.25, p = .03. This was a small-medium effect (f² = .12; Cohen, 1988), where f² = .15 is a medium effect size and f² = .02 is a small effect size. This interaction accounted for approximately 4% of unique criterion variance (ΔR² = .04). Moderator effects usually only account for roughly 1–3% of variance (McClelland & Judd, 1993). Figure 1 depicts this significant interaction with the y-axis representing average academic engagement scores, the x-axis representing mean frequency of academic inferiority microaggressions, and the three slopes describing associations at three levels of PBM (high = +1 SD, moderate = mean, and low = −1 SD). The Johnson-Neyman technique revealed the conditional effect of academic inferiority microaggressions on academic engagement as a function of PBM is significant at the α = .05 level only at or below −.7046 SD. That is, students who experienced academic inferiority microaggressions at college were less engaged academically when they had received low levels of parental PBM.

Figure 1.

PBM Moderates the Association Between Inferiority Microaggressions and Engagement. Note. N = 107. The relationship between scores on the academic engagement scale and scores on the academic inferiority microaggressions scale is shown for students classified as receiving a low (1 SD below the mean; R² = .12), average (at the mean; R² = .08), and high (1 SD above the mean; R² = .02) preparation for bias messages (PBM). The interaction shows PBM served as a significant moderator of this relationship, β = .87, t(3, 103) = 2.25, p = .03. Among low and average PBM students, there was a negative relationship between academic engagement scores and academic inferiority microaggression scores. Whereas, for students that reported a high amount of PBM, there was a positive association between academic engagement and experiencing academic inferiority microaggressions.

The other three moderation analyses conducted were not significant. The moderation of the effect of academic inferiority microaggressions on academic engagement by CSM, β = −.18, t(3, 103) = −.50, p = .62, was not significant. Similarly neither CSM (β = .06, t(3, 103) = −.08, p = .94, ns) nor PBM (β = .86, t(3, 103) = −1.12, p = .27, ns) moderated the effect of academic inferiority microaggressions on school belongingness. All regression analyses are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Moderator Analysis: Types of Messages and Academic Outcomes.

				Coeff	SE	t	p
Model 1
Y: academic engagement
X: academic inferiority microaggressions
W: racial barrier messages
R² = .11	MSE = .31	F = 4.08
			Constant	2.81	.06	48.87	<.001
			X	−.25	.21	−1.20	.234
			W	.27	.08	3.22	.002
			XW	.87	.39	2.25	.027
Model 2
Y: academic engagement
X: academic inferiority microaggressions
W: racial pride messages
R² = .06	MSE = .33	F = 2.26
			Constant	2.85	.06	57.70	<.001
			X	.15	.16	.97	.336
			Y	.22	.09	2.30	.024
			XW	−.18	.35	−.50	.616
Model 3
Y: school belongingness
X: academic inferiority microaggressions
W: racial barrier messages
R² = .11	MSE =1.22	F =4.21
			Constant	4.15	.11	36.41	<.001
			X	−1.30	.41	−3.15	.002
			W	.30	.17	1.82	.072
			XW	.86	.77	1.18	.266
Model 4
Y: school belongingness
X: academic inferiority microaggressions
W: racial pride messages
R² = .09	MSE = 1.25	F = 3.36
			Constant	4.20	.11	38.79	<.001
			X	−.91	.31	−2.95	.004
			W	.19	.19	1.05	.297
			XW	.06	.69	.08	.936

Note. N = 107; MSE = Mean Standard Error.

Discussion

The purpose of the current study was to extend our understanding of African American undergraduates’ experiences of academic-related racial microaggressions. We examined the association between academic inferiority microaggressions and two types of academic outcomes (academic engagement and school belonging). Additionally, we investigated PBM and CSM as protective resources to moderate those relationships. Rooted in the models of Coll et al. (1996) and (Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005), we tested three hypotheses.

First, we hypothesized a negative relationship between academic inferiority microaggressions and both types of academic outcomes: academic engagement and school belonging. This hypothesis was partially confirmed; there was a negative correlation between academic inferiority microaggressions and school belongingness, as similarly reported by Solórzano et al. (2000). As expected, students who reported a higher amount of school-based microaggressions also reported feeling less connected to the university. However, there was not a significant correlation between academic inferiority microaggressions and academic engagement. Thus, microaggressions negatively predicted belongingness, a measure of affect about college, but not the more behavioral measure of engagement. It remains an empirical question if the independence of academic microaggressions and academic engagement seen here is reproducible.

The characteristics of the research site may also provide an explanation. The institution has been identified as one of the best undergraduate teaching universities and most innovative colleges in the U.S. (US News and World Report, 2020). Thus, to attend this university many of these students performed well in high school (M high school GPA of the present sample = 3.30), and they may have a strong academic self-concept. Reynolds (1988) defines academic self-concept as one’s attitudes toward the self as a learner. A strong academic self-concept has been shown to be positively associated with academic achievement (Reynolds, 1988) and negatively correlated with discrimination (Wallace, 2013). Therefore, a strong academic self-concept may buffer experiences of academic inferiority racial microaggressions; however, this remains an empirical question since we did not directly measure academic self-concept.

Second, we hypothesized there would be a positive relationship between students’ self-reported level of academic engagement and school belongingness. Hypothesis 2 was supported. Students who reported being engaged in their studies also reported feeling a connection to the university. The positive relationship between engagement and belonging reported here mirrors previous work such as Wang and Huguley (2012) and Clark et al. (2012).

Our third hypothesis was not supported, as results showed that CSMs did not vary the relationship between microaggressions and academic outcomes. Contrary to our hypothesis, PBMs moderated the effect of academic inferiority microaggressions on academic engagement. Specifically, the negative relationship between academic engagement and experiences of academic inferiority microaggressions was mitigated for those reporting mean or higher levels of PBM. PBM served as a protective buffer such that there was no relationship between academic inferiority microaggressions and academic engagement. However, a low level of parental PBM was associated with a negative relationship between academic engagement and experiences of academic inferiority microaggressions. Students who reported receiving a low level of PBM were less likely to be academically engaged, the more frequently they experienced academic inferiority-related microaggressions. Thus, PBM influenced the direction of the relationship between experiencing academic inferiority microaggressions and academic engagement. A potential explanation for this observed interaction is that parental PBM adequately equipped students to overcome the experience of receiving academic inferiority messages on campus (Bowman & Howard, 1985; Scott, 2003). This study is the first to test this relationship.

Limitations

The present study was conducted at an MSI, a designation for colleges and universities that enroll a large proportion of students from ethnic and racial minority groups (e.g., Tribal Colleges and Universities and Hispanic-Serving Institutions; Vuong & Hairston, 2012). At this institution, approximately 42% of undergraduate students identify as Black or African American, 14% as Asian, and 11% as Hispanic or Latinx. This diversity creates opportunity for meaningful interactions and may foster appreciation for various cultural backgrounds (Harmon, 2012). Interestingly this sample did not report experiencing many school-based microaggressions.

Another limitation of this study is approximately 77% of the sample identified as female. Researchers have reported females tend to receive more CSM, while males receive more PBM (McHale et al., 2006; Thomas & Blackmon, 2015). Therefore, PBM may be more impactful amongst females because they hear them less often. In addition, many students travel daily from off-campus housing. Commuting may influence the amount of time students spend on campus and the potential to experience racial microaggressions on campus. Another important limitation is that complete psychometrics were not available for all measures. Finally, the order of the measures included in the survey was purposeful and not randomized.

Implications for Research and Practice

To our knowledge this was the first quantitative study to provide evidence that parents’ PBM serve as a protective resource for the negative relationship between academic inferiority microaggressions and academic engagement among African American college students. The current findings have relevance for African American parents, parent educators, and practitioners who work with families. They suggest that PBM, which are more often directed toward sons than daughters, may have value for all children, at least in academic settings. Replications of this study should be undertaken, and future studies should further investigate whether parental PBM serve as a protective factor moderating the negative impact of academic inferiority microaggressions on other academic outcomes for African American undergraduate students. The function of parental CSM is not explicated in these findings; future research can investigate if CSM have a protective function (directly or indirectly) and in what domains.

An additional line of investigation should examine whether the protective function of PBM is specific to parents or if PBM from other sources are equally relevant. Is there a time in development when such messages are more protective? Answers to these questions will have implications for on-campus programs for African American students. Can such programs provide protective messages to students, and what is the nature and timing of effective messages on campus? Recent studies suggest students’ feeling highly connected to their racial group, feeling socially supported on campus, and belonging to campus organizations for Black college students may combat the negative outcomes associated with racial microaggressions (Liao et al., 2016; Solórzano et al., 2000). It is unclear the mechanisms by which these programs are effective and whether PBM or CSM are part of such experiences.

Moreover, future studies should continue to study African American students’ experiences of racial discrimination at MSIs. Most studies on racial microaggressions at higher education institutions are conducted at PWIs (Ogunyemi et al., 2020). While students in the present study did not experience many academic inferiority microaggressions, they did report some experiences and thus it warrants attention. Researchers cannot assume MSIs are automatically safe spaces for African American students. The climate of a college campus is complex. For instance, at the university in this study, while Black students make up the majority racial/ethnic group of students, 70% of full-time faculty are White, and a majority of the administration is White. Thus, students are enrolled in an institution that bears the marks of historic exclusion. Studies examining experiences of racial discrimination among African American students at MSIs can consider addressing overall campus climate and differentiating the contributions of institutional racial discrimination, faculty-student interaction, and peer-peer interaction to the climate and to the experiences of African American students.

Conclusion

This study examined the negative relationship between on-campus academic inferiority racial microaggressions and school belongingness and academic engagement. Further, and consistent with predictions regarding protective external resources for racial minorities (Coll et al., 1996; Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005), we demonstrated for the first time that African American parents’ PBM to their undergraduate students moderated the risk posed by academic inferiority racial microaggressions to academic engagement. These findings illuminate the importance and protective role of parental PBMs and their contribution to the academic success of African American students.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Taylor McGee

References

Banerjee

Harrell

Z. A. T.

Johnson

D. J.

(2011). Racial/ethnic socialization and parental involvement in education as predictors of cognitive ability and achievement in African American children. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40(5), 595–605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-010-9559-9

Banerjee

Rivas-Drake

Smalls-Glover

(2017). Racial-ethnic socialization and achievement: The mediating role of academic engagement. Journal of Black Psychology, 43(5), 451–463. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0095798416687705

Banks

K. H.

Kohn-Wood

L. P.

(2007). The influence of racial identity profiles on the relationship between racial discrimination and depressive symptoms. Journal of Black Psychology, 33(3), 331–354. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0095798407302540

Bowman

P.J.

Howard

(1985). Race-related socialization, motivation, and academic achievement: A study of Black youths in three-generation families. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 24(2), 134–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-7138(09)60438-6.

Bronfenbrenner

(1994). Ecological models of human development. In Gauvain

Cole

(Eds.), Readings on the Development of Children (2nd ed., pp. 37-43). W. H. Freeman.

Caughy

M. O.

O’Campo

P. J.

Randolph

S. M.

Nickerson

(2002). The influence of racial socialization practices on the cognitive and behavioral competence of African American preschoolers. Child Development, 73(5), 1611–1625. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00493

Chung

Payne

(2015. November 11). Inspired by Mizzou protests, students across the country focus on being #BlackOnCampus. NBC. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/inspired-mizzou-protests-ithaca-students-rally-demand-resignation-n461646

Clark

C. R.

Mercer

S. H.

Zeigler-Hill

Dufrene

B. A.

(2012). Barriers to the success of ethnic minority students in school psychology graduate programs. School Psychology Review, 41(2), 176–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2012.12087519

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.

10.

Coll

C. G

Lamberty

Jenkins

McAdoo

H. P.

Crnic

Wasik

B. H.

Vázquez García

(1996). An integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in minority children. Child Development, 67(5), 1891-1914. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01834.x

11.

Dotterer

A. M.

McHale

S. M.

Crouter

A. C.

(2009). Sociocultural factors and school engagement among African American youth: The roles of racial discrimination, racial socialization, and ethnic identity. Applied Developmental Science, 13(2), 61–73. https://doi/pdf/10.1080/10888690902801442

12.

Fergus

Zimmerman

M.A.

(2005). Adolescent resilience: a framework for understanding healthy development in the face of risk. Annual Review of Public Health, 26(1), 399-419. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.26.021304.144357

13.

Harmon

(2012). The role of minority-serving institutions in national college completion goals. Institute for Higher Education Policy.

14.

Hayes

A.F.

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd. ed.). The Guilford Press.

15.

Hayes

A. F.

(2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression‐based approach (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.

16.

Huber

L. P.

Solorzano

D. G.

(2014). Racial microaggressions as a tool for critical race research. Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 18(3), 297–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2014.994173

17.

Hughes

(2003). Correlates of African American and Latino parents’ messages to children about ethnicity and race: A comparative study of racial socialization. American Journal of Community Psychology, 31(1–2), 15–33. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023066418688

18.

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(5), 747–770. https://doi/10.1037/0012-1649.42.5.747

19.

Keels

Durkee

Hope

(2017). The psychological and academic costs of school-based racial and ethnic microaggressions. American Educational Research Journal, 54(6), 1316–1344. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0002831217722120

20.

Lesane-Brown

C. L.

Scottham

K. M.

Nguyên

H. X.

Sellers

R. M.

(2006). The racial socialization questionnaire-teen (RSQ-t): A new measure for use with African American adolescents. Unpublished manuscript.

21.

Liao

K. Y.-H.

Weng

C.-Y.

West

L. M.

(2016). Social connectedness and intolerance of uncertainty as moderators between racial microaggressions and anxiety among Black individuals. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63(2), 240–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000123

22.

Marshall

(1995). Ethnic socialization of African American children: Implications for parenting, identity development and academic achievement. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24(4), 377–396. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01537187

23.

Marsh

H. W.

Ellis

L. A.

Parada

R. H.

Richards

Heubeck

B. G.

(2005). A short version of the Self-Description Questionnaire II: Operationalizing criteria for short-form evaluation with new applications of confirmatory factor analyses. Psychological Assessment, 17(1), 81–102. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.17.1.81

24.

McClelland

G. H.

Judd

C. M.

(1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114(2), 376–390. https://doi/10.1037/0033-2909.114.2.376

25.

McHale

S. M.

Crouter

A. C.

Kim

Burton

Davis

Dotterer

A. M.

Swanson

D. P.

(2006). Mothers’ and fathers’ racial socialization in African American families: Implications for youth. Child Development, 77(5), 1387–1402. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00942.x

26.

Merritt

M. M.

Bennett

G. G.

Williams

R. B.

Edwards

C. L.

Sollers

J. J.

(2006). Perceived racism and cardiovascular reactivity and recovery to personally relevant stress. Health Psychology, 25(3), 364–369. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.25.3.364

27.

Miller

D. B.

MacIntosh

(1999). Promoting resilience in urban African American adolescents: Racial socialization and identity as protective factors. Social Work Research, 23(3), 159–169. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/23.3.159

28.

Nadal

K. L.

Griffin

K. E.

Wong

Davidoff

K. C.

Davis

L. S.

(2017). The injurious relationship between racial microaggressions and physical health: Implications for social work. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 26(1–2), 6–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/15313204.2016.1263813

29.

Nadal

K. L.

Griffin

K. E.

Wong

Hamit

Rasmus

(2014). The impact of racial microaggressions on mental health: Counseling implications for clients of color. Journal of Counseling & Development, 92(1), 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2014.00130.x

30.

Neblett

E. W.

Philip

C. L.

Cogburn

C. D.

Sellers

R. M.

(2006). African American adolescents’ discrimination experiences and academic achievement: Racial socialization as a cultural compensatory and protective factor. Journal of Black Psychology, 32(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0095798406287072

31.

Nelson Laird

T. F.

Bridges

B. K.

Morelon-Quainoo

C. L.

Williams

J. M.

Holmes

M. S.

(2007). African American and Hispanic student engagement at minority serving and predominantly White institutions. Journal of College Student Development, 48(1), 39–56. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2007.0005

32.

Ogunyemi

Clare

Astudillo

Y.M.

Marseille

Manu

Kim

(2020). Microaggressions in the learning environment: A systematic review. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 13(2), 97-119. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000107

33.

Ong

A. D.

Burrow

A. L.

Fuller-Rowell

T. E.

N. M.

Sue

D. W.

(2013). Racial microaggressions and daily well-being among Asian Americans. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60(2), 188–199. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031736

34.

Parada

R. H.

(2019). Assessing perceived school support, rule acceptance and attachment: Evaluation of the psychometric properties of the School Belonging Scale (SBS). Educational and Child Psychology, 36(2), 106–116.

35.

Phinney

J. S.

Chavira

(1995). Parental ethnic socialization and adolescent coping with problems related to ethnicity. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 5(1), 31–53. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327795jra0501_2

36.

Pike

G. R.

(2006). The dependability of NSSE scalelets for college and department-level assessment. Research in Higher Education, 47(2), 177–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-005-8885-3

37.

Reynolds

W. M.

(1988). Measurement of academic self-concept in college students. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52(2), 223–240. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5202_4

38.

Scott

L. D.

(2003). The relation of racial identity and racial socialization to coping with discrimination among African Americans. Journal of Black Studies, 33(4), 520–538. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021934702250035

39.

Sellers

R. M.

Caldwell

C. H.

Schmeelk-Cone

K. H.

Zimmerman

M. A.

(2003). Racial identity, racial discrimination, perceived stress, and psychological distress among African American young adults. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 44(3), 302–317. https://doi.org/10.2307/1519781

40.

Smalls

(2009). African American adolescent engagement in the classroom and beyond: The roles of mother’s racial socialization and democratic‐involved parenting. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(2), 204–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-008-9316-5

41.

Smalls

(2010). Effects of mothers’ racial socialization and relationship quality on African American youth’s school engagement: A profile approach. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16(4), 476–484. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020653

42.

Smalls

Cooper

S. M.

(2012). Racial group regard, barrier socialization, and African American adolescents’ engagement: Patterns and processes by gender. Journal of Adolescence, 35(4), 887–897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.12.007

43.

Smith

E. P.

Atkins

Connell

C. M.

(2003). Family, school, and community factors and relationships to racial–ethnic attitudes and academic achievement. American Journal of Community Psychology, 32(1–2), 159–173. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025663311100

44.

Solórzano

Ceja

Yosso

(2000). Critical race theory, racial microaggressions, and campus racial climate: The experiences of African American college students. Journal of Negro Education, 69(1/2), 60–73.

45.

Sue

D. W.

(2010). Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender, and sexual orientation. John Wiley & Sons.

46.

Sue

D. W.

Alsaidi

Awad

M. N.

Glaeser

Calle

C. Z.

Mendez

(2019). Disarming racial microaggressions: Microintervention strategies for targets, White allies, and bystanders. American Psychologist, 74(1), 128–142. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/amp0000296

47.

Sue

D. W.

Capodilupo

C. M.

Torino

G. C.

Bucceri

J. M.

Holder

Nadal

K. L.

Esquilin

(2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical practice. American Psychologist, 62(4), 271–286. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.4.271

48.

Swim

J. K.

Hyers

L. L.

Cohen

L. L.

Fitzgerald

D. C.

Bylsma

W. H.

(2003). African American college students’ experiences with everyday racism: Characteristics of and responses to these incidents. Journal of Black Psychology, 29(1), 38–67. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0095798402239228

49.

Thomas

A. J.

Blackmon

S. K. M.

(2015). The influence of the Trayvon Martin shooting on racial socialization practices of African American parents. Journal of Black Psychology, 41(1), 75–89. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0095798414563610

50.

US News and World Report (2020). Georgia State University Rankings. https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/georgia-state-university-1574/overall-rankings

51.

Vuong

Hairston

C.C

(2012). Using data to improve minority-serving institution success. Institute for Higher Education Policy.

52.

Wallace

L. E.

(2013). The relationship between racial identity, perceived racial discrimination, and the academic self-concept of African American college men: A mixed-methods examination. [Doctoral dissertation, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing – Northern Illinois University]. (3567789).

53.

Wang

M. T.

Huguley

J. P.

(2012). Parental racial socialization as a moderator of the effects of racial discrimination on educational success among African American adolescents. Child Development, 83(5), 1716–1731. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01808.x

54.

White-Johnson

R. L.

(2015). The impact of racial socialization on the academic performance and prosocial involvement of Black emerging adults. Journal of College Student Development, 56(2), 140–154. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2015.0015

55.

Wright

L. N.

Lewis

J. A.

(2020). Is physical activity a buffer? Gendered racial microaggressions and anxiety among African American women. Journal of Black Psychology, 46(2–3), 122–143. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0095798420929112

56.

Zilvinskis

Masseria

A. A.

Pike

G. R.

(2017). Student engagement and student learning: Examining the convergent and discriminant validity of the Revised National Survey of Student Engagement. Research in Higher Education, 58(8), 880–903. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-017-9450-6

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB