Conceptualizing and Measuring Biracial/Multiracial/Multiethnic Status: Friendship Homophily in Early Adolescence

Abstract

This special issue highlights biracial/multiracial/multiethnic early adolescents as a fast-growing demographic warranting greater inclusion in developmental research. We address several likely barriers to inclusion related to the conceptualization and measurement of biracial/multiracial/multiethnic status and offer recommendations for including Multiracial youth that are informed by the research questions of interest. With a diverse sample of 610 early adolescents (11% Multiracial), we explore Multiracial youths’ racial/ethnic homophily in their best friendship. Multiracial youth were less likely to perceive a racial/ethnic match and less likely to objectively match (i.e., their best friend also self-reported being multiracial) compared to their monoracial counterparts. Multiracial youth perceived a racial/ethnic match with their best friend when they and their best friend both reported the exact same monoracial backgrounds. They were less likely to perceive a match when there was only a partial (i.e., one background overlapped) or no objective match. Practical recommendations are provided for future research.

Keywords

biracial multiracial multiethnic friendship homophily same-ethnic friendships cross-ethnic friendships

Conceptualizing and Measuring Biracial/Multiracial/Multiethnic Status: Friendship Homophily in Early Adolescence

Recent years have ushered in a renewed focus on biracial/multiracial/multiethnic youth¹ in the United States (e.g., Atkin & Yoo, 2019; Gaither et al., 2014; Harris, 2016). In 2017, the US marked the 50th anniversary of the Loving v. Virginia (1967) US Supreme Court case. Just a few years later, during the 2020 election cycle, Vice President Kamala Harris emphasized her multiple racial/ethnic backgrounds to connect with both monoracial communities and those from multiracial backgrounds (e.g., Biswas, 2020). While not a new topic in developmental research (e.g., Root, 1992; Shih & Sanchez, 2005), individuals from multiple racial/ethnic backgrounds have been understudied relative to other racial/ethnic groups, likely due to a combination of (1) overemphasizing monoracial identification (see Harris, 2016), (2) conceptual and methodological confusion, and (3) a relatively small representation within research samples, that made it convenient to simply not include these youth in analyses.

Given that ethnicity and race are social constructions that are subject to change over time as a function of societal values, political actions, and other contextual factors (Harris & Sim, 2002; Mauer et al., this issue; Nishina et al., 2010; Quintana, 2007; Quintana et al., 2006; Umaña-Taylor et al., 2014), it is not surprising that researchers might experience conceptual and methodological confusion. However, we propose the latter reason (i.e., representation within a research sample) is no longer be valid. Biracial/multiracial/multiethnic youth are a growing segment of the US youth population, and by 2060, they were projected to represent almost 10% of the under-18 population (Colby & Ortman, 2015). As a comparison, the combined panethnic category of Asian American/Pacific Islander youth was expected to reflect a smaller segment of the youth population than their Multiracial counterparts. However, recently released 2020 US Census data indicate that the multiracial youth (under 18) representation in the United States already eclipses those prior predictions at 15.1% (up from just over 5.6% in the 2010 census); Multiracial youth as a group exceed all other monoracial groups except for White (Jones et al., 2021). Population data from Canada point to increases in biracial/multiracial/multiethnic youth representation as well (Statistics Canada, 2014). In our own work, our students have become increasingly interested in biracial/multiracial/multiethnic identities in part because they represent their own lived experiences and development. Additionally, considering their unique developmental experiences should make these youth particularly interesting to researchers who study a variety of developmental phenomena (Atkin & Yoo, 2019; Dunham & Olson, 2016; Nishina & Witkow, 2020).

The purpose of this Journal of Early Adolescence special issue is to spotlight research focused on biracial/multiracial/multiethnic youth (truncated in this article to “Multiracial youth”). In this article, as part of an ongoing dialogue about Multiracial youth, we introduce several conceptual and methodological considerations to barriers that often minimize the inclusion of Multiracial youth in developmental research. We do not intend the discussion presented here to be exhaustive or definitive, but rather to provide ideas that may increase the inclusion of Multiracial participants in research. We also present descriptive findings from some of our own data focused on best friendships in early adolescence, as well as highlight the findings from the two studies in this special issue (Mauer et al., this issue; Rozek & Gaither, this issue). Finally, we conclude by presenting practical recommendations for researchers who choose to pursue this rich, exciting focus on biracial/multiracial/multiethnic youth.

Conceptual Framework

One dilemma for researchers is that it is not obvious how to conceptualize Multiracial youth within analyses. For example, “Multiracial” could be considered as a category of its own, or youth could be classified according to one or all of their multiple monoracial backgrounds. This lack of conceptual clarity may explain why researchers often exclude these youth from analyses through specified or unspecified omission. We also note that much of the work on Multiracial youth thus far has focused on older adolescents (e.g., high school students) and emerging adults (e.g., college students), with less work targeting the middle childhood and early adolescent years (see Charmaraman et al., 2014). Despite the challenges, classification and conceptualization should be of interest to all researchers who need to report their sample demographics.

Extending on de Guzman and Nishina (2017) and Nishina and Witkow (2020), we propose a general framework for researchers when considering how Multiracial participants could be included in analyses. As noted above, we do not suggest these as the only ways in which researchers can conceptualize Multiracial youth (for other frameworks with implications for ethnic identification measurement, see Rockquemore et al., 2009). Rather, we encourage researchers to consider how they believe race/ethnicity should operate within the context of their own research questions and choose a categorization approach accordingly. Specifically, we offer a few examples of when (and how) researchers might want to consider Multiracial youth (1) as their own distinct group, (2) when distinguishing between specific multiracial groups, (3) in the racial group with which youth themselves most closely identify, (4) in separate analyses categorizing them with each monoracial group to which they belong, and (5) based on others’ appraisals. We briefly review each of these examples below.

Biracial/multiracial/multiethnic as its own group

If it is the assumption that racial/ethnic groups should reflect some sort of shared cultural, social, and developmental experiences, it may be possible to combine Multiethnic youth into a single category, regardless of the specifics of their ethnic backgrounds (e.g., Poston, 1990). For instance, multiracial youth may have had similar experiences of navigating between multiple racial/ethnic groups, explaining their multiple backgrounds to others, being in the numerical minority within their schools and even their own family, and/or being perceived to be a member of only one of their multiple racial/ethnic groups (Shih & Sanchez, 2005).

Differentiating between multiracial groups

Another way to conceptualize Multiracial youth is to consider specific multiracial groups. For example, Rozek & Gaither (this issue) assess competing conceptualizations of Black–White Multiracial youth, examining the degree to which these youth might activate specific components of their racial backgrounds in their school context (“negative stereotype salience hypothesis”) or draw from their multiracial background in protective (“multiple identity protection hypothesis”) or detrimental (“outsider hypothesis”) ways. Christophe et al. (2021) adopted this approach of differentiating between specific multiracial groups when examining discrimination and identity challenges/pride in a sample of multiracial emerging adults. They argued that individuals from White-Minority backgrounds may differ from individuals from Dual Minority backgrounds (i.e., from two minoritized backgrounds). Some findings were similar across these different multiracial groups (i.e., discrimination experiences were associated with psychological distress). However, the researchers also illustrated that other important correlations could be masked if multiracial individuals were considered as a single group.

Categorizing based on strongest identification

In some cases, research questions are driven by how youths think about themselves as members of particular groups—for example, when examining research questions that rely on an adolescent’s ethnic identity (e.g., ethnic centrality, private regard, public regard; Sellers et al., 1998). Asking for the strongest identification or affiliation (or asking for the groups that are regularly considered or activated) may therefore be warranted, for example, when ethnic identity is a key variable of interest. However, if this approach is taken, we underscore that “Multiracial” should be included as a possible group for strongest identification. Additionally, researchers should note that there may be experiences unique to Multiracial youth that directly inform their identity (see Yoo et al., 2016 for measures that specifically assess aspects of multiracial identity).

Categorizing based on each individual monoracial group

There may be situations in which it makes sense to categorize Multiracial youth with each of the monoracial groups with which they may share a background in separate analyses (e.g., Brown et al., 2008). Such categorization might be warranted when there is reason to expect that youth may benefit from prior exposure to, or familiarity with, particular cultural knowledge or the cultural norms of each group. In other words, this approach could be useful when examining research questions for which being able to bridge or cross multiple group boundaries is beneficial.

Categorizing based on others’ appraisals

Nishina et al. (2018) found that others’ appraisals did not always align with adolescents’ own self-reported racial/ethnic identification. Compared to their monoracial counterparts, high school students who identified as multiracial/multiethnic were more likely to report mismatches between their self-reported race/ethnicity and what they believed peers perceived them to be. While for some research questions, an individual’s racial/ethnic self-identification is expected to be the most valid indicator of group membership, other research questions may be more closely tied to others’ appraisals of a youth’s race (Brunsma & Rockquemore, 2001). For example, in terms of racial/ethnic disparities in school discipline or school performance (e.g., Skiba et al., 2011), a White and Black Multiracial adolescent may be treated differently depending on whether school personnel perceive him to be White, to be Black, or to be Multiracial. Similarly, we might expect such an individual to be more accepted by the monoracial group to which his peers believe him to belong.

Determining how race/ethnicity is expected to relate to the research questions is just one step in including Multiracial youth within developmental research. Another important consideration, which goes hand-in-hand with the conceptualization of Multiracial youth, is the measurement of racial/ethnic group membership. We describe a few typical approaches next.

Measuring (Multi-)Racial Group Membership

Rather than providing specific recommendations for measuring multiracial identification, we instead describe several variations in its measurement, which can also apply to measuring race and ethnicity more generally. These variations offer different perspectives of the multiracial experience. Specifically, we focus on the reporter (i.e., source) of multiracial status, and the response scale used to measure multiethnic status. Regardless of the particular measure used, we strongly encourage providing opportunities for youth to express multiracial self-identification when measuring participants’ race/ethnicity in research studies.

Reporter

One dimension on which measurement can vary is the source or reporter. Various studies have used youth self-report (e.g., Choi et al., 2012; Fisher et al., 2014; Mauer et al., this issue; Rozek & Gaither, this issue), parent report (e.g., Gaither et al., 2014; Mauer et al., this issue; Townsend et al., 2012), or school records (likely based on parent/guardian report). Some research uses multiple reporters (e.g., Gillen-O’Neel et al., 2015; Mauer et al., this issue; Quillian & Redd, 2009). Mauer et al. (this issue) found 15% of their sample experienced discrepancies between parent report of youth’s multiracial status and early adolescents’ self-reports of their own multiracial status using either a “check all that apply” approach or a yes/no item asking if the youth was biracial.

The main distinctions are related to self-views (i.e., adolescent self-report) as compared to external reporters (e.g., parents, teachers), and perceptions of the reporter rather than more “objective” reports. For example, in some research, multiracial status has been determined more “objectively” by assessing each parent’s country of origin or racial category (e.g., Bracey et al., 2004; Brown et al., 2008) rather than self-reported multiracial status. Additionally, there is some evidence for respondent-by-context effects in which an adolescent’s self-report depends on the context in which ethnic identification is queried (see Harris & Sim, 2002). For instance, the Add Health study asked youth to self-report their race/ethnicity in surveys taken both at home and at school, with academic differences found between Multiracial youth who self-identified as monoracial versus multiracial on the school-based survey (Burke & Kao, 2013).

Response scale

A second dimension relates to the response scale provided to participants (Charmaraman et al., 2014). Prior research suggests that a response scale itself can impact participants’ ratings on a myriad of constructs, including self-reported race/ethnicity (Johnson et al., 1997; Mauer et al., this issue; Schwarz, 1999). Response scales can include a list of different categories from which to choose (e.g., Fuligni et al., 2008), a separate category designated as multiracial/multiethnic (e.g., “biracial, multiethnic, more than one”; Fisher et al., 2014), and/or an open-ended response option (e.g., “What is your ethnicity (race)?”).

An alternative response scale approach involves a list that can vary in terms of specificity in which the adolescent can check all that apply. Rogers and Meltzoff (2017) employed a card sort method with middle childhood and early adolescent participants. Youth were presented with cards with different racial groups and asked to sort them into “Me” or “Not Me” piles in order to determine multiracial status. We have used the check all that apply approach in other of our work (e.g., Fuligni et al., 2008) with a benefit being that researchers can tap into the specific words that youth use to describe and categorize themselves in multiple ways (cf. panethnic, nationality, larger racial/ethnic category). On the other hand, such an approach also leaves conceptual decisions to be made. For example, if a youth checks boxes for Korean and Black, she could potentially be classified as monoracial Asian, monoracial Black, Multiracial, or multiethnic. How the youth is classified for analyses might depend on whether the researcher is imposing the classification, if the adolescent actually identifies as Multiracial/Multiethnic, or if the adolescent is simply acknowledging her multiple backgrounds. To resolve this concern, some researchers have added a second item asking adolescents to indicate with which group they most strongly identify (e.g., Fuligni et al., 2008). As noted above, if this item is used, we recommend researchers include “biracial/multiracial/multiethnic” or similar as one of the group options.

Different question structures (e.g., Johnson et al., 1997; Mauer et al., this issue; Schwarz, 1999) may also prime adolescents to be more or less motivated to report multiracial status, thus impacting apparent sample demographics as well as impacting the categorization method described above. Mauer et al. (this issue) found support for the idea, finding that a subgroup of parents who checked multiple racial groups for their child did not also report their child to be multiracial in a separate item. However, not all parents who reported their child to be multiracial chose multiple groups on a separate “check all that apply” item. The same was true for early adolescents’ self-reports on the same items. Ultimately, just choosing one item per reporter would have yielded about 5% of the sample classified as Multiracial, whereas allowing either item to be used to designate multiracial status would have resulted in more than 25% of the sample being classified as Multiracial. This large range underscores the importance of having a clear operational definition of multiracial status from the outset of the study that is chosen based on the specific research aims.

Deciding when and how to collapse categories is also a consideration for researchers. For example, the 2010 US Census allowed individuals to report status by choosing more than one of 15 categories and/or writing in more than one group (Jones & Bullock, 2012). To determine “two or more races” (on which the Multiracial youth population estimates provided above are based), the US Census refers to individuals who reported more than one of six racial categories provided: White, Black/African American, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, and some other race (i.e., a write-in that reflected any other race not included in the five categories, including those who wrote in “Latino” or “Hispanic”; Jones & Bullock, 2012). Moving forward, we strongly recommend that researchers are explicit in their sample descriptions not only regarding how they are defining multiracial status, but also how it was measured. This practice can minimize confusion in the field and help future researchers who might want to aggregate data across studies.

In sum, why multiracial status might matter in a given research context may shape how a researcher assesses multiracial group membership within a study. In the next section, we present an illustrative study that drew on two different conceptualizations of multiracial status (Multiracial as its own group, and others’ appraisals) to better understand early adolescents’ best friendships. We used a measurement method that allowed youth to choose Multiracial as part of a larger checklist, but additionally asked them to write in their specific racial/ethnic backgrounds (rather than a check all that apply approach).

The Present Study: What Constitutes a Homophily in Multiracial Early Adolescents’ Best Friendships?

One of the methodological challenges that we face in our own work on adolescents’ peer relationships is what constitutes homophilous (i.e., sharing their racial/ethnic background) and cross-group friendships for Multiracial youth (see also Doyle & Kao, 2007; Echols & Graham, 2020). Homophily has long been noted as a key feature of adolescent friendships and friendship stability (e.g., Kandel, 1978), whereas cross-ethnic friendships have been found to be less stable than same-ethnic friendships (Jugert et al., 2013). However, despite their greater risk for dissolution, there is evidence that both homophilous and cross-racial friendships can confer benefits to youth (Lewis et al., 2018). Similarly, in a study of adults, having racially diverse friends as well as having Multiracial friends were both associated with “multiracial engagement,” in which individuals engaged in activities that reflected the diversity of their racial backgrounds (Yoo et al., 2016). Multiracial youth may have advantages by already having experience engaging in and navigating social interactions with individuals from different racial/ethnic backgrounds (e.g., family members).

In the present study, we examined a sample of sixth grade early adolescents attending a public middle school (grades 6–8) in California, Oregon, or Wisconsin who were participating in a larger longitudinal study (e.g., Lewis et al., 2018). We were interested in: (1a) how many Multiracial early adolescents have “perceived” (i.e., as reported by the Multiracial adolescent) and “objective” homophily (i.e., based on the nominated best friend’s self-report of being multiracial) in their best friendship, (1b) when perceived homophily and objective homophily were consistent, and (2) whether either type of homophily predicted friendship characteristics (i.e., closeness, conflict). We were able to compare between perceived and objective homophily because in this study, we assessed early adolescents’ self-reported racial/ethnic background, the self-reported racial/ethnic background of their peer-nominated best friend at school, as well as whether the early adolescent perceived their best friend to have a racial/ethnic match with them. On one hand, during early adolescence, homophily in best friendships may be important to the functioning of the friendship (i.e., less conflict, more closeness). If this is the case, we might also expect that perceived match would be more important than having an objective match. Alternatively, because Multiracial adolescents likely have already had developmental experiences navigating issues of ethnicity/race and cross-group interactions (e.g., de Guzman & Nishina, 2017; Garrod et al., 2014), having an racial/ethnic match with their best friend may not matter as much for the friendship or for their general adjustment.

Method

Participants

Participants were a subset of 610 (57% girls, 40% boys; 3% missing) sixth grade students recruited from one of five public middle schools serving grades 6–8 in California, Oregon, and Wisconsin. Students were part of a larger longitudinal daily report study on peer relationships, coping, diversity, and psychosocial and academic well-being. To be included in the study, written parent consent and student assent were obtained. Additionally, the subset of students included in this sample provided self-reported race/ethnicity, a peer nomination of their best friend at school, and whether they perceived a racial/ethnic match with their best friend. Their nominated best friend also provided their own self-reported race/ethnicity. Of the 610 students, 11% (n = 67) self-identified as Multiracial and 89% self-identified as monoracial/monoethnic.

Measures

Race/ethnicity

We were interested in a more conservative estimate of students who considered themselves to be multiracial/multiethnic; thus, we used a checklist approach with multiracial/multiethnic as one of the options. However, we were also interested maintaining flexibility in knowing the specific groups to which they belonged, so we also asked youth who chose the multiracial option to write in their multiple groups.

All students were asked to provide their race/ethnicity based on a checklist format with seven categories: “African/African American,” “Asian/Asian American,” Caucasian/White,” “Mexican American/Latino(a)/Hispanic,” “Pacific Islander/Filipino,” “Native American/Alaskan Native,” and “Other/more than one.” Students who selected “Other/more than one” were asked to specify their racial/ethnic groups via an open-ended item. Students who both chose the “Other/more than one” option and listed more than one racial background were coded as “multiracial/multiethnic.”

Best friend homophily

Students were asked to nominate their best friend in sixth grade at their school. They were then asked to indicate whether that friend was of the “same” or “different” racial/ethnic background as them. The friend was considered to have a perceived racial/ethnic match if the student reported that their best friend was of the same racial/ethnic background. For example, a Multiracial student who indicated that her best friend was of the same background as her, would be identified as having a perceived match, regardless of the actual race/ethnicity of her friend. The friend was reported to have an objective ethnic/racial match if the target adolescent’s self-reported race/ethnicity matched the nominated best friend’s own self-reported race/ethnicity. For instance, if a Multiracial student’s best friend also self-reported that he was Multiracial as defined in the race/ethnicity section above, the friendship would be considered an objective match.

Best friend characteristics

Best friend closeness (2 items; “When I do a good job at something, my friend is happy for me”; alpha =.65) and conflict (6 items; “My friend and I fight a lot”; alpha =.77) were measured by modifications to the Friendship Quality Scale (Bukowski et al., 1994, modified). Students rated each item of a 5-point scale from “NO WAY!” to “FOR SURE YES!” Means were calculated such that higher scores reflect more closeness and conflict.

Procedure

As part of a larger daily report study, participating students completed one longer in-class survey that included racial/ethnic self-identification, peer nomination of their best friend, best friend racial/ethnic match, and friendship characteristics. Two trained researchers administered the surveys at the end of the school day in a classroom context, reading items out loud, with students marking their responses on their own paper surveys. Students were reminded at the beginning of each session that their answers would be confidential, were instructed to keep their answers private, and provided with visual barriers to prevent adjacent individuals from viewing their responses. Students received $3 for each daily survey the student was present to complete (up to $15 total across 5 daily surveys) and were paid in full on the last day of the study.

Results and Discussion

Racial/Ethnic Homophily in Multiracial Students’ Friendships

Overall, only around half of the sixth graders in the sample (53%) reported racial/ethnic matches with their best friend at school. However, Multiracial adolescents (33%) were less likely than their monoracial counterparts (56%) to report a perceived match with their best friend at school, χ² (1, n = 610) = 12.43, p < .001. Similarly, Multiracial youth (21%) were less likely to have an objective ethnic/racial match with their best friend (i.e., they and their best friend both self-reported as multiracial) compared to monoracial youth (49%), χ² (1, n = 610) = 19.19, p < .001. Moreover, for those students who objectively matched their best friend’s race/ethnicity, Multiracial students were less likely to perceive a match (29%) than were their monoracial peers (87%), χ² (1, n = 280) = 32.63, p < .001. That is, for Multiracial target adolescents, when their best friend also self-reported being multiracial, only 29% perceived a racial/ethnic match with their best friend.

Across the 67 Multiracial youth in the sample, 23 (34%) had no objective match with their best friend, whereas 42 (63%) had some match—that is, one group of their ethnic/racial background matched with their best friend’s self-reported background, and only 2 (3%) had a complete match (i.e., all groups listed matched with that of their best friend, as self-reported by that friend). We further explored what might constitute a perceived racial/ethnic match for Multiracial early adolescents. Students were more likely to perceive a match when more groups listed as part of their background objectively matched with their best friend’s self-reports, χ² (2, n = 67) = 7.11, p < .05. Specifically, of the two Multiracial students who had a complete match, 100% perceived a match as well. In contrast, 38% of students with a partial objective match reported a perceived match with their best friend. And, of students with no objective match, only 17% reported a perceived match with their best friend.

In sum, Multiracial sixth grade students were less likely than their monoracial counterparts to exhibit homophily in their best friendships at school as measured by either perceived match or as measured by self-reported ethnic/racial identification of both members of the dyad. Even when both friends reported being multiracial, less than one-third of multiracial adolescents perceived a racial/ethnic match. Not surprisingly, Multiracial youth were more likely to report perceiving a match with their best friend when there was a complete objective match, relative to a partial or no objective match.

Friendship Characteristics as a Function of Homophily in Multiracial Students’ Best Friendships

We further examined two constructs related to the friendship itself (closeness and conflict), as a function of Multiracial students’ perceived and objective racial/ethnic matches with their best friend. There were no significant differences in either friendship closeness or friendship conflict between those Multiracial youth who perceived a match with their best friend compared to those Multiracial youth who indicated there was no match with their best friend (all ps > .05). Similarly, Multiracial youth who had an objective match with their best friend (i.e., both self-reported being multiracial) reported similar levels of friendship closeness and conflict as their Multiracial counterparts without an objective match with their best friend. In all, having homophily in their best friendship did not matter in terms of Multiracial sixth graders’ conflict or closeness in the best friendship.

Much like other studies with large samples, the number of Multiracial participants in the present study was small. While the small sample size might limit the ability to find significant effects, it is worth noting that neither of the friendship characteristics varied as a function of Multiracial students’ friendship homophily. These findings support the notion that homophily may not be particularly important for Multiracial students’ best friendships. Jugert et al. (2013) found that empathy was a possible factor in cross-ethnic friendship stability. Given that empathy requires some amount of perspective taking (Smith & Rose, 2011), Multiracial early adolescents may be likely to have already had experiences building these skills earlier in development. Further, Multiracial youth may have had experiences across development interacting with family members from different racial backgrounds thus acquiring practice building social relationships on characteristics other than shared race/ethnicity.

What is not known is whether these findings hold across development. There is reason to expect that same-group peer interactions may increase during adolescence (e.g., Tatum, 1997). However, these developmental and friendship stability findings are largely based on monoracial youth (Jugert et al., 2013). It is not clear that Multiracial youth experience racial homophily in the same way. That is, a lack of racial homophily would have been the norm even within their own families. Not surprisingly, a large portion of Multiracial individuals are open to other cultures (Pew Research Center, 2015), which may serve as a protective factor in the context of Multiracial adolescents’ friendships.

Another area of future research is what happens when Multiracial adolescents’ racial/ethnic self-identification changes over time. Prior work has suggested that around one-third of early adolescents change their racial/ethnic identification at least once during the course of middle school and these changes may in part be driven by context (e.g., Harris & Sim, 2002; Hitlin et al., 2006; Nishina et al., 2018). It may be that Multiracial youth shift their racial/ethnic identification to come in line with their best friend (when possible), and that this may contribute to friendship quality or stability over time.

Practical Recommendations

Moving forward, we offer a three-step approach to including Multiracial youth in research on early adolescents. In Step 1, we recommend researchers start by thinking about how they expect multiracial group membership (or racial/ethnic group membership more generally) to operate within the conceptual framework of the larger study. This conceptual framework will provide clues as to how to measure multiracial status. For example, in the present study, we were interested in whether the adolescent self-identified as multiracial, but we were also interested in specific matches—perceived or objective—with their best friend.

In Step 2, researchers choose their method for measuring multiracial status, considering the pros and cons of the reporter, item, and response scale. For example, based on our research questions, in the present study we chose an approach that allowed the sixth graders in our study to choose “more than one” from a list of other racial/ethnic groups, but also asked them to indicate their multiple groups. We believe there are many valid ways to measure and identify multiracial status. However, we strongly advise against only providing monoracial response options and asking youth to “choose one.” While this may provide more conceptual and analytical ease for the researcher, it can be detrimental for the respondent. This approach can cause Multiracial participants distress (e.g., Johnson et al., 1997) and make them feel that they need to fit in a monoracial framework (Harris, 2016). Moving forward, it will be important for researchers to clearly articulate how multiracial status (and race/ethnicity more broadly) was identified in the study (see also Mauer et al., this issue).

Finally, Step 3 encourages researchers to consider measuring multiracial status in several different ways. This approach sheds light on how youth think about their group membership and identity (Mauer et al., this issue; Nishina & Witkow, 2020). For instance, in our study, we asked youth to indicate whether they were multiracial as a categorical item, but by also asking them to write in their multiple groups, we were able to examine “partial matches” with their best friend’s racial/ethnic background. While measuring multiracial status in multiple ways may introduce some unwanted variability, it allows researchers the greatest amount of flexibility within their data. As the field learns more about Multiracial individuals, this flexibility may offer opportunities to re-examine data.

Concluding Thoughts

We end with revisiting the notion that race and ethnicity are social constructs. This social construction means that the ways in which researchers operationally define multiracial/multiethnic status should remain responsive to the ever-changing broader environmental context (e.g., Yip et al., 2019). For example, at one point in US history, multiethnic youth from Italian and Irish backgrounds may have been viewed as separate from other European Americans, whereas today, a youth from one of these two backgrounds (or both) may opt to self-identify as White. These environmental contexts may vary not only across time but also geographically (e.g., country and region) and locally (e.g., peer context in a school). Being mindful of shifts in contexts will allow for important research questions to be more accurately tested in the future.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Amy Bellmore and Michael Medina for their thoughtful comments on earlier versions of this article.

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This publication was supported by funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF 1147593).

ORCID iDs

Adrienne Nishina

Melissa R. Witkow

Note

Author Biographies

Adrienne Nishina’s research focuses on adolescent peer relationships and race/ethnicity within broader school social contexts using both short- and longer-term longitudinal methodologies. Specifically, she examines the interplay between ethnic diversity in peer groups and adolescent social, psychological, and academic functioning.

Melissa R. Witkow studies the intersection between peer relationships and academic motivation and achievement during adolescence, and how adolescents from diverse backgrounds negotiate the demands in their lives.

References

Atkin

A. L.

Yoo

H. C.

(2019). Familial racial-ethnic socialization of multiracial American youth: A systematic review of the literature with MultiCrit. Developmental Review, 53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2019.100869.

Biswas

(2020, August 11). Biden’s VP pick: Why Kamala Harris embraces her biracial roots. https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-53745141

Bracey

J. R.

Bámaca

M. Y.

Umaña-Taylor

A. J.

(2004). Examining ethnic identity and self-esteem among biracial and monoracial adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33(2), 123-132. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1023/B:JOYO.0000013424.93635.68.

Brown

B. B.

Herman

Hamm

J. V.

Heck

D. J.

(2008). Ethnicity and image: Correlates of crowd affiliation among ethnic minority youth. Child Development, 79(3), 529-546. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01141.x.

Brunsma

D. L.

Rockquemore

K. A.

(2001). The new color complex: Appearances and biracial identity. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 1(3), 225-246. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1207/S1532706XID0103_03.

Bukowski

W. M.

Hoza

Boivin

(1994). Measuring friendship quality during pre- and early adolescence: The development and psychometric properties of the friendship Qualities scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11, 471-484. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1177/0265407594113011.

Burke

Kao

(2013). Bearing the burden of whiteness: The implications of racial self-identification for multiracial adolescents’ school belonging and academic achievement. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 36(5), 747-773. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1080/01419870.2011.628998.

Charmaraman

Woo

Quach

Erkut

(2014). How have researchers studied multiracial populations? A content and methodological review of 20 years of research. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 20(3), 336-352. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/a0035437.

Choi

Herrenkohl

T. I.

Catalano

R. F.

Toumbourou

J. W.

(2012). Multiple identification and risk: Examination of peer factors across multiracial and single-race youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41, 847-862. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1007/s10964-012-9750-2.

10.

Christophe

N. K.

Atkin

Stein

G. L.

Chan

(2021). Examining how socialization and discrimination impact multiracial identity across development: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. In Christophe

N. K.

(Ed.), Chair, Examining multiracial pride, identity-based challenges, and discrimination: An exploratory investigation among biracial emerging adults. SRCD 2021, online.

11.

Colby

S.L.

Ortman

J.M.

(2015, March). Projections of the size and Composition of the U.S. Population: 2014 to 2060. https://www.census.gov//content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p25-1143.pdf

12.

Cross

W. E.

Cross

T. B.

(2008). Theory, research, and models. In Quintana

McKown

(Eds.), Handbook of race, racism, and the developing child (pp. 154-181). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

13.

de Guzman

N. S.

Nishina

(2017). 50 years of loving: Interracial romantic relationships and recommendations for future research. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 9(4), 557-571. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1111/jftr.12215.

14.

Doyle

J. M.

Kao

(2007). Friendship choices of multiracial adolescents: Racial homophily, blending, or amalgamation?. Social Science Research, 36, 633-653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2006.12.001.

15.

Dunham

Olson

K. R.

(2016). Beyond discrete categories: Studying multiracial, intersex, and transgender children will strengthen basic developmental science. Journal of Cognition and Development, 17, 642-665. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2016.1195388.

16.

Echols

Graham

(2020). Meeting in the middle: The role of mutual biracial friends in cross-race friendships. Child Development, 91, 401-416. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13179.

17.

Fisher

Reynolds

J. L.

Hsu

W.-W.

Barnes

Tyler

(2014). Examining multiracial youth in context: Ethnic identity development and mental health outcomes. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(10), 1688-1699. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1007/s10964-014-0163-2.

18.

Fuligni

A. J.

Kiang

Witkow

M. R.

Baldelomar

(2008). Stability and change in ethnic labeling among adolescents from Asian and Latin American immigrant families. Child Development, 79(4), 944-956. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01169.x.

19.

Gaither

S. E.

Chen

E. E.

Corriveau

K. H.

Harris

P. L.

Ambady

Sommers

S. R.

(2014). Monoracial and biracial children: Effects of racial identity saliency on social learning and social preferences. Child Development, 85(6), 2299-2316. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1111/cdev.12266.

20.

Garrod

Kilkenny

Gómez

(2014). Mixed: Multiracial college students tell their life stories. Cornell University Press.

21.

Gillen-O’Neel

Mistry

R. S.

Brown

C. S.

Rodriguez

V. C.

White

E. S.

Chow

K. A.

(2015). Not excluded from analyses: Ethnic and racial meanings and identification among multiethnic/racial early adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 30(2), 143-179. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1177/0743558414560626.

22.

Harris

J. C.

(2016). Toward a critical multiracial theory in education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 29, 795-813. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1080/09518398.2016.1162870.

23.

Harris

D. R.

Sim

J. J.

(2002). Who is multiracial? Assessing the complexity of lived race. American Sociological Review, 67(4), 614-627. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.2307/3088948.

24.

Hitlin

Scott Brown

Elder

G. H.

Jr (2006). Racial self-categorization in adolescence: multiracial development and social pathways. Child Development, 77, 1298-1308. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00935.x

25.

Johnson

T. P.

Jobe

J. B.

O’Rourke

Sudman

Warnecke

R. B.

Chávez

Golden

(1997). Dimensions of self-identification among multicultural and multiethnic respondents in survey interviews. Evaluation Review, 21(6), 671-687. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1177/0193841X9702100602

26.

Jones

N. A.

Bullock

(2012). The two or more races population: 2010. C2010BR-13. https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-13.pdf.

27.

Jones

Marks

Ramirez

Ríos-Vargas

(2021, August). 2020 Census illuminates racial and ethnic composition of the country. US Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/08/improved-race-ethnicity-measures-reveal-united-states-population-much-more-multiracial.html

28.

Jugert

Noack

Rutland

(2013). Children’s cross-ethnic friendships: Why are they less stable than same-ethnic friendships? European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 10, 649-662. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1080/17405629.2012.734136.

29.

Kandel

D. B.

(1978). Homophily, selection, and socialization in adolescent friendships. The American Journal of Sociology, 84, 427-436.

30.

Lewis

J. A.

Nishina

Ramirez Hall

Cain

Bellmore

Witkow

M. R.

(2018). Early adolescents’ peer experiences with ethnic diversity in middle school: Implications for academic outcomes. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47, 194-206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0697-1.

31.

Mauer

Savell

Davis

Wilson

M. N.

Shaw

D. S.

Lemery-Chalfant

(this issue). Identification of multiracial adolescents in research samples: An examination and critique of existing practices. Journal of Early Adolescence, 41, xxx. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1177/0272431620950471.

32.

Nishina

Bellmore

Witkow

M. R.

Nylund-Gibson

(2010). Longitudinal consistency of adolescent ethnic identification across varying school ethnic contexts. Developmental Psychology, 46(6), 1389-1401. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/a0020728.

33.

Nishina

Bellmore

Witkow

M. R.

Nylund-Gibson

Graham

(2018). Mismatches in self-reported and meta-perceived ethnic identification across the high school years. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(1), 51-63. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1007/s10964-017-0726-0.

34.

Nishina

Witkow

M. R.

(2020). Why developmental researchers should care about biracial, multiracial, and multiethnic youth. Child Development Perspectives, 14, 21-27. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12350.

35.

Pew Research Center . (2015). Multiracial in America: Proud, diverse, and growing in numbers. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2015/06/2015-06-11_multiracial-in-america_final-updated.pdf.

36.

Poston

W. S. C.

(1990). The biracial identity development model: A needed addition. Journal of Counseling & Development, 69(2), 152-155. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1002/j.1556-6676.1990.tb01477.x.

37.

Quillian

Redd

(2009). The friendship networks of multiracial adolescents. Social Science Research, 38(2), 279-295. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2008.09.002.

38.

Quintana

S. M.

(2007). Racial and ethnic identity: Developmental perspectives and research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54(3), 259-270. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/0022-0167.54.3.259.

39.

Quintana

S. M.

Aboud

F. E.

Chao

R. K.

Contreras-Grau

Cross

W. E.

Jr. Hudley

Hughes

Liben

L. S.

Nelson-Le Gall

Vietze

D. L.

(2006). Race, ethnicity, and culture in child development: Contemporary research and future directions. Child Development, 77(5), 1129-1141. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00951.x.

40.

Rockquemore

K. A.

Brunsma

D. L.

Delgado

D. J.

(2009). Racing to theory or retheorizing race? Understanding the struggle to build a multiracial identity theory. Journal of Social Issues, 65(1), 13-34. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2008.01585.x.

41.

Rogers

L. O.

Meltzoff

A. N.

(2017). Is gender more important and meaningful than race? An analysis of racial and gender identity among black, white, and mixed-race children. Cultural diversity and ethnic minority psychology, 23, 323-334. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/cdp0000125.

42.

Root

M. P. P.

(1992). Racially mixed people in America. Sage.

43.

Rozek

C. S.

Gaither

S. E.

(this issue). Not quite white or black: Biracial students’ perceptions of threat and belonging across school contexts. Journal of Early Adolescence, 41, xxx. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/org/10.1177/0272431620950476.

44.

Schwarz

(1999). Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers. American Psychologist, 54(2), 93-105. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/0003-066X.54.2.93.

45.

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 and Social Psychology Review, 2(1), 18-39.

46.

Shih

Sanchez

D. T.

(2005). Perspectives and research on the positive and negative implications of having multiple racial identities. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 569-591. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.4.569.

47.

Skiba

R. J.

Horner

R. H.

Chung

C.-G.

Rausch

M. K.

May

S. L.

Tobin

(2011). Race is not neutral: A national investigation of African American and Latino disproportionality in school discipline. School Psychology Review, 40(1), 85-107.

48.

Smith

R. L.

Rose

A. J.

(2011). The “cost of caring” in youths’ friendships: Considering associations among social perspective taking, co-rumination, and empathic distress. Developmental Psychology, 47, 1792-1803. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025309.

49.

Statistics Canada (2014). NHS in brief: Mixed unions in Canada. (Catalogue no. 99-010-X2011003). Ministry of Industry. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-010-x/99-010-x2011003_3-eng.pdf.

50.

Tatum

B. D.

(1997). Why are all the black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? Basic Books.

51.

Townsend

S. S. M.

Fryberg

S. A.

Wilkins

C. L.

Markus

H. R.

(2012). Being mixed: Who claims a biracial identity? Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 18(1), 91-96. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1037/a0026845.

52.

Umaña-Taylor

A. J.

Quintana

S. M.

Lee

R. M.

Cross

W. E.

Rivas-Drake

Schwartz

S. J.

Syed

Yip

Seaton

(2014). Ethnic and racial identity during adolescence and into young adulthood: An integrated conceptualization. Child Development, 85(1), 21-39. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1111/cdev.12196.

53.

Yip

Cheon

Y. M.

Wang

(2019). The diversity paradox: Opportunities and challenges of “contact in context” across development. Research in Human Development, 16, 51-75.

54.

Yoo

H. C.

Jackson

K. F.

Guevarra

R. P.

Jr. Miller

M. J.

Harrington

(2016). Construction and initial validation of the multiracial experiences measure (MEM). Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63(2), 198-209. doi: 10.1037/cou0000117.