Who Do Multiracials Consider Part of Their Racial In-Group?

Abstract

We propose that Multiracials have flexible racial in-groups in that Multiracials can potentially consider members from three target racial groups as in-group members: same-race Multiracials, racial component Monoracials, and different-race Multiracials. Across three studies, we find that Black/Whites and Asian/Whites consider racial component Minorities (i.e., Blacks or Asians) and different-race Multiracials who share their Minority identity (i.e., Black/Asians) as in-group members in addition to, but to a lesser extent than, same-race Multiracials (i.e., Black/Whites or Asian/Whites). Moreover, participants who reported frequently encountering discrimination related to their Black or Asian backgrounds were more likely to consider individuals who share their Minority background as in-group members. Implications for Multiracials’ psychological well-being and the broader intergroup literature are discussed.

Keywords

multiracial in-group discrimination

Psychological research has stressed the importance of racial in-groups or groups of individuals who possess similar racial identities and/or experiences, especially for racial minorities (Allport, 1954). Strong connections with in-group members increase self-esteem, and interactions with in-group (vs. outgroup) members are lower in anxiety (Shelton & Richeson, 2015; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Previous research has shown that Monoracials, individuals with parents of the same race, consider other Monoracials of the same race as in-group members (Meissner & Brigham, 2001; Wimmer & Lewis, 2010). However, it is unclear who Multiracials, individuals with parents of two or more different races, consider part of their racial in-group.

Research on racial in-group formation among Monoracials suggests that racial in-groups are fixed, or there is only one racial group that Monoracials consider as the in-group. In contrast, we propose that Multiracials’ racial in-groups are flexible, meaning that Multiracials may consider individuals of various races as in-group members because of their own multiple racial identities. Multiracials’ in-groups may be flexible given that there is a great deal of variability in how Multiracials are perceived by others (e.g., they may be categorized as Monoracial or Multiracial depending on their physical appearance; Maclin & Malpass, 2001), and in how they construe their own racial identity (e.g., they may identify as Monoracial or Multiracial in different settings; Harris & Sim, 2002). Therefore, we hypothesized that Multiracials consider whether others share both, or either, of their Monoracial component and Multiracial identities when determining whether others represent in-group members. Such in-group flexibility may have striking implications for coalition building within the Multiracial community: If Multiracials extend in-group membership to individuals of a variety of races, they may benefit socially and psychologically from having broader social networks than previously realized. Studying Multiracial in-group determination may also reveal, more generally, that racial in-groups are not perpetually fixed for all individuals—a finding that may have been obscured in research involving solely Monoracial samples.

Across three studies, we examined Multiracials’ in-group perceptions of three target groups—same-race Multiracials, racial component Monoracials, and different-race Multiracials. Same-race Multiracials are Multiracials who share both component races with a Multiracial individual. For example, Black/Whites share their Black, White, and Multiracial identities with other Black/Whites. Racial component Monoracials are Monoracials who share one of a Multiracial individual’s component races. For example, Black and White Monoracials share a Black or White identity, respectively, with Black/Whites. Different-race Multiracials are Multiracials who share only one or no component races with a Multiracial individual. For example, Asian/Whites and Latinx/Asians share a Multiracial identity with Black/Whites but share only one or no component identities with Black/Whites. In this research, we refer to different-race Multiracials according to the number and type of identities they share with participants (e.g., an Asian/White target is described as a “one-shared: White” target in reference to Black/White participants). The above terminology most readily applies to Multiracials of two races and not to Multiracials of three or more races. Additionally, in this research, we examined perceptions held by Black/Whites and Asian/Whites given that they belong to the largest Multiracial subgroups currently living in the United States (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). However, future work is needed to study other Multiracial populations.

Perceived Discrimination and In-Group Determination

Multiracials who encounter discrimination targeting one or more of their racial identities may cope with stigmatization by seeking support and understanding from individuals who experience similar forms of discrimination. Indeed, the rejection-identification model suggests that perceived discrimination is an antecedent of in-group perceptions: Stigmatized individuals who recognize that they are systematically excluded and devalued by higher status groups can derive a sense of belonging, instead, from individuals within their own stigmatized group (Branscombe, Schmitt, & Harvey, 1999). The more often stigmatized individuals perceive that they experience discrimination, the more likely they are to identify with their stigmatized group and to perceive individuals who experience similar forms of discrimination as in-group members (Jetten, Branscombe, Schmitt, & Spears, 2001).

Relatedly, research examining whether Monoracials perceive Multiracials as in-group members has shown that Black Monoracial participants who believed that Black/Whites encounter racial discrimination were more likely to perceive Black/Whites as in-group members with whom their “fates” were intertwined (Ho, Kteily, & Chen, 2017). However, Asian Monoracials who perceived discrimination against their group were less likely to perceive Asian/Whites as in-group members because they assumed that Asian/Whites identified as more White than Asian and, therefore, expected to have fewer shared experiences with Asian/Whites (Chen, Kteily, & Ho, 2018). Taken together, these studies reveal perceived discrimination as an antecedent to in-group perceptions involving Multiracial targets.

In the present research involving Multiracials perceivers, we expected perceived discrimination to influence who Multiracials include in their in-group. Multiracials experience multiple forms of discrimination as a result of their multiple racial identities (Shih & Sanchez, 2005). For example, Asian/Whites living in the United States may experience Minority-based discrimination in which they are treated like “foreigners” (Cheryan & Monin, 2005); however, they may also experience Multiracial-based discrimination in which they are forced to “choose” between their racial identities (Townsend, Markus, & Bergsieker, 2009). Therefore, we expected Minority- versus Multiracial-based discrimination perceptions to differentially predict the extent to which Multiracial individuals perceive racial component Monoracials and different-race Multiracials as in-group members. First, we hypothesized that Multiracials perceive racial component Minorities, but not racial component Whites, as in-group members and that perceptions of Minority-related discrimination predict the likelihood that they include Minorities in the in-group. Given that Whites are not expected to experience Minority-based discrimination and, thus, are not perceived to share the fates of Minorities (Chen et al., 2018), White Monoracials may not be perceived by Minority/White Multiracials as in-group members even though they share a White component identity. Second, we hypothesized that Multiracials perceive different-race Multiracials as in-group members to the extent that they perceive themselves as experiencing Multiracial-related discrimination. We tested these predictions across targets with identity combinations that varied systematically in their similarity to participants’ identities.

Present Research

In three studies, we examined the extent to which Multiracial participants perceived racial component Monoracials (Study 1) and different-race Multiracials (Study 2) as in-group members in comparison to same-race Multiracials, whom we designated as reference in-group targets. We then directly compared in-group perceptions of racial component Monoracials and different-race Multiracials to disentangle the relative importance of shared Minority and Multiracial heritage to such perceptions (Study 3). In Study 3, we explicitly tested whether perceived Minority- and Multiracial-based discrimination predicted the extent to which racial component Monoracials and different race-Multiracials, respectively, were perceived as in-group members.

We made four methodological choices across these studies. First, we employed anticipated interaction paradigms (Devine, Sedikides, & Fuhrman, 1989) such that participants were told they would have online interactions and learned their “partners” races through surveys ostensibly completed by those partners. In reality, none of these partners existed. Second, we recruited both Black/White and Asian/White participants in order to sample from the largest and most researched Multiracial subpopulations in the United States (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012; see also Chen & Hamilton, 2012; Ho, Sidanius, Levin, & Banaji, 2011). We aimed to test the generalizability of our results and to avoid the common practice of inferring data from one group to how the other group should respond. Third, partners’ races were identified to participants through written descriptions rather than through photographs because it is difficult to convey someone’s exact Multiracial background through an image (Chen & Hamilton, 2012). Fourth, we assessed our primary dependent variable, in-group perceptions, using a continuous (vs. discrete) measure to capture in-group variability. We also measured two correlates of in-group perceptions: How similar participants felt to each partner (Gaertner, Dovidio, Anastasio, Bachman, & Rust, 1993) and participants’ interest in each interaction (given that individuals expect positive interactions with in-group members; Shelton & Richeson, 2015).

Study 1: Racial Component Monoracials

Method

Participants

Multiracials (N = 64; 32 Asian/White, 32 Black/White; 19 men, 45 women; M _age = 43.19, SD _age = 17.56) were recruited through Qualtrics Panels, a platform that recruits nationally representative samples, to complete an online study for US$5.00. Eligible participants indicated that one parent was Asian or Black and their other parent was White. A power analysis (G*Power; Faul, Erfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007) based on a medium effect size (f = .25; Cohen, 1992) recommended N = 58 participants to achieve 80% power to detect a significant interaction for a 2 (participant race: Asian/White, Black/White) × 3 (partner race: same-race Multiracial, Minority, White) mixed-model design with repeated measures on the last factor.

Procedure

Participants completed a survey to be exchanged with each of their partners on which they provided their age, gender, and race and responded to a personality inventory. Participants saw their partners’ completed surveys one at time. After viewing each survey, participants completed in-group determination measures regarding the relevant partner. Participants repeated this process 3 times. See Table 1 for partner race conditions by participant race.

Table 1.

Partner Race Conditions by Participant Race.

Partner Race Conditions	Participant Race
Partner Race Conditions	Asian/White	Black/White
Same-race Multiracial	Asian/White	Black/White
Study 1: Racial component Monoracials
Minority	Asian	Black
White	White	White
Study 2: Different-race Multiracials
One-shared minority	Black/Asian	Black/Asian
One-shared White	Black/White	Asian/White
Zero shared	Black/Latino	Latino/Asian

Survey

Participants received each partner’s completed survey, on which was listed each partner’s race (partner race manipulation), gender (matched to participants), age (“20–29 years old”), and personality inventory responses (which did not differ across partners, although the order of item presentation was randomized¹; Rammstedt & John, 2007). Partners’ completed personality inventories were included to make it less transparent that race was the only way in which the partners differed. Partner race was counterbalanced.

In-Group Determination Measures

Interaction interest

Participants reported their interest in interacting with each partner by rating 10 items from Remedios and Chasteen (2013) on a 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely) scale (e.g., “How pleasant do you expect your interaction will be?”; see Supplement).

Perceived similarities

Participants rated the extent to which “The interaction partner is similar to me,” “The interaction partner and I share similar experiences,” and “The interaction partner and I share similar qualities” on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) scale.

In-group perceptions

Participants rated “The interaction partner is part of my racial ingroup” and “The interaction partner considers me as part of his/her racial ingroup” on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) scale.²

Results

Analysis Plan

In all studies, we conducted mixed-model analyses of variance on the in-group determination measures (see Table 2). We conducted planned simple comparisons comparing perceptions of the Minority and White partners to the same-race Multiracial partner, the reference target, and used Bonferroni-adjusted post hoc tests to assess other comparisons.

Table 2.

Reliability, Means, and Standard Deviations for In-Group Determination Measures in Study 1.

Partner Race	In-Group Determination Measures
	Interaction Interest		Perceived Similarities		Racial In-Group
	α	M (SD)	α	M (SD)	α	M (SD)
Same-race Multiracial	0.93	5.08 (0.95)	0.93	4.57 (1.35)	0.84	5.25 (1.42)
Asian/White		5.15 (0.97)		4.58 (1.29)		5.02 (1.37)
Black/White		5.01 (0.95)		4.56 (1.43)		5.48 (1.47)
Minority	0.94	5.04 (1.08)	0.94	4.67 (1.34)	0.89	4.99 (1.42)
Asian/White		5.01 (1.18)		4.47 (1.38)		4.56 (1.25)
Black/White		5.07 (0.99)		4.86 (1.31)		5.41 (1.48)
White	0.95	4.69 (1.13)	0.95	3.98 (1.53)	0.94	3.48 (1.94)
Asian/White		4.86 (1.10)		4.05 (1.42)		3.92 (1.83)
Black/White		4.52 (1.14)		3.92 (1.65)		3.06 (1.98)

In-Group Perceptions

The main effect of Partner Race was significant, F(2, 122) = 24.28, p < .0001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .285. Ratings of the same-race Multiracial and Minority partners did not differ, F(1, 61) = 2.04, p = .16, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .032. However, as predicted, the same-race Multiracial partner was rated as significantly more of an in-group member than the White partner, F(1, 61) = 36.12 p < .0001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .372, and the Minority partner was rated as significantly more of an in-group member than the White partner, p < .0001, 95% CI [0.71, 2.82].

The main effect of participant race was not significant, F(1, 61) = 0.38, p = .54, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .006.

There was a significant interaction, F(2, 122) = 5.38, p = .006, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .081. Black/Whites rated the Black partner significantly higher than Asian/Whites rated the Asian partner, p = .018, 95% CI [0.15, 1.53]. Black/Whites rated the White partner as significantly less of an in-group member than both the same-race Multiracial, p < .0001 95% CI [−3.43, −1.41], and the Minority partners, p < .0001, 95% CI [−3.45, −1.24], whereas Asian/Whites rated the White partner as significantly less an in-group member than the same-race Multiracial partner, p = .033, 95% CI [−2.12, −07], but not the Minority partner, p = .49, 95% CI [−0.48, 1.77].

Interaction Interest

The main effect of Partner Race was significant, F(2, 124) = 9.59, p = .0001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .134. Ratings of the same-race Multiracial and Minority partners did not differ, F(1, 62) = 0.16, p = .69, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .003. However, participants anticipated a significantly more positive interaction with the same-race Multiracial partner, F(1, 62) = 17.84, p < .0001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .223, and the Minority partner, p = .009, 95% CI [0.07, 0.64], than the White partner.

The main effect of Participant Race was not significant, F(1, 62) = 0.34, p = .56, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .006. The interaction was not significant, F(2, 124) = 2.06, p = .13, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .032.

Perceived Similarities

The main effect of Partner Race was significant, F(2, 122) = 8.58, p = .0003, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .123. Ratings of the same-race Multiracial and Minority partners did not differ, F(1, 61) = 0.39, p = .53, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .006. However, participants perceived themselves as significantly more similar to the same-race Multiracial partner, F(1, 61) = 11.90, p = .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .163, and the Minority partner, p = .005, 95% CI [0.18, 1.19], than the White partner.

The main effect of Participant Race was not significant, F(1, 61) = 0.07, p = .79, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .001. The interaction was not significant, F(2, 122) = 1.21, p = .30, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .019.

Discussion

Participants perceived same-race Multiracials and racial component Minorities as in-group members to a greater extent than racial component Whites.

Study 2: Different-Race Multiracials

Method

Participants

Multiracials (N = 60; 30 Asian/White, 30 Black/White; 17 men, 43 women; M _age = 36.15, SD _age = 12.23) were recruited through Qualtrics Panels to complete an online study for US$10.00. A power analysis (G*Power; Faul et al., 2007; f = .25) recommended N = 48 participants to achieve 80% power to detect a significant interaction in a 2 (participant race: Asian/White, Black/White) × 4 (partner race: same-race Multiracial, one-shared Minority, one-shared White, zero-shared) mixed-model design with repeated measures on the last factor.

Procedure

The procedure was the same as in Study 1 with the exception that participants viewed surveys of partners who were always different-race Multiracials who varied in the component identities they shared with participants (see Table 1). Partner race was counterbalanced. Participants completed the same in-group determination measures as in Study 1 for each partner after each survey exchange (see Table 3).

Table 3.

Reliability, Means, and Standard Deviations for In-Group Determination Measures in Study 2.

Partner Race	In-Group Determination Measures
	Interaction Interest		Perceived Similarities		Racial In-Group
	α	M (SD)	α	M (SD)	α	M (SD)
Same-race Multiracial	0.92	5.22 (1.02)	0.91	4.78 (1.38)	0.92	5.08 (1.47)
Asian/White		5.33 (0.96)		4.84 (1.46)		5.17 (1.50)
Black/White		5.11 (1.09)		4.72 (1.31)		5.00 (1.47)
One-shared: Minority DRM	0.93	5.05 (1.01)	0.93	4.67 (1.45)	0.92	4.58 (1.72)
Asian/White		5.10 (0.85)		4.60 (1.45)		4.43 (1.78)
Black/White		5.01 (1.16)		4.74 (1.47)		4.73 (1.68)
One-shared: White DRM	0.95	5.03 (1.17)	0.91	4.45 (1.49)	0.92	4.25 (1.70)
Asian/White		5.06 (1.13)		4.43 (1.44)		4.35 (1.65)
Black/White		5.01 (1.22)		4.47 (1.56)		4.15 (1.77)
Zero-shared DRM	0.94	5.07 (1.07)	0.93	4.52 (1.56)	0.96	4.02 (1.92)
Asian/White		5.09 (0.97)		4.34 (1.52)		3.80 (1.89)
Black/White		5.05 (1.17)		4.69 (1.60)		4.23 (1.96)

Note. DRM = Different-race Multiracial.

Results

In-Group Perceptions

The main effect of Partner Race was significant, F(3, 174) = 11.52, p < .0001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .166. The same-race Multiracial partner was rated as significantly more an in-group member than all other partners, one-shared Minority, F(1, 58) = 7.12, p = .009, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .109; one-shared White, F(1, 58) = 17.35, p = .0001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .23; zero-shared, F(1, 58) = 17.93, p = .00008, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .236. Additionally, the one-shared Minority partner was rated as significantly more an in-group member than the zero-shared partner, p = .018, 95% CI [0.08, 1.16]. (All other ps > .33.)

The main effect of Participant Race was not significant, F(1, 58) = 0.19, p = .67, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .001. The interaction was not significant, F(3, 174) = 1.40, p = .25, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .024.

Interaction Interest

No effects were significant, main effect of Partner Race, F(3, 174) = 1.78, p = .15, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .030; main effect of Participant Race, F(1, 58) = 0.15, p = .70, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .003; interaction, F(3, 174) = 0.44, p = .73, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .008).

Perceived Similarities

No effects were significant, main effect of Partner Race, F(3, 174) = 2.53, p = .059, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .042; main effect of Participant Race, F(1, 58) = 0.08, p = .77, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .001; interaction, F(3, 174) = 1.14, p = .33, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .019).

Discussion

Participants perceived same-race Multiracials as in-group members to a greater extent than all partners, but perceived one-shared Minorities as in-group members more so than other different-race Multiracials.

Study 3: Comparing Racial Component Monoracials to Different-Race Multiracials

Method

Participants

Multiracials (N = 177; 92 Asian/White, 85 Black/White; 63 men, 112 women; M _age = 33.61, SD _age = 10.46) were recruited through TurkPrime Panels, a platform that recruits nationally representative samples, and paid US$3.00–4.00. The study adopted a 2 (Participant Race: Asian/White, Black/White) × 6 (Partner Race: same-race Multiracial, Minority, White, one-shared Minority, one-shared White, zero-shared) mixed-model design with repeated measures on the last factor. A power analysis (Power ANalysis for GEneral Anova designs, Version 0.2; Westfall, 2015; d = .45) recommended N = 156 participants to achieve 80% power to detect a significant three-way interaction involving the moderator: perceived discrimination.

Procedure

Given that participants saw six partners in the present study (see Table 1), to bolster the believability that an online interaction would take place, participants were told that they would have only one interaction and that they would have to choose one partner from a six-person pool.³ As in Studies 1–2, participants were presented with the partners’ surveys in random order. After each survey, participants completed the same in-group determination measures as in Studies 1–2 (see Table 4). Additionally, we asked participants to make racial in-group/outgroup categorizations about each partner to reflect the reality that such decisions are often of an either/or dichotomous nature.⁴ Lastly, participants completed the perceived discrimination measures.

Table 4.

Reliability, Means, and Standard Deviations for In-Group Determination Measures in Study 3.

Partner Race	In-Group Determination Measures
	Interaction Interest		Perceived Similarities		Racial In-Group
	α	M (SD)	α	M (SD)	α	M (SD)
Same-race Multiracial	0.95	5.40 (1.10)	0.89	5.29 (1.20)	0.88	5.68 (1.34)
Asian/White		5.31 (1.16)		5.17 (1.26)		5.64 (1.40)
Black/White		5.51 (1.03)		5.43 (1.14)		5.72 (1.29)
Minority	0.95	5.31 (1.08)	0.90	5.05 (1.24)	0.83	5.40 (1.17)
Asian/White		5.19 (1.12)		4.89 (1.19)		5.46 (1.16)
Black/White		5.44 (1.03)		5.21 (1.27)		5.35 (1.17)
White	0.95	4.89 (1.18)	0.91	4.57 (1.40)	0.90	4.31 (1.67)
Asian/White		4.70 (1.18)		4.29 (1.33)		4.04 (1.67)
Black/White		5.09 (1.15)		4.88 (1.42)		4.61 (1.64)
One-shared: Minority DRM	0.95	5.20 (1.03)	0.89	4.91 (1.19)	0.84	4.94 (1.37)
Asian/White		5.08 (1.07)		4.70 (1.22)		4.76 (1.48)
Black/White		5.34 (0.98)		5.14 (1.12)		5.13 (1.22)
One-Shared: White DRM	0.95	5.10 (1.14)	0.91	4.76 (1.37)	0.89	4.25 (1.68)
Asian/White		4.93 (1.20)		4.44 (1.38)		3.85 (1.72)
Black/White		5.29 (1.04)		5.11 (1.29)		5.13 (1.22)
Zero-Shared DRM	0.94	5.00 (1.06)	0.92	4.66 (1.37)	0.94	4.07 (1.85)
Asian/White		4.92 (1.12)		4.44 (1.39)		3.60 (1.80)
Black/White		5.09 (0.99)		4.90 (1.31)		4.56 (1.77)

Note. DRM = Different-race Multiracial.

Perceived Minority Discrimination

Participants completed a shortened version of the Everyday Discrimination Scale (Williams, Yu, Jackson, & Anderson, 1997) which was originally written to measure perceived Black discrimination (α = .97, M = 3.52, SD = 1.88). We adapted items to reflect perceived Asian discrimination (α = .80, M = 3.37, SD = 1.31). Participants completed the scale relevant to their Minority identity (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree; see Supplement).

Perceived Multiracial Discrimination

Participants completed the discrimination subscale of the Multiracial Experience Measure (Yoo, Jackson, Guevarra, Miller, & Harrington, 2016; α = .89, M = 3.46, SD = 1.60; 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree; see Supplement).

Results

In-Group Perceptions

The main effect of Partner Race was significant, F(5, 870) = 57.46, p < .0001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .25. Participants rated the Minority partner as an in-group member more than the White, p < .0001, 95% CI [0.69, 1.47], one-shared Minority, p < .0001, 95% CI [0.16, 0.75], one-shared White, p < .0001, 95% CI [0.78, 1.50], and zero-shared partners, p < .0001, 95% CI [0.92, 1.79]. Participants also rated the one-shared Minority partner as an in-group member more than the White, p = .0001, 95% CI [0.22, 1.02], one-shared White, p < .0001, 95% CI [0.34, 1.02], and zero-shared partners, p < .0001, 95% CI [0.48, 1.23]. Replicating Studies 1–2, participants rated the same-race Multiracial partner as an in-group member more than the Minority, F(1, 174) = 10.20, p = .002, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .055, White, F(1, 174) = 86.30, p < .0001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .332, one-shared Minority, F(1, 174) = 52.54, p < .0001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .232, one-shared White, F(1, 174) = 101.86, p < .0001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .369, and zero-shared partners, F(1, 174) = 112.87, p < .0001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .393.

The main effect of Participant Race was also significant, F(1, 174) = 7.80, p = .006, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .043. Black/Whites (M = 5.01, SD = 1.06) rated their partners as in-group members significantly more than Asian/Whites (M = 4.56, SD = 1.08).

The interaction was significant, F(5, 870) = 5.87, p < .0001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .033. Black/Whites rated the White, p = .024, 95% CI [0.08, 1.06], one-shared White, p < .0001, 95% CI [0.35, 1.32], and zero-shared partners, p = .0004, 95% CI [0.44, 1.50], as in-group members significantly more than Asian/Whites.

In-group categorization

Table 5 lists the proportion of participants who categorized each partner as an in-group (vs. outgroup) member.

Table 5.

Racial In-Group Categorization Proportions in Study 3.

Partner Race	Participant Race		Overall
Partner Race	Asian/White	Black/White	Overall
Same-race Multiracial	.84	.87	.85
Minority	.91	.87	.89
White	.50	.61	.55
One-shared: Minority DRM	.73	.75	.73
One-shared: White DRM	.42	.47	.45
Zero-shared DRM	.37	.45	.41

Note. DRM = Different-race Multiracial.

The main effect of Partner Race was significant, F(5, 865) = 44.93, p < .0001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .206. In-group categorizations of same-race Multiracial and Minority partners did not differ significantly, F(1, 173) = 1.43, p = .23, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .008. However, participants categorized the same-race Multiracial partner as an in-group member significantly more often than the White, F(1, 173) = 37.41, p < .0001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .178, one-shared Minority, F(1, 173) = 9.07, p = .003, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .050, one-shared White, F(1, 173) = 82.42, p < .0001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .323, and zero-shared partner, F(1, 173) = 97.59, p < .0001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .361. Participants categorized the Minority partner as an in-group member significantly more often than the White, p < .0001, 95% CI [0.20, 0.46], one-shared Minority, p = .001, 95% CI [0.04, 0.27], one-shared White, p < .0001, 95% CI [0.31, 0.57], and zero-shared partners, p < .0001, 95% CI [0.35, 0.61]. Participants categorized the one-shared Minority partner as an in-group member significantly more often than the White, p = .01, 95% CI [0.02, 0.33], one-shared White, p < .0001, 95% CI [0.16, 0.42], and zero-shared partners, p < .0001, 95% CI [0.19, 0.46]. Finally, participants categorized the White partner as an in-group member more often than the zero-shared partner, p = .025, 95% CI [0.01, 0.29].

The main effect of Participant Race was not significant, F(1, 173) = 1.14, p = .29, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .007. The interaction was not significant, F(5, 865) = 0.81, p = .54, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .01.

Moderation

To test whether perceived Minority and Multiracial discrimination (lower limit centered) separately predicted in-group perceptions (lower limit centered) of racial component Minorities and different-race Multiracials, we conducted multilevel analyses using the MIXED procedure in SPSS (Version 25).

Minority discrimination was a significant predictor of in-group perceptions, β = 0.15, t(569) = 2.04, p = .042, 95% CI [−1.59, −0.70] (see Table 6). Relative to those low on Minority Discrimination, high-scoring participants indicated higher in-group ratings of the same-race Multiracial, Minority, one-shared Minority, and one-shared White partners but indicated lower in-group ratings of the White and zero-shared partners (see Figure 1).

Table 6.

Study 3 Multilevel Analysis Results Regressing Racial In-Group Perceptions on Partner Race Condition and Minority Discrimination.

Variable	β	SE	t	95% CI
1. Intercept	4.33	21	20.8***	[3.92, 4.74]
2. Minority condition (MinCond)	−0.23	22	−1.01	[−0.67, 0.21]
3. White condition (WhiteCond)	−0.99	.22	−4.38**	[−1.43, −0.54]
4. One-shared: Minority condition (1SMCond)	−0.44	.22	−1.95*	[−0.88, 0.00]
5. One-shared: White condition (1SWCond)	−1.11	.22	−4.95***	[−1.55, −0.67]
6. Zero-shared condition (0SCond)	−1.14	.22	−5.09***	[−1.59, −0.70]
7. Minority discrimination (MinDisc)	0.15	.07	2.04*	[0.01, 0.29]
8. MinCond × MinDisc	−0.02	.08	−0.26	[−0.17, 0.13]
9. WhiteCond × MinDisc	−0.16	.08	−2.03*	[−0.31, −0.01]
10. 1SMCond × MiniDisc	−0.12	.08	−1.62	[−0.28, 0.02]
11. 1SWCond × MinDisc	−0.13	.08	−1.73	[−0.28, 0.02]
12. 0SCond × MinDisc	−0.19	.08	−2.50*	[−0.34, −0.04]
13. Residual	1.34	.06	21.03⁺***	[1.22, 1.48]

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. ⁺Wald Z statistic.

Figure 1.

Study 3 multilevel analysis minority discrimination moderation results.

Multiracial Discrimination did not significantly predict in-group perceptions, β = 0.10, t(583) = 1.46, p = .15, 95% CI [−0.04, 0.24], nor were any interactions significant (see Table 7).

Table 7.

Study 3 Multilevel Analysis Results Regressing Racial In-Group Perceptions on Partner Race Condition and Multiracial Discrimination.

Variable	β	SE	t	95% CI
1. Intercept	4.43	.21	21.30***	[4.02, 4.84]
2. Minority condition (MinCond)	−0.24	.23	−1.06	[−0.68, 0.21]
3. White condition (WhiteCond)	−1.40	.23	−6.16**	[−1.84, −0.95]
4. One-shared: Minority condition (1SMCond)	−0.68	.23	−2.98*	[−1.12, −0.23]
5. One-shared: White condition (1SWCond)	−1.66	.23	−7.32***	[−2.01, −1.21]
6. Zero-shared condition (0SCond)	−1.97	.23	−8.70***	[−2.42, −1.53]
7. Multiracial discrimination (MultiDisc)	0.10	.07	1.46	[−0.04, 0.24]
8. MinCond × MultiDisc	−0.01	.08	−0.19	[−0.17, 0.14]
9. WhiteCond × MultiDisc	0.01	.08	0.16	[−0.14, 0.16]
10. 1SMCond × MultiDisc	−0.03	.08	−0.35	[−0.18, 0.12]
11. 1SWCond × MultiDisc	0.09	.08	1.18	[−0.06, 0.24]
12. 0SCond × MultiDisc	0.15	.08	1.88	[−0.18, 0.12]
13. Residual	1.35	.06	21.03⁺***	[1.23, 1.48]

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. ⁺Wald Z statistic.

Interaction Interest

The main effect of Partner Race was significant, F(5, 865) = 18.10, p < .0001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .095. Participants anticipated a significantly more positive interaction with the Minority versus the White, p < .0001, 95% CI [0.21, 0.63], one-shared White, p = .028, 95% CI [0.01, 0.40], and zero-shared partners, p < .0001, 95% CI [0.13, 0.49]. Participants anticipated a more positive interaction with the one-shared Minority partner than the White, p = .0001, 95% CI [0.11, 0.52], and zero-shared, p = .019, 95% CI [0.02, 0.39] partners. Ratings of the same-race Multiracial and Minority partners did not differ, F(1, 173) = 2.73, p = .100, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .016, but participants anticipated a significantly more positive interaction with the same-race Multiracial partner than the White, F(1, 173) = 53.72, p < .0001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .237, one-shared Minority, F(1, 173) = 10.57, p = .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .058, one-shared White, F(1, 173) = 23.26, p < .0001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .118, and zero-shared, F(1, 173) = 45.95, p < .0001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .210, partners.

The main effect of Participant Race was not significant, F(1, 173) = 3.54, p = .062, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .020. The interaction was not significant, F(5, 865) = 0.94, p = .45, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .005.

Perceived Similarities

The main effect of Partner Race was significant, F(5, 875) = 19.35, p < .0001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = 0.10. Participants felt more similar to the Minority partner than the White, p < .0001, 95% CI [0.21, 0.73], one-shared White, p = .003, 95% CI [0.06, 0.49], and zero-shared partners, p = .0001, 95% CI [0.13, 0.63], and more similar to the one-shared Minority than the White partner, p = .01, 95% CI [0.05, 0.62]. Participants also felt more similar to the same-race Multiracial partner than the Minority, F(1, 175) = 9.83, p = .002, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .053, White, F(1, 175) = 50.26, p < .0001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .223, one-shared Minority, F(1, 175) = 28.75, p < .0001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .141, one-shared White, F(1, 175) = 38.66, p < .0001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .181, and zero-shared partners, F(1, 175) = 43.72, p < .0001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .200.

The main effect of Participant Race was also significant, F(1, 175) = 8.28, p = .005, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .045. Black/Whites (M = 5.11, SD = 1.02) rated all partners as more similar to them compared to Asian/Whites (M = 4.66, SD = 1.08). The interaction was not significant, F(5, 875) = 1.74, p = .12, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .010.

Discussion

Participants perceived racial component Minorities as in-group members more so than one-shared Minority different-race Multiracials; however, they also perceived one-shared Minorities as in-group members more so than racial component Whites and other different-race Multiracials. Participants who perceived frequent versus infrequent Minority discrimination were more likely to consider same-race Multiracials, racial component Minorities, and one-shared Minority and White partners as in-group members.

General Discussion

Three studies investigated who Multiracials consider part of their racial in-group. We consistently found that Black/Whites and Asian/Whites consider racial component Minorities and one-shared Minority different-race Multiracials as part of their in-groups but to a lesser extent than same-race Multiracials. Thus, Multiracials do appear to define their in-groups flexibly, including individuals whose identities differ from their own. Additionally, our hypothesis that perceived discrimination predicts in-group perceptions was supported. Perceiving Minority discrimination predicted increased perceptions that racial component Minorities and one-shared Minority and White different-race Multiracials were in-group members. However, we did not observe that perceived Multiracial discrimination influenced in-group perceptions of different-race Multiracials. Overall, the results suggest that a shared Minority identity, and perceived Minority discrimination, are key determinants of how Minority/White Multiracials construe their racial in-groups.

Perceived Discrimination

Our results are in line with previous findings that perceived discrimination influences in-group perceptions (Branscombe et al., 1999; Chen et al., 2018; Dawson, 1994; Ho et al., 2017). However, the present findings suggest a larger role for perceived Minority versus Multiracial discrimination as an antecedent to Multiracial in-group perception. Our data suggest that both types of discrimination occur with similar frequency; however, it is possible that it is easier for Multiracials to connect with individuals who share their Minority versus their Multiracial identities following discrimination experiences. Indeed, previous work has shown that Monoracial participants often categorize Multiracial targets as Monoracial, not as Multiracial (Chen et al., 2018). Similarly, Multiracials may find it difficult to determine whether others are Multiracial versus Minority or even part-Minority. Although our participants knew the identities of potential partners, a history of difficulties connecting with different-race Multiracials may have translated into fewer opportunities for bonding and weaker perceptions of a shared fate with such individuals. However, it is also interesting that, in Study 3, higher perceived Minority discrimination predicted higher ratings of the one-shared White partner. This result was unexpected, given that one-shared White different race Multiracials may not be perceived as sharing a fate with participants that is shaped by discrimination targeting their Minority identities. It is possible that, for part-White Multiracials, even Minority discrimination is contextualized by the reality that they are part-White. Future research can examine this possibility.

Flexible In-Groups

Multiracials may have flexible in-groups in that they consider individuals with diverse identities as in-group members. This suggestion supports the common in-group identity model, which posits that, because all individuals belong to multiple social groups, the salience of those groups may shift in ways that dynamically shape who is perceived as an in-group member (Gaertner et al., 1993). The naturally occurring tendency for Multiracials to recognize their flexible racial identities makes this population a particularly interesting group in which to study flexible in-group perceptions (Gaither, 2018). One implication of Multiracials considering both racial component Minorities and different-race Multiracials as in-group members may be that Multiracials have the flexibility to seek support from different individuals depending on the type of discrimination they experience (e.g., Minority or Multiracial related; Snyder, 2016). Additionally, this flexibility can help Multiracials optimize their social interactions: For example, contextual cues that prime a White identity may motivate Minority/Whites to perceive Whites as in-group members to reduce anxiety in interactions (Gaither, Sommers, & Ambady, 2013).

Our results also show that it is useful to measure in-group perceptions continuously, particularly in studies of Multiracials. Doing so enabled us to capture the extent to which targets were considered in-group members, a type of variability that is lost when using only discrete in-group versus outgroup distinctions. Moreover, directly comparing continuous versus discrete decisions in Study 3 revealed similar results, validating our use of a continuum in this case as a sensitive index of in-group perceptions.

The Multiracial Group

The present research suggests that a shared Multiracial background, alone, may be insufficient to perceive others as in-group members. The Multiracial group, therefore, may be less entitative (cohesive) than Monoracial Minority groups (Campbell, 1958; Hamilton & Sherman, 1996). Multiracials’ perceptions of other Multiracials may largely depend on the racial composition of those groups and specific types of experienced discrimination. For example, in-group perceptions for same-race Multiracials were not influenced by Multiracial-related discrimination but may be influenced by specific Black/White-related discrimination which may be difficult for Multiracials to separate from Black-related discrimination. We may also expect Multiracials with different component identities to differ in their in-group perceptions, as we observed across studies: Black/Whites included more targets in their in-groups than did Asian/Whites. It may be the case that Asian/Whites, who belong to two relatively high-status groups (Zou & Cheryan, 2017), were unwilling to extend in-group membership to those they perceived as lower status (Chen et al., 2018).

Conclusions

A limitation of our research is that it focuses on Minority/White Multiracials; however, who triracial individuals perceive as same- and different-race Multiracials may differ from the definitions we have proposed. Additionally, our hypotheses may not speak to the experiences of Minority/Minority Multiracials, although they may be adapted to generate testable predictions about these populations. Despite these limitations, our findings provide insight into how Multiracials construe their racial in-groups.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material, SPPS_DRM_RR_Supplement_2019_06 - Who Do Multiracials Consider Part of Their Racial In-Group?

Supplemental Material, SPPS_DRM_RR_Supplement_2019_06 for Who Do Multiracials Consider Part of Their Racial In-Group? by A. Chyei Vinluan and Jessica D. Remedios in Social Psychological and Personality Science

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

This article is based on a thesis submitted by A. Chyei Vinluan to the Tufts University Graduate School in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the doctoral degree.

Acknowledgment

Thanks are extended to members of the committee, Courtney Bonam and Keith Maddox.

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: Tufts University (108858) and this research was supported by a Grant-In-Aid Faculty Research Award awarded to J. D. Remedios and a Graduate Student Research Competition awarded to A. C. Vinluan.

Supplemental Material

The supplemental material is available in the online version of the article.

Notes

References

Allport

G. W.

(1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Branscombe

N. R.

Schmitt

M. T.

Harvey

R. D.

(1999). Perceiving pervasive discrimination among African Americans: Implications for group identification and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 135–149. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.1.135

Campbell

D. T.

(1958). Common fate, similarity, and other indices of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities. Behavioral Science, 3, 14–25. doi:10.1002/bs.3830030103

Chen

J. M.

Hamilton

D. L.

(2012). Natural ambiguities: Racial categorization of multiracial individuals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 152–164. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.10.005

Chen

J. M.

Kteily

N. S.

A. K.

(2018). Whose side are you on? Asian Americans’ mistrust of Asian–White biracials predicts more exclusion from the ingroup. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1–15. doi:10.1177/0146167218798032

Chen

J. M.

Pauker

Gaither

S. E.

Hamilton

D. L.

Sherman

J. W.

(2018). Black+ White = Not White: A minority bias in categorizations of Black-White multiracials. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 78, 43–54. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2018.05.002

Cheryan

Monin

(2005). Where are you really from? Asian Americans and identity denial. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 717–730. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.5.717

Cohen

(1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155

Dawson

M. C.

(1994). Behind the mule. Race and class in African American politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

10.

Devine

P. G.

Sedikides

Fuhrman

R. W

. (1989). Goals in social information processing: The case of anticipated interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 680 - 690. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.56.5.680

11.

Faul

Erdfelder

Lang

A. G.

Buchner

(2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. doi:10.3758/BF03193146

12.

Gaertner

S. L.

Dovidio

J. F.

Anastasio

P. A.

Bachman

B. A.

Rust

M. C.

(1993). The common ingroup identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. In Stroebe

Hewstone

(Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 1–26). London, England: Wiley.

13.

Gaither

S. E.

(2018). The multiplicity of belonging: Pushing identity research beyond binary thinking. Self and Identity, 17, 443–454. doi:10.1080/15298868.2017.1412343

14.

Gaither

S. E.

Sommers

S. R.

Ambady

(2013). When the half affects the whole: Priming identity for biracial individuals in social interactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 368–371. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.12.012

15.

Hamilton

D. L.

Sherman

S. J.

(1996). Perceiving persons and groups. Psychological Review, 103, 336. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.103.2.336

16.

Harris

D. R.

Sim

J. J.

(2002). Who is multiracial? Assessing the complexity of lived race. American Sociological Review, 67, 614–627.

17.

A. K.

Kteily

N. S.

Chen

J. M

. (2017). “You’re one of us”: Black Americans’ use of hypodescent and its association with egalitarianism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113, 753–768. doi:10.1037/pspi0000107

18.

A. K.

Sidanius

Levin

D. T.

Banaji

M. R.

(2011). Evidence for hypodescent and racial hierarchy in the categorization and perception of biracial individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 492–506. doi:10.1037/a0021562

19.

Jetten

Branscombe

N. R.

Schmitt

M. T.

Spears

. (2001). Rebels with a cause: Group identification as a response to perceived discrimination from the mainstream. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1204–1213. doi:10.1177%2F0146167201279012

20.

MacLin

O. H.

Malpass

R. S.

(2001). Racial categorization of faces: The ambiguous race face effect. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 98–118. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.7.1.98

21.

Meissner

C. A.

Brigham

J. C.

(2001). Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias in memory for faces: A meta-analytic review. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 3–35. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.7.1.3

22.

Rammstedt

John

O. P.

(2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the big five inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 203–212. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2006.02.001

23.

Remedios

J. D.

Chasteen

A. L.

(2013). Finally, someone who “gets” me! Multiracial people value others’ accuracy about their race. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 19, 453–460. doi:10.1037/a0032249

24.

Shelton

J. N.

Richeson

J. A.

(2015). Interacting across racial lines. APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology, Volume 2: Group Processes, 2, 395–422.

25.

Shih

Sanchez

D. T.

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

26.

Snyder

C. R.

(2016). Navigating in murky waters: How multiracial black individuals cope with racism. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 86, 265–276. doi:10.1037/ort0000148

27.

Tajfel

Turner

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

Austin

(Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.

28.

Townsend

S. S.

Markus

H. R.

Bergsieker

H. B.

(2009). My choice, your categories: The denial of multiracial identities. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 185–204. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2008.01594.x

29.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). The two or more races population: 2010. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-13.pdf

30.

Westfall

(2015). PANGEA: Power analysis for general anova designs (Unpublished manuscript). Retrieved from http://jakewestfallorg/publications/pangea.pdf

31.

Williams

D. R.

Jackson

J. S.

Anderson

N. B

. (1997). Racial differences in physical and mental health: Socio-economic status, stress and discrimination. Journal of Health Psychology, 2, 335–351. doi:10.1177%2F135910539700200305

32.

Wimmer

Lewis

(2010). Beyond and below racial homophily: ERG models of a friendship network documented on Facebook. American Journal of Sociology, 116, 583–642. doi:10.1086/653658

33.

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, 198. doi:10.1037/cou0000117

34.

Zou

L. X.

Cheryan

(2017). Two axes of subordination: A new model of racial position. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112, 696–717. doi:10.1037/pspa0000080

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

20.95 MB