Suchergebnisse

For nearly 20 years, the U.S. Census has allowed respondents to report multiple races, offering new opportunities to assess the well-being of multiracial groups. Multiple-race reporting provides much-needed nuance for assessing the racial stratification of social outcomes as the distinctions between racial groups is less clear. Here, I explore the promises and the pitfalls of working with multiple-race data in studies of race inequality. I begin with a discussion of prior work using multiple-race data, showing how they inform our understanding of race-based patterns, and also consider issues raised by the conceptual and methodological fuzziness inherent in using multiple-race responses. I then provide a brief picture of current racial differences in adult poverty rates for single- and multiple-race groups, revealing that some multiracial groups experience parity with single-race groups while others occupy a space in between. While these patterns are meaningful, multiple interpretations are possible given the nature of multiple-race data.

Abstract
In 2000, the US Census Bureau acknowledged multiracial Americans on the decennial census in an attempt to better capture racial heterogeneity and to more closely align what is publicly collected on forms with people's personal understandings of their racial identity. In this article, we start a discussion of how the census—a major source of political identity recognition and legitimation—could be more inclusive of gender variance. We ask: (1) Is there support for a transgender category on the US census? (2) Who might select a transgender option if it were provided? To answer these questions, we conducted questionnaire research at three transgender and genderqueer conferences and found strong support for the inclusion of a transgender category. Conversely, we found that many people did not currently check "transgender" on forms when given the opportunity. As we show, the decision to check "transgender" varies by what we term gender identity validation. In other words, people who identified as male or female and who felt others viewed them as unequivocally male or female, respectively, were less likely to check "transgender" than people who identified as transgender or who experienced a discrepancy between their self-perceived and other-perceived gender identity. These differences suggest that—similar to the push for adding a multiracial category to the census—the expansion of sex/gender categories is most likely to come from individuals who experience themselves as constrained by the existing possibilities and/or who are stigmatized by others' conceptions of the appropriate alignment of bodies and genders.

Despite the recent growth in multiracial children among American children, we know very little about their well‐being. Using the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class (N = 17,706), we evaluated the likelihood of living in poverty and near poverty for multiracial and monoracial children. Most multiracial groups have poverty or near poverty rates that are in between Whites and their respective minority monoracial counterparts, with Asian‐Whites reporting a risk of poverty equivalent to Whites and Black‐Hispanics reporting risks as high as Black and Hispanic children. Family structure and educational and occupational attainment characteristics explain some or all of the White/non‐White differentials in poverty for multiracial groups, even as monoracial children still exhibit higher risk than Whites. We consider these patterns' implications for practitioners working with low‐income families.

Objective. This article documents the patterns of white‐nonwhite differences in nonspecific psychological distress and explores how acculturation characteristics, social class, marital status, and chronic illness mediate or moderate these differences for eight racial/ethnic populations in the United States.Methods. We analyze data from a five‐year pool of the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) collected between 1997 and 2001 (N=162,032) and employ multivariate regression techniques to explore level of psychological distress of various ethnic groups relative to non‐Hispanic whites.Results. Nonwhite populations exhibit variable base‐line differences in psychological distress compared to non‐Hispanic whites; however, adjusted estimates show that African Americans and Mexicans have lower levels of distress while distress scores for "other Hispanics," Asians, and Cubans exhibit statistically similar levels. The highest distress occurs for Puerto Ricans. Interaction models reveal chronic sources of stress (e.g., poverty, chronic illness, nonmarriage) are even more taxing on psychological health of high‐risk groups or have weaker relationships to stress for other groups.Conclusions. This study reveals the need for capturing ethnic variation in studies of mental health. Social class, acculturation, marital status, and chronic illness cannot fully explain white‐nonwhite differences in psychological distress.

Objective. This article documents the patterns of white-nonwhite differences in nonspecific psychological distress & explores how acculturation characteristics, social class, marital status, & chronic illness mediate or moderate these differences for eight racial/ethnic populations in the United States. Methods. We analyze data from a five-year pool of the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) collected between 1997 & 2001 (N=162,032) & employ multivariate regression techniques to explore level of psychological distress of various ethnic groups relative to non-Hispanic whites. Results. Nonwhite populations exhibit variable base-line differences in psychological distress compared to non-Hispanic whites; however, adjusted estimates show that African Americans & Mexicans have lower levels of distress while distress scores for "other Hispanics," Asians, & Cubans exhibit statistically similar levels. The highest distress occurs for Puerto Ricans. Interaction models reveal chronic sources of stress (e.g., poverty, chronic illness, nonmarriage) are even more taxing on psychological health of high-risk groups or have weaker relationships to stress for other groups. Conclusions. This study reveals the need for capturing ethnic variation in studies of mental health. Social class, acculturation, marital status, & chronic illness cannot fully explain white-nonwhite differences in psychological distress. 4 Tables, 43 References. Adapted from the source document.

AbstractResearchers often assume that close interracial relationships, especially intermarriage, simultaneously reflect and cause a weakening of racial and ethnic boundaries and inequality between groups. In fact, interracial marriage is often used as a measure of social distance. We question those assumptions, noting the salient boundaries and durable inequalities that remain despite decades of increases in interracial relationships. We begin with historical examples, showing how, for much of US history, there was no expectation that interracial sexual encounters would reduce racial inequality or weaken boundaries. Incorporating critical race theory and intersectional perspectives, we describe how the impact of interracial intimate relationships is both gendered and classed. We argue that research on contemporary intimate interracial relationships (friendships, dating, and marriage) explains why such relationships may have little impact on attitudes, inequality, and the rigidity of boundaries and call for future research to consider dynamics within the family as well.

Abstract: The literature on interracial families has examined social stigmas attached to interracial relationships but has not thoroughly documented whether crossing racial boundaries increases the risk of divorce. Using the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth (Cycle VI), we compare the likelihood of divorce for interracial couples to that of same‐race couples. Comparisons across marriage cohorts reveal that, overall, interracial couples have higher rates of divorce, particularly for those marrying during the late‐1980s. We also find race and gender variation. Compared to White/White couples, White female/Black male, and White female/Asian male marriages were more prone to divorce; meanwhile, those involving non‐White females and White males and Hispanics and non‐Hispanic persons had similar or lower risks of divorce.

ABSTRACTThe racial composition of couples is a salient indicator of race's impact on mate selection, but how well do those in intimate partnerships know the racial identities of their partners? While prior research has revealed that an individual's race may be perceived differently than how they identify, most of what is known comes from brief interactions, with less information on established relationships. This study examines whether discrepancies in the reports of a person's race or ethnicity can be identified even within intimate relationships, as well as which relational, social, and attitudinal factors are predictive of divergent or concordant reports. We draw on the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study (n=3467), a U.S.-based dataset that uniquely provides both the father's self-reported race and Hispanic origin and the mother's report of the father's race and ethnicity. We compare reports of the father's race/Hispanic origin from both parents to assess the extent of mismatch, and we distinguish between whether mothers view the father's race as similar to or different from her own. We find roughly 14% of mothers provide a race and Hispanic origin that is inconsistent with the father's report, with a large share reflecting differences in the self-identified and perceived race of fathers who are reported as Hispanic. Among mismatched reports, mothers are more likely to report a race/ethnicity for the father that matches her own, depressing the number reporting interracial unions. Perceptions of racial homogamy are especially likely when mothers view racial sameness as important to marriage. Further, mismatches are more common in the midst of weak relational ties (i.e. non-marital relationships) and are less common when both parents are college-educated. These findings reveal that intimate unions are a site where race is socially constructed and provide insight into how norms of endogamy manifest within formed relationships.

AbstractMany White Americans believe that individual rather than structural factors explain racial inequality, yet there is substantial variation in Whites' perceptions. Using data from the Portraits of American Life Study, we exploit this variation to provide insight into the processes driving Whites' perceptions of the causes of racial inequality. Specifically, we assess how social boundaries inform Whites' explanations for the disadvantage of two racial groups: Blacks and Asians. First, we examine how each group's position in the racial hierarchy relates to the types of explanations employed by Whites and find that Whites use individual explanations more often for Blacks than Asians. Second, we assess the extent to which the importance given to race in one's overall identity affects how Whites explain racial disadvantage. Whites who see their Whiteness as being important to their identity are more likely to use individual rather than structural explanations to explain Black disadvantage. Together, these findings provide insight into the social psychological processes that contribute to Whites' perceptions of racial inequality and suggest increased attention to how perceptions of out-group boundaries shape individual perceptions of inequality. Addressing this dimension of how individuals view inequality will be critical to future efforts to reduce it.

This special issue brings together original research that advances the emerging subfield on the measurement and analysis of varying components of race. The articles provide insight into how social scientists can tease apart the multiple components of race and leverage them to better understand how race continues to divide life chances, creatively using existing and new sources of data. The articles speak to three key themes: how we can better understand the various ways that race is experienced, alternative approaches to measuring the different components of race, and the implications of race measures for understanding social inequality.