Speaking the Language of Diversity: Spanish Fluency, White Ancestry, and Skin Color in the Distribution of Diversity Awards to Latinos

Abstract

Two studies investigated the combined effects of cultural practices, ancestry, and phenotype on ethnic categorization and the distribution of resources to minorities. Perceivers formed impressions of Latino internship candidates who varied in Spanish language fluency, White/European ancestry, and skin color. Spanish fluency influenced the distribution of minority resources to all targets, but only influenced the Latino categorization of targets who had White/European ancestry. The effect of Spanish fluency on minority resource distribution was explained by the White/European target's Latino categorization and perceived commitment to minority communities. We discuss why factors beyond racial/ethnic categorization may matter in minority resource distribution decisions.

Notes

¹We use the term biethnic to (a) describe the unique identity of individuals who have both Latino and White/European origins stemming from one Latino and one White/European parent, and (2) distinguish between such individuals and monoethnic Latinos who also have a White racial identity. Ethnicity is a set of ideas and practices that allow individuals to identify or be identified with groups, typically by commonalities such as language or history, and derive meaning and belonging, whereas race is a set of ideas and practices that sort individuals into different ethnic groups based on characteristics such as appearance (Markus, 2008). Moreover, official government forms such as the U.S. Census define Latino/Hispanic ancestry as an ethnic, but not a racial, identity (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). Thus, some do not consider individuals who have Latino and White/European origins biracial unless they also belong to two racial groups (e.g., are White/European and Black/Latino). We do not adopt the term bicultural to describe such individuals because bicultural people operate fluidly within two cultures (i.e., sets of beliefs, practices, and cognitive styles that surround ethnicity and race; Benet-Martínez & Oishi, 2008; Chui & Hong, 2007) and can be monoracial or monoethnic. For reviews, see Padilla (2008) and Sanchez, Shih, and Wilton (in press).

²Twenty-two participants who did not indicate their race were excluded from the study. Including these participants did not change the significance of our findings.

³The results of both studies remained unchanged when we controlled for participants' attitudes towards affirmative action. We measured participants' attitudes towards affirmative action among other filler items using an 18-item scale comprised of items from Kravitz & Platania (1993) and Parra (1991; αs = .95 for both studies; see also Brutus, Parra, Hunter, Perry & Ducharme, 1998).

Note. Pairs of means that share the same subscript letter denote those that differ significantly at the .05 level on a particular variable.

^a n = 44. ^b n = 39. ^c n = 63. ^d n = 65.

Note. Correlations shown above and below the median line are for the Monoethnic Latino (N = 83) and the Latino/White Biethnic (N = 128) candidate, respectively.

**p < .01.

Note. N = 167. Pairs of means that share the same superscript letter denote those that differ significantly at the .05 level on a particular variable. The mean differences between the Spanish and non-Spanish-speaking biethnic target on Latino categorization differ significantly only for White participants.

^a n = 44. ^b n = 36. ^c n = 42. ^d n = 45. ^e n = 40. ^f n = 40. ^g n = 44. ^h n = 43.

Note. Correlations shown above and below the median line are for the monoethnic Latino (N = 82) and the Latino/White Biethnic (N = 87) candidate, respectively.

*p < .05. **p < .01.

⁴Members of racial and ethnic minority groups tend to be considered deserving of diversity awards based on their group's historical experiences with disadvantage. African Americans and Asian Americans both belong to racial minority groups, but the former are typically considered to be historically disadvantaged and thus deserving of diversity awards whereas the latter are not. We were unable to test whether there were differences between participants' racial group memberships according to whether they were members of potentially nonbeneficiary (e.g., White or Asian) or beneficiary (e.g., Black or “other” race) groups because we did not have enough Black or “other” race participants (18 in Study 1; 24 in Study 2). Notably, however, the general pattern of results still hold across both studies when only (a) Asian Americans or (b) Asian Americans and Whites are included in the analysis. However, the effect of the language cue in Latino categorization and resource distribution may be dampened for Asian American perceivers when Asian American and White participants are contrasted in the factorial design (e.g., participant race is coded as Asian American vs. White).