![Sample our Law journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5942/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Law.jpg"})
Abstract
Evidence is accumulating that interpersonal racial discrimination is criminogenic and ethnic-racial socialization (ERS) practices provide resilience. This research, however, has largely focused on black males. We address this gap by exploring these risk and resilience processes among black females. Drawing on Simons and Burt’s social schematic theory and research on adaptive cultural practices in African American families, this study investigates how interpersonal racial discrimination increases the risks of crime among females and whether familial ERS provides resilience. After focusing on females, we also compare the findings among females to those for males to shed light on gender differences. We examine these questions using panel data from the Family and Community Health Study, a survey of black families first surveyed in 1999 and at roughly two-year intervals thereafter. Consistent with prior work, we find a strong effect of racial discrimination on an increase in crime, with the bulk of this effect being mediated by the criminogenic knowledge structure. Although one of the two forms of ERS examined—cultural socialization—did not reduce the criminogenic effects of racial discrimination, preparation for bias exerted a strong protective effect. Comparing the findings to that for males revealed that preparation for bias attenuated the criminogenic effects of racial discrimination for both males and females, but it did so in gendered ways. This study fills a gap in our understanding of the criminogenic effects of discrimination among black females, supporting a social schematic theory’s explanation of the effects of racial discrimination on crime. In addition, findings highlight protective cultural practices in African American families, especially preparation for bias.
Acknowledgements
This research uses data from the FACHS, a project designed by Ron Simons, Frederick Gibbons, and Carolyn Cutrona, and funded by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health (MH48165, MH62669), the Center for Disease Control (029136-02), the National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA021898), and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. The authors thank Alyssa Chamberlain, John Hepburn, Tanja Link, and Nancy Rodriguez for valuable comments on earlier drafts of the manuscript.
Notes
1. We use “African American” and “black” interchangeably throughout the paper.
2. Burt and colleagues (2012) noted that preliminary work indicated quantitative and qualitative sex/gender differences, and, rather than pooling males and females and potentially glossing over important gender differences or nuances, they restricted their study to males.
3. Although females are the focus of this study, we also estimate the models for the subsample of males in order to have a point of comparison.
4. See Gabbidon (Citation2010) for a thorough review of theory and research on African American female offenders.
5. See Unnever and Gabbidon (Citation2011) for a more extensive review of the ERS literature as it relates to offending.
6. Most census tracks include four to five block groups; in the 1990 census, BGs averaged roughly 450 housing units with 1,100 residents (Martin et al., Citation2011).
7. At the time of the wave 4 interviews, the target youth had spread to 25 different states, though 92% remained in the state in which they resided at wave 1.
8. We examined whether the findings with available measures held in earlier waves of data to examine potential bias from attrition and confirmed the pattern of results at all waves. In addition, we estimated the SEM using full information maximum likelihood under MAR (Little & Rubin, Citation2002) and the pattern of results was the same.
9. The results were equivalent whether these cases were included or excluded from the analyses.
10. Specific item content for any measure is available from the authors upon request.
11. Two of the items asked respondents to indicate how often their friends and family members were treated unfairly because of their race or ethnicity. These items were not included because the focus of the present study is discrimination experienced by the respondents themselves. Analyses estimated with the measure of discrimination including the two vicarious discrimination items were tantamount to those presented herein.
12. These results, along with any others noted but not shown, are available upon request from the authors.
13. Although the measure of crime is more accurately modeled as a count measure, we present the continuous model because model estimations with count or censored dependent variables require numerical integration, which precludes the computation of indirect effects (Muthén & Muthén, Citation1998–2010). The model presented here is robust to alternative specifications (negative binomial and censored normal) of the equation predicting crime.
14. We also estimated the models with the CKS components incorporated as individual schemas; these results, which are consistent with those presented in the text using the CKS construct, are available upon request.
15. The model fit indices from the second-order CFA indicate a good fit of the model to the data (RMSEA = .032; TLI = .95; CFI = .97).
16. Following the initial estimation of the model, in which we included all potential paths, we constrained insignificant paths (t < 1.5), which were not part of the hypothesized model, and residual correlations to zero to improve model fit. The model fit indices improved with the elimination of the paths and the chi-square difference between the baseline model and the reduced model was not significant (Δχ2(df) = .854(2)), supporting the adoption of the reduced model.
17. To assess goodness-of-fit, we used Steiger’s Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA; Browne & Cudeck 1993), the comparative fit index (CFA; Bentler, Citation1990), and the χ2 divided by its degrees of freedom (fit ratio). The CFI is truncated to the range of 0 to 1, and values close to 1 indicate a very good fit. An RMSEA smaller than .05 indicates a close fit.
18. MPlus has two options for calculated the standard errors for indirect effects: the delta and bootstrapping methods. We estimated standard errors using both methods, and the results were the same. Significance levels presented are based on the results from the delta method.
19. Supplementary analyses examined these pattern of findings held for different offense types. The results were similar when predicting violent, nonviolent, and substance use offenses.
20. Table displays ERS practices at wave 3. There were no sex differences observed in cultural socialization at wave 4. For preparation for bias, sex differences were not observed for the total scale, but females reported more frequent experiences of adult family members talking about discrimination in their presence than males.
21. This statistical comparison of coefficients is based on Equation 4 in Paternoster et al. (Citation1998).
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Callie H. Burt
Callie Burt is an Assistant Professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice and a Faculty Affiliate of the Gender and Women’s Studies Program at Arizona State University. Her research focuses on criminological theories, with particular emphasis on elucidating the social psychological mechanisms through which social factors, such as racial discrimination, community crime, parenting practices, and life transitions, influence criminal offending across the life course. Her work has recently appeared in the American Journal of Sociology, the American Sociological Review, and Criminology.
Ronald L. Simons
Ronald L. Simons is a Foundation Professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Arizona State University and a Fellow in the Institute for Behavioral Research at the University of Georgia.. Much of his research has focused on the manner in which family, peer, and community factors combine to influence deviant behavior across the life course. He has also completed work on domestic violence and the effect of racial discrimination on child development. Recent work has appeared in the American Sociological Review, Criminology, and the Journal of Marriage and Family. His papers have won awards from the National Conference on Family Relations and the American Criminal Justice Society.
