1. DISCUSSION (continued)
Contextual Diversity and Awareness of Microaggressions in TRA Children from China
Emily Zhang; Xian Zhang; Ellen E. Pinderhughes
Eliot-Pearson Department of Child Study & Human Development, Tufts University
INTRODUCTION
DISCUSSION (continued)
RESULTS
Transracial adoptees (TRAs) may be at risk for exposure to adoption microaggressions (AMA; Baden, 2015) and racial microaggressions (MAs) – subtle biases present in daily interactions that intentionally/unintentionally communicate negative racial attitudes or insults (Sue et al., 2007).
In middle childhood, all children lack a clear understanding of adoption (Brodzinsky et al., 1984).
TRAs at this age are particularly vulnerable to MAs. Piaget (1963) suggests stage differences in children’s understanding of biases between the pre-operational stage (PO; ages 2-7) and concrete operational stage (CO; ages 8-11): PO children may have limited perspective-taking skills that are important in understanding biases.
Contextual diversity may moderate a TRA’s awareness of MAs (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). However, there are conflicting arguments about the role of diversity for TRA children (Lee & Quintana, 2005; Adams et al., 2005).
Awareness of RMAs was significantly correlated with age differences, but there was no significant difference between Piaget’s stages
Greater variance in the sample of older children
Understanding of microaggressions may occur continuously rather than in strict stages, as in Piaget’s theory
No such trend was found for AMAs, perhaps because cultural socialization activities (e.g. language classes) were more centered on race than adoption
As TRAs grow older, the rate of development of awareness is highest in communities of medium diversity
Diversity threshold in developing awareness: TRAs in communities of medium diversity may have just enough stimulation in diversity to develop a better awareness of RMAs
Children in the group of highest community diversity had the lowest awareness – perhaps in these communities, differences were normalized
Limitations
Secondary data analysis (difficulty in operationalization of diversity, not all microaggression instances may have been captured)
Parent report of classroom and adoption diversity – different concepts of “diversity”, no inter-rater reliability
Modest sample size; Families were limited to Northeastern U.S., TRAs were girls; More PO children (n = 27) than CO children (n = 15).
General Findings
Mean: 6.10 total MAs per child
TRA children tended to experience more AMAs (M = 5.02, SD = 2.17) than RMAs (M = 1.71, SD = 3.95)
However, they were significantly more aware of RMAs (M = 23.6%, SD = 40.7%) than AMAs (M = 10%, SD = 20.5%); t(42) = 2.307, p < 0.05
No significant relations found between contextual diversity & prevalence of MAs
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
What is the prevalence of AMAs and RMAs in TRAs’ lives?
Are TRAs more aware of AMAs or RMAs?
Do TRAs experience more microaggression messages in more diverse contexts?
Is there a developmental difference among TRAs in their awareness of microaggressions?
To what extent does contextual diversity relate to the awareness TRAs have of AMAs and RMAs?
Does contextual diversity moderate developmental differences in TRAs’ awareness of microaggressions?
Developmental Differences
Significant correlation between age and awareness of RMAs (r = 0.352, p < 0.05), but no significant group difference between PO TRAs (under 7) and CO TRAs (over 7)
However, CO TRAs had a correlation of r = 0.575, p < 0.05, whereas PO TRAs had a lower correlation of r = 0.380, p < 0.05 (age and awareness of RMAs)
Contextual Diversity and Awareness of Microaggressions
No significant relations: contextual diversity and awareness of AMAs and RMAs.
Regression to determine whether contextual diversity significantly moderated age and awareness of RMAs revealed that community diversity was a significant moderator. Communities of medium diversity showed the highest correlation between age and awareness.
CONCLUSIONS
Important to keep a developmental lens in mind when examining TRAs’ awareness of microaggressions
May contribute to age-appropriate explanations and explanations of race, adoption, and biases in educational, community, and family settings
Other factors, such as ethnic identity and cultural socialization, can contribute to a child’s awareness of biases – more research is required to understand the relations between these factors and awareness of MAs
Further studies are required to determine the specific relations between contextual diversity and awareness of MAs, particularly in communities of medium diversity.
METHODS
Secondary data analysis of the Adoption and Development Project: 42 TRA children ranging from ages 5-9
Predictors: Contextual diversity (community racial diversity, school racial diversity, classroom racial diversity, and adoption diversity); age
Outcomes: Number of MA messages, awareness of MAs (% child-noted MAs / total MAs per child)
RQ1: Prevalence of AMAs and RMAs in TRA children’s lives
Descriptive statistics (range, mean, standard deviation)
Correlation analyses (prevalence of MAs and contextual diversity)
RQ2: Developmental differences in awareness of MAs
Correlation analyses between age and awareness of RMAs and AMAs
Independent sample t-test for Piagetian stages of cognitive development
RQ3: Contextual diversity and awareness of MAs
Correlation analyses between contextual diversity and awareness of AMAs and RMAs
RQ4: Contextual diversity as a moderator in age and awareness of MAs
Separate regression analyses for each context (community, school, classroom, and adoption)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Funded by the William T. Grant Foundation and Tufts University. This research would not have been possible without the families participating in this study.
REFERENCES
DISCUSSION
Adams, G., Gamache, G., & Tessler, R. (2006). Adoption Quarterly: “The development of ethnic identity among Chinese adoptees: paradoxical effects of school diversity.” Adoption & Fostering, 30(1), 91.
Baden, A. L. (2015). “Do You Know Your Real Parents?” and Other Adoption Microaggressions. Adoption Quarterly, 0(ja), 00–00.
Brodzinsky, D. M., Singer, L. M, & Braff, A. M. (1984). Children’s understanding of adoption. Child Development, 55,
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lee, D. C., & Quintana, S. M. (2005). Benefits of cultural exposure and development of Korean perspective-taking ability for transracially adopted Korean children. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 11(2), 130–143.
Piaget, J. (1963). Origins of intelligence in the child. New York: Norton.
Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., & al, et. (2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical practice. The American Psychologist, 62(4), 271–286.
Vashchenko, M., D’Aleo, M., & Pinderhughes, E. E. (2011). “Just beyond my front door”: Public discourse experiences of children adopted from China. American Journal of Community Psychology, 49(1-2), 246–257.
TRAs experienced more AMAs but were more significantly aware of RMAs, possibly because physical differences between TRAs and their adoptive parents may trigger more opportunities for AMAs, as well as make children more aware of race
Race may also be an easier concept to understand than adoption because more emotional and cognitive development may be required for understanding adoption