Racial Discrimination, Racial Socialization, and Crime: Understanding Mechanisms of Resilience*

Callie H. Burt University of Washington

Man Kit Lei

University of Georgia

Ronald L. Simons University of Georgia

*Please cite as: Burt, Callie H., Man Kit Lei, and Ronald L. Simons. In press. Racial discrimination, racial socialization, and crime: Understanding mechanisms of resilience. Social Problems.

Direct all correspondence to Callie Burt, Dept. of Sociology, University of Washington, Box 353340 Savery Hall, Seattle, WA 98195-3340. The first author’s work on this project was supported by a W.E.B. Du Bois Fellowship from the National Institute of Justice. The FACHS 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 are grateful to Kara Hannula for valuable comments on several drafts of this manuscript.

1

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, RACIAL SOCIALIZATION, AND CRIME: UNDERSTANDING MECHANISMS OF RESILIENCE

ABSTRACT Taking a “strength approach” to African American families and cultures, recent research demonstrates that familial racial socialization provides resilience to the criminogenic effects of interpersonal racial discrimination among Black youth. Building on these nascent findings, the present study takes a process-oriented approach to understand how racial socialization reduces and counteracts the effects of discrimination on offending. Building on a social schematic theory of offending (Burt & Simons 2011), this study explores whether two social psychological factors, positive racial identities and spirituality, serve as mechanisms through which racial socialization provides resilience. We test our hypotheses with structural equation models using data from the Family and Community Health Study (FACHS), a longitudinal, multisite study of roughly 700 African American youth and their primary caregivers followed from late childhood to early adulthood. Consistent with our theoretical model, findings suggest that familial racial socialization practices provide resilience to the criminogenic effects of racial discrimination in large part by increasing positive racial identities and spirituality. Implications of these findings and directions for future research are discussed.

KEYWORDS: racial discrimination; racial socialization; crime; racial identity; resilience

2

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, RACIAL SOCIALIZATION, AND CRIME: UNDERSTANDING MECHANISMS OF RESILIENCE

For many years scholars neglected the cogent insights of Du Bois (1899) that racial discrimination is

directly implicated in the genesis of crime among African Americans. This oversight is being corrected, as

at least 15 recent studies have evinced the criminogenic consequences of racially discriminatory

interactions for African Americans (e.g., Burt et al. 2012; Martin et al. 2011; Simons et al. 2006; Unnever

et al. 2009). The evidence is clear and moving to the mainstream: interpersonal racial discrimination—the

blatant, subtle and covert actions, verbal messages, or signals that are supported by racism and malign

mistreat or otherwise harm racial minorities (Essed 1991; Feagin 1991)— is a risk factor for street crime

and, therefore, plays a role in explaining racial disparities in offending.1 The costs of racial discrimination,

in addition to other negative social, psychological, and physiological outcomes (e.g., Clark et al. 1999;

Krieger 2000; Williams 1997) thus include an increased risk of crime for African Americans (e.g., Burt et

al. 2012; Unnever and Gabbidon 2011). These findings imply that reducing or eradicating discrimination

would be a potent crime prevention strategy in addition to being a just goal in its own right.

Unjustly, interpersonal racial discrimination persists (Feagin 2010). Given both the stubborn

persistence of racial discrimination and the fact that most African Americans do not engage in crime in

response to racial discrimination, scholarly attention has turned to sources of resilience—factors that

enhance an individual’s ability to overcome challenging or threatening circumstances (Masten, Best, and

Garmezy 1990; Rutter 1987). Recognizing the strengths of racial minorities in the face of racial oppression,

scholars have focused on identifying aspects of African American cultures that foster resilience to racism

(Bowman and Howard 1985; Peters and Massey 1983). In contrast to earlier and misguided cultural deficit

approaches, which neglected racialized structural constraints and blamed Blacks for their position in

society (see Muhammad 2010), this “strength approach” highlights adaptive facets of African American

cultures that contribute to positive adjustment in a racist context (e.g., Essed 1991).

Over the past several decades, an impressive body of research has identified racial socialization—

which includes adaptive and protective practices used by minorities to promote healthy functioning in a

society stratified by race—as a key cultural resource equipping minority youth with competencies to

3

overcome racism (e.g., Hughes et al. 2006; Stevenson 2003). Particularly relevant, two recent studies have

shown that racial socialization provides resilience to the criminogenic effects of racial discrimination (Burt

et al. 2012; Burt and Simons 2015). Specifically, these studies showed that two salient forms of racial

socialization—cultural socialization and especially preparation for bias—buffer and compensate for the

effects of racial discrimination on increased offending.2

The present study seeks to build on these recent findings and enhance our understanding of these risk

and resilience processes among African American youth by examining how racial socialization reduces the

criminogenic effects of racial discrimination. In other words, we seek to identify some of the individual

mechanisms through which racial socialization fosters resilience. Broadening the focus beyond

documenting the presence of a protective effect of racial socialization to the mechanisms that underlie this

effect is important both for knowledge and for informing preventative interventions.3 Only when we

understand the processes through which racial socialization practices provide resilience can we effectively

strategize about their uses for informing policies that seek to foster prosocial coping and persistence

towards valued goals in the face of racial hostilities.

Theory and research on culture, stress, and coping from sociology, African American studies, and

psychology suggest two potential mechanisms: racial identity and spirituality (e.g., Brown 2008; Nicolas et

al. 2008). We hypothesize that through teachings about cultural heritage and pride, racial socialization

practices strengthen positive racial identities, which buffer youth against some of the potential harmful

effects of racial discrimination (e.g., Cross et al. 1991; Neblett et al. 2009; Sellers et al. 2006). In addition,

we expect that by providing a system of meaning and purpose, faith, hope, and a sense of

interconnectedness, spirituality/religiosity4 is an important mechanism through which racial socialization

inculcates resilience to racial discrimination (e.g., Barnes 2009; Bowen-Reid and Harrell 2002; Stevenson

1997). Based on this research, we propose that these factors are individual mechanisms through which

racial socialization compensates for and buffers the criminogenic effects of racial socialization.

In sum, the present study attempts to fill gaps in our understanding of linkages between race, culture,

and crime by elaborating an integrative, micro-level model of racial discrimination, racial socialization, and

4

offending among African American youth (Burt et al. 2012; Burt and Simons 2015).5 We build on recent

efforts that link racial discrimination to offending through a life-course learning theory, known as the social

schematic theory (Simons and Burt 2011; Simons et al. 2014). In so doing, we highlight the role of race-

specific risk and cultural resilience factors in the lives of Black youth and investigate the mechanisms

through which these interactional factors influence development and criminal behavior.

Notably, we build upon research that establishes interpersonal racial discrimination as a

criminogenic risk factor. Our theoretical model prioritizes the role of racist structural arrangements—

specifically white racism instantiated in discriminatory interactions—as a causal force setting in motion a

developmental cascade that may increase the likelihood of offending, an outcome that has been (and

continues to be) argued to result largely from cultural (e.g., Wolfgang and Ferracuti 1967) or biological

deficits (e.g., Wright and Morgan 2014). As we elaborate below, our model highlights (unconscious)

cognitive adaptations that promote self-protection and survival in the face of social hostilities. Importantly,

we do not conceive of these cognitive adaptations or social schemas as unique to racial minorities. That is,

we do not posit the existence of a unique Black psychology or distinct personality traits (e.g., Poussaint

1983; Curtis 1975). As we discuss, we focus on the development of criminogenic cognitive schemas that

result from internalizing the lessons inherent in hostile, unpredictable social experiences—racist and non-

racist in origin (Simons et al. 2014). Moreover, our approach emphasizes the adaptive strengths of African

American families in fostering healthy development in the midst of a racially stratified society (e.g., Burt et

al. 2012). At its core, our model locates “the problem” in racist structural arrangements and explores how

racist social acts influence development among minority youth with the goal of better understanding the

remarkable resilience to racial discrimination that is rooted, in part, in everyday cultural practices within

African American families.

In the following pages, we discuss the theory and research undergirding the present study. The data

that will be used to test the study hypotheses is the Family and Community Health Study (FACHS), a

survey of African American families from Iowa and Georgia. The FACHS study is unique. It is the largest

in-depth panel study of African Americans in the United States. It examines Black families from a range of

5

socioeconomic situations from the very poor to the upper middle class. With its developmental focus and

wealth of familial information, the FACHS is particularly well suited for the present study.

<A> Interpersonal Racial Discrimination and Crime As noted, more than a dozen studies over the past decade have linked interpersonal racial discrimination to

an increased risk of offending among Black Americans (see Unnever and Gabbidon 2011, for a review).

More recently, scholarship has focused on understanding the processes through which interpersonal racial

discrimination increases the likelihood of general offending. The challenge is explaining how

discrimination augments the risk of general offending, not limited to immediate backlash against the

perpetrator(s). Addressing this challenge, several recent studies have linked racial discrimination to

offending drawing upon a recently developed social schematic theory of crime (Simons and Burt 2011;

Burt and Simons 2015). Building on these efforts, the present study links racial discrimination to an

increased risk of offending through this developmental learning theory.

The social schematic theory (SST; Simons and Burt 2011) is a life-course learning theory that

elucidates the social psychological processes through which social-environmental adversities and supports

influence individual differences in propensities to offend. Drawing on insights from social learning (e.g.,

Akers 1985), structural-cultural (e.g., Anderson 1999), and information-processing theories (e.g., Dodge

and Pettit 2003), SST emphasizes the role of the lessons communicated by the persistent and recurring

interactions that comprise an individual’s everyday existence. These lessons are stored as social schemas,

defined as cognitive representations of the patterns in social interaction that influence future behavior by

specifying the import and meaning of various social stimuli and the probable consequences of various lines

of action (Crick and Dodge 1994). Numerous theories in social and developmental psychology suggest that

social schemas (and similar concepts such as social heuristics and scripts) serve as the link between past

experiences and future behavior, as they are tacitly relied upon when defining situations and forming lines

of action (e.g., Crick and Dodge 1994; Shank and Abelson 1977).

Focusing on criminal behavior, SST proposes that various social insults—such as racial

discrimination—increase individuals’ propensities to crime because they foster criminogenic social

schemas, or those that increase the likelihood that situations are defined as justifying or excusing law

6

violation (see also Simons et al. 2014). In brief, SST postulates that individuals who are frequently exposed

to unpredictable, harsh, and unfair social interactions and environments internalize messages that delayed

rewards rarely materialize, the world is a hostile, unpredictable place, and social rules and punishments do

not apply equally to everyone.

Drawing on established theories in criminology and developmental psychology, Simons and Burt

(2011) identified three key criminogenic schemas. These include impulsivity or low self-control (e.g.,

Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990), hostile views of relationships (e.g., Anderson 1999; Dodge 2006), and

disengagement from conventional norms (e.g., Akers 1985; Hirschi 1969). Arguing that because the

schemas are rooted in the same set of harsh, unpredictable social conditions, which communicate similar

lessons about the world, Simons and Burt (2011) contend these three schemas coalesce into a higher-order

criminogenic knowledge structure (CKS) that makes situational definitions compelling or legitimating

crime more likely, thereby increasing propensities to offend. Research supports the contention that the CKS

mediates between social conditions and criminal behavior (e.g., Burt and Simons 2011; Simons et al.

2014).

Focusing on racial discrimination, several studies have linked racial discrimination to offending

through one or more of the schemas in the CKS (e.g., Simons et al. 2006; Stewart and Simons 2006). More

recently, Burt and Simons (2015, see also, Simons and Burt 2011; Simons et al. 2014) demonstrated that

racial discrimination increased the risk of offending in large part through the CKS. Together, these results

provide evidence that racial discrimination increases the risk of offending in large part through its effects

on these criminogenic cognitive schemas. This is the theoretical model we adopt in the present study. Thus,

consistent with prior work, we expect that racial discrimination increases the risk of crime in large part

through the CKS, in other words, by fostering a view of the world as hostile, unpredictable, and unfair.

<A> Racial Socialization as Cultural Resilience Recognizing that resilience to racial discrimination, including its criminogenic effects, is the rule rather

than the exception, scholars have identified racial socialization as an important racially-specific cultural

practice that promotes resilience to racial discrimination among minority youth (e.g., Hughes et al. 2006).

Broadly, racial socialization is “the process through which children come to understand their own and

7

others’ identities, roles, and positions vis-à-vis race in various contexts, and how race will function in their

lives” (Winkler 2011: 274). Although children receive racial socialization messages from numerous

sources, scholarship has highlighted familial racial socialization—defined as explicit or tacit messages that

family members communicate to children about their racial cultural heritage and history, the realities of

racism, and how to cope with racism effectively (e.g., Hughes et al. 2006; Stevenson et al. 2003). Research

among Black families suggests that, to varying degrees, family members communicate messages to

children about African American pride, strength, and achievement and impart values, attitudes, and a set of

critical tools for negotiating a racially hostile society (Hughes et al. 2006; Winkler 2011). Indeed, a trove of

studies documents the existence and importance of familial racial socialization among Black families,

demonstrating that youth draw upon this cultural resource as they navigate a society hostile to racial

differences (for a review, see Hughes et al. 2006; Lesane-Brown 2006). Two forms of racial socialization

have been identified as particularly relevant to youths’ resilience: preparation for bias and cultural

socialization.

<B>Preparation for Bias. Given that most African Americans will face discrimination in their lives, a

critical component of parenting for Black families is making children aware of prejudice and discrimination

and giving them tools and tips to deal with its various manifestations (e.g., Peters 1985; Hughes et al.

2006). Scholars have argued that preparing children for racial discrimination facilitates healthy, prosocial

coping with racial hostilities (Spencer 1983; Stevenson et al. 1997). Examples include talking to youth

about the potential for experiencing discrimination and discussing ways to cope with such inimical

experiences as well as pointing out or talking about examples of discrimination experienced by family

members or covered in the media (e.g., differential treatment of crimes against whites vs. those against

African Americans or stereotypical portrayals of Black Americans on television shows; e.g., Winkler

2011). These various actions by which adults warn youth about and discuss discrimination and provide

skills and strategies for coping with and overcoming racial barriers are known as preparation for bias

(Hughes et al. 2006). Through these practices African American children learn to place specific social

8

occurrences in a general context of race relations and develop strategies to resist and overcome racism

(Essed 1991).

Research suggests that the majority of black families engage in at least some preparation for bias,

with studies of African American families reporting prevalence rates usually between 60-90% (e.g.,

Hughes et al. 2006). Moreover, several studies have found that preparation for bias buffers the negative

effects of racial discrimination on indicators of psychological well-being (e.g., Bynum et al. 2007; Fischer

and Shaw 1999; Harris-Britt et al. 2007). Furthermore, as aforementioned, two recent studies using the

FACHS found that preparation for bias reduced the effects of racial discrimination on offending (Burt and

Simons 2015; Burt et al. 2012). Burt and colleagues’ findings indicated that preparation for bias had a

strong protective effect in two ways: it reduced the effect of discrimination on criminogenic cognitive

schemas (the CKS), and it reduced the effects of the CKS on offending.

<B>Cultural Socialization. Cultural socialization practices emphasize racial heritage and promote cultural

customs and traditions, thereby fostering children’s racial pride and sense of belonging (Stevenson 1995).

These practices “include teaching children how to be proud of their culture because its substance is historic,

African derived, culturally empowering, and not dependent on oppressive experiences” and a “view of the

self as extended and interactional as opposed to individualistic” (Stevenson 1995: 51-52; see also Hughes et

al. 2006). Specific practices include discussing the achievements and contributions of prominent African

Americans in spite of racial oppression, sharing familial stories of strength, and broadly celebrating African

culture in ways that promote racial pride and the negation of racist ideas youth will encounter in broader

society (Winkler 2011; Peters 1985). These caregiving strategies have evolved to encourage esteem and a

sense of racial pride and belonging among minority children in a racist society (Billingsley 1992; Bowman

and Howard 1985). Cultural socialization is a salient part of child rearing among Black families. Studies of

African American families indicate that the percentage of parents who report cultural socialization is

invariably higher than 80% (Hughes et al. 2006).

Research demonstrates the beneficial effects of cultural socialization on development, linking these

practices to fewer externalizing problems, including less fighting and better anger management (Stevenson

9

2003), and fewer internalizing problems (e.g., reduced depression, anxiety, anger, and distress [e.g., Burt

2009; Bynum et al. 2007; Caughy et al. 2002]). In addition, a recent study using the FACHS data revealed

that cultural socialization was negatively associated with disengagement from norms among males (Burt et

al. 2012). Although not having as strong a resilience effect as that observed for preparation for bias, there is

ample research suggesting that cultural socialization may indirectly foster resilience to the criminogenic

effects of racial discrimination through its influence on racial identity, discussed below.

<Figure 1 about here>

Figure 1 depicts the theoretical model on which the present study builds. As discussed, this model

shows that racial discrimination leads to offending in large part by increasing the CKS. Prior research

shows that racial socialization provides resilience indirectly by buffering the effects of racial discrimination

and the CKS on crime (buffering effects displayed with dashed lines) as well as directly by decreasing the

CKS and crime (compensatory effects). The mechanisms by which racial socialization provides resilience,

however, are not well understood. Shedding light on this gap in knowledge is the primary goal of the

present study. Scholarship suggests that racial identity and spirituality are associated with racial

socialization and contribute to positive adjustment among African Americans. We consider whether these

serve as individual mechanisms through which racial socialization exerts some of its resilience effects.

<B>Resilience Mechanisms <C>Racial Identity. Scholarship suggests that racial socialization practices may promote resilience to

racial discrimination in part by fostering positive racial identities. Among Black Americans, racial identity

is defined as “the significance and qualitative meaning that individuals attribute to being Black in their

conceptualizations of self” (Sellers and Shelton 2003:180). Scholars have identified several dimensions of

racial identity (e.g., Sellers et al. 1997). The two key dimensions that emerge from this work are centrality

and regard (e.g., Sellers et al. 2006). Centrality is defined as the extent to which race is an important part of

one’s identity, whereas the extent to which one holds positive or negative attitudes about one’s race is

termed private regard (e.g., Sellers et al. 1998). Evidence, including our preliminary analyses, suggests that

both high centrality and high private regard are influenced by shared factors, operate in a similar fashion,

10

and coalesce. As such, we use the general term positive racial identity to refer to the combination of high

centrality and high regard, such that individuals with high scores on this measure have positive attitudes

towards their race that are more central to their self-concept. Phrased alternatively, we conceive of a

positive racial identity as a sense of belonging to one’s racial group, the importance of this internalized

sense of belonging, and a strong favorable attitude toward that group.

Racial identity and racial socialization are closely linked. In the process of racial identity

development, African Americans attempt to integrate the values of their culture and the larger society into

an internalized representation of their self-concept (Sellers et al. 2006). This integration entails asking the

question: “Who am I racially?” and “What does it mean to be an African American?” (Tatum 1997:72).

Racial socialization shapes a child’s beliefs and attitudes about race and is intimately connected to the

process of racial identity development (e.g., Hughes et al. 2009; Neblett et al. 2009). Murray and Mandara

(2002: 84) note, “When children overhear parents talking about race, observe their reactions to people of

other races, or receive direct instructions from the regarding other races [racial socialization], their racial

awareness and identity are being developed.” Consonant with these ideas, several studies using different

samples and measures suggest that racial socialization is strongly associated with the development of a

positive racial identity (e.g., Demo and Hughes 1994; Hughes et al. 2009; Stevenson 1995). Consequently,

we hypothesize that racial socialization increases positive racial identities.

Having a positive racial identity has been conceptually and empirically linked to psychological

health among African Americans (e.g., Cross 1991; Miller and McIntosh 1999; White and Parham 1990).

Studies have shown, for example, that a more positive racial identity is directly associated with

psychological well-being, including less depression, perceived stress, and anxiety as well as higher self-

esteem among Black adults and youth (e.g., Carter 1991; Cross 1991; Hughes et al. 2015; Sellers et al.

2006). Given this, we expect positive racial identities mediate a portion of racial socialization’s

compensatory effects on the CKS. Specifically, we hypothesize that a more positive racial identity is

negatively related to the CKS. On the other hand, studies linking racial identity directly to fewer deviant or

antisocial behaviors are scant and inconclusive (e.g., Caldwell et al. 2004; Hughes et al. 2009; Yasui et al.

11

2004). Thus, while we examine whether positive racial identities have a direct compensatory effect on

crime, we expect that this effect will be indirect through the CKS.

In addition to its compensatory effects, we expect that a positive racial identity will indirectly reduce

offending by buffering the criminogenic effects of racial discrimination (e.g., Cross et al. 1991; Sellers et

al. 2003, 2006). Scholars have argued, for example, “the internalization of a strong sense of racial centrality

and group affiliation may offset the stigmatization and marginalization that being [African American] in

this society engenders” (Caldwell et al. 2004: 100). Research suggests that the psychological insult of racial

discrimination is weaker for youth who have a positive racial identity, which can serve as a “suit of armor

against the hostilities of the environment” (Miller and MacIntosh 1999:160). In particular, several recent

studies provide evidence that positive racial identities reduce the effects of discrimination on mental health,

stress, and well-being (e.g., Neblett et al. 2009; Sellers et al. 2006); academic self-concept and achievement

(Wong et al. 2003); self-esteem (Greene et al. 2006); and school bonding (Dotterer et al. 2009). Focusing

on the buffering effect of racial identity on antisocial behavior, research shows that racial centrality buffers

the effects of racial discrimination on violence among African American males (Caldwell et al. 2004), and

group pride (a component of ethnic identity similar to private regard) attenuates the effects of racial

discrimination on aggression, delinquency, and criminal offending (Williams et al. 2014), echoing findings

from Umaña and colleagues (2012) among Latino youth. Drawing on this body of research, we hypothesize

that racial socialization reduces the criminogenic effects of racial discrimination in part by fostering

positive racial identities. In other words, we expect that a positive racial identity is a mechanism that

mediates the buffering effects of racial socialization, particularly cultural socialization.

To sum up the role of positive racial identity in our theoretical model, we hypothesize that racial

socialization is associated with more positive racial identities. More positive racial identities, in turn, are

hypothesized to decrease the CKS (compensatory effect) as well as buffer (protective effect) the effects of

racial discrimination on the CKS and offending. These hypotheses are depicted in Figure 2. (Note that

dotted lines refer to protective (moderating) effects while solid lines refer to direct effects.)

<Figure 2 about here>

12

<C>Spirituality. For many African Americans, spirituality is a key source of strength and resilience (e.g.,

Billingsly 1992; Du Bois 1899; Nicolas et al. 2008). Theory and research suggest both the importance of

spirituality in Black culture generally as well as the strength it provides to individuals, including mitigating

some of the harms caused by discrimination (e.g., Blaine and Crocker 1995; Lincoln and Mamiya 1990).

Not surprising given the historical and present-day salience of spirituality and “the Black Church” in

African American cultures (e.g., Billingsley and Caldwell 1991; Mattis and Jagers 2001), there exists a

strong tie between racial socialization and spirituality (e.g., Nicolas et al. 2008; Stevenson 1997). Racial

socialization practices that promote cultural traditions and the importance of cultural practices may draw

upon or point to the important role of the Black Church and the value of spirituality in life (Mattis and

Jagers 2001). Given this, we hypothesize that racial socialization is associated with increased spirituality.

Research examining the effects of spirituality/religiosity in the lives of youth indicates that

spirituality is positively associated with psychological well-being and prosocial outcomes and negatively

related to delinquency, substance use, and risky health behaviors (e.g., Donahue and Benson 1995). These

general findings are consistent with those among African American youth. For example, Jagers and Mock

(1993) reported that spirituality was associated with less delinquency and heightened focus on prosocial

values, including cooperation and empathy. Stevenson (2003) reported that African American males who

are exposed to more messages about religion and spirituality (and presumably internalize them)

demonstrate better anger control and less aggression. Such findings indicate that spirituality promotes

prosocial coping and behaviors in part by fostering emotional and behavioral self-regulation and concern

for others (Mattis and Jagers 2001). Given this we hypothesize that spirituality is a compensatory factor,

which decreases the likelihood of crime through the mechanisms identified by SST. In other words, we

expect that the CKS mediates the negative effects of spirituality on crime.

Focusing on protective effects, a wealth of scholarship has highlighted the protective effects of

spirituality (e.g., Feder et al. 2010; Pargament et al. 1998). Spirituality has been identified as a resilience

resource through its effects on coping6 (see Pargament 1997 for a review). Theory and research indicate

that spirituality facilitates coping with adversity by providing a sense of meaning and purpose, emotional

13

comfort, personal control, and intimacy with others (e.g., Ellison 1994; Spilka, Saver, and Kirkpatrick

1985; Pargament et al. 1998), and, as a consequence, spirituality is associated with less distress in response

to stressful life experiences (e.g., Park, Cohen, & Murch 1996; Pargament and Cummings 2010).

Particularly apposite, evidence suggests that spirituality promotes resilience to racial discrimination

and plays “a vital role in infusing Black youth with messages of strength and hope” (Nicolas et al.

2008:270). For example, research on African Americans suggests that spirituality can increase optimism

and hope in the face of racial barriers and hence promote persistence towards valued goals, greater self-

efficacy, and active problem solving in the face of racist obstacles while protecting against despair (see

Pargament and Cummings 2010). Scholarship has highlighted the role of spirituality in providing

individuals with a system of meaning through which racism and discriminatory events can be interpreted

(Brega and Coleman 1999; Blaine and Crocker 1995; Nicholas et al. 2008). Although evidence is sparse, a

few studies suggest that spirituality/religiosity buffers some of the effects of racial discrimination on

negative psychological health (e.g., Brown and Gary 1987; Bowen-Reid and Harrell 2002). In short,

research suggests that spirituality can aid in coping with racist experiences through its effects on sustaining

meaning and perseverance in pursuit of valued goals, creating an emotional cushion for dealing with

racism, and fostering positivity, persistence, and sustained purpose in the face of racist obstacles and

adversities. Given this, we also expect that spirituality reduces the effects of discrimination on crime and

that it does so by buffering the effect of discrimination on the CKS and/or the link between the CKS and

crime. These hypotheses are depicted in Figure 2.

Notably, given their common antecedents in racial socialization practices as well as the fact that

these processes overlap and are mutually reinforcing (e.g., Demo and Hughes 1990; Sanchez and Carter

2005), we expect that racial identity and religiosity are positively associated. This covariation is

represented in Figure 2 by the dotted line linking the two concepts.

<A>SUMMARY OF HYPOTHESES

The present study aims to elaborate a developing model of racial discrimination, racial socialization, and

offending to enhance understanding of the social psychological mechanisms through which a cultural

14

resource—familial racial socialization—compensates for and buffers the criminogenic effects of crime. To

this end, we hypothesize that positive racial identities and spirituality are two distinct, but related,

individual mechanisms fostered by racial socialization that mediate much of its protective effects. As

shown in Figure 2, we test whether racial socialization counteracts and attenuates the criminogenic effects

of discrimination by increasing positive racial identities and spirituality building upon the SST model. This

implies both mediation of compensatory effects and mediation of buffering effects identified in prior

research.

<A>RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS <B>Sample The present study uses data from the first five waves of the FACHS, a longitudinal, multisite investigation

of health and development among African American families living in Iowa and Georgia at the first

interview. The FACHS was designed to analyze the particular risks and resources—both general and

culturally specific—that disrupt or promote African American family functioning and youth development

in various contexts. As the only longitudinal study of African Americans with measures of the distinctive

risks and resources faced by individuals and communities of color as well as general measures such as

crime and social schemas, the FACHS unique strengths make it particularly well-suited for testing the

research questions addressed in the present study.

At the initiation of the study, the FACHS sample consisted of 889 African American families living

in Georgia and Iowa with a child in the 5th grade. Using 1990 census data, block groups were identified in

both Iowa and Georgia in which the percent of African American families was high enough to make

recruitment economically practical (10% or higher), and in which the percent of families with children

living below the poverty line were variable (ranging from 10% to 100%). Using these criteria, 259 block

group areas were identified (115 in Georgia and 144 in Iowa). In both Georgia and Iowa, families were

randomly selected from these rosters and contacted to determine their interest in participating in the project.

The response rate for the contacted families was 84%. Researchers compared census tracts included in the

FACHS sample with those in Georgia and Iowa to ensure variability and representativeness. More detail on

the sampling procedure can be found elsewhere (see Burt et al. 2012; Simons et al. 2005).

15

At the initiation of the study, 28% of the study children lived with both of their biological parents,

38% with a cohabitating or married stepparent, and 35% with a single parent. Most (84%) of the primary

caregivers (PCs) were the target child’s biological mothers (6% were fathers, 6% were grandmothers).

Their mean age was 37.1 years and ranged from 23 to 80 years. Ninety-two percent of the PCs identified

themselves as Black. Median family income was $26,227, and the average number of children was 3.42.

<B>Attrition and Follow-up The FACHS retention rate has been remarkably high. Of the 889 target youth who participated in the first

wave of the study, 779 (88%), 767 (86%), 714 (80%), and 689 (78%) were re-interviewed in waves 2

through 5, respectively. Data collection was completed for these waves in 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, and

2009. The mean age of the target youths was 10.5 (range: 10-12), 12.6 (12-14), 15.7 (15-17), 18.8 (18-20),

and 21.6 (20-23) at waves 1 through 5. Over the years, there has been little evidence of selective attrition

(e.g., Simons et al. 2014). Although when compared to earlier waves, a higher percentage of the wave 5

respondents were female and slightly less delinquent, there were no significant differences between

participants and non-participants with regard to community measures, family structure, or parenting

practices at earlier waves. In this study, we use all available observations for pairwise correlations, which

range from 627 to 804; we use listwise deletion for the multivariate analyses, which produces a study

sample of 609. Notably, to examine potential bias from missing data, we replicated our findings with path

models using full information maximum likelihood (FIML) under missing at random (Little and Rubin

2002). Below we describe the measures that are utilized in our analyses. Because the youths’ experiences

are the focus of this investigation, we use youth self-reports to measure key constructs.

<B>Measures

<C>Crime. The measure of offending was generated using youth self-reports at wave 5 and consists of the

number of different illegal acts or “street crimes” (out of 11) respondents committed in the past year, such

as shoplifting, aggravated assault, illegal drug use, vandalism, theft, and assault with a weapon. Previous

research has shown that offending variety scales are preferable to frequency and dichotomous scales, which

largely reflect variation in the least serious offenses (e.g., Sweeten 2012). The instrument was derived from

a measure created by Huizinga and Elliott (1986). The resulting variety scale gives one point for every type

16

of crime committed by the respondent in the past year (α = .80). Roughly 69 percent of respondents

reported no acts of crime, 16 percent reported 1 act, 7 percent reported 2 acts, and 6 percent reported 3 or 4.

The control for prior crime/delinquency was created with the combined waves 1 and 2 scales. At

these waves, items were culled from the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children, Version 4 (DISC-IV;

American Psychiatric Association 1994). Although the wording and exact content of these scales varies

across these the instruments (for a list see Burt et al. 2014), this is not unusual since the prohibited

behaviors vary over this same time period as well.

Interpersonal Racial Discrimination. The 13-item short form of the widely used and validated

Schedule of Racist Events (SRE; Landrine and Klonoff 1996), which measures perceived racial

discrimination over the past 12 months, is used at waves 4 and 5. This scale has been used in a number of

previous studies utilizing the FACHS and has demonstrated high validity and reliability (e.g., Brody et al.

2006; see Burt et al. 2012 for a list of items). Respondents are asked to indicate how often various

discriminatory acts or microaggressions occurred “because of your race or ethnic background.” The

measure incorporates racially based slurs and insults, physical threats, false accusations from law

enforcement officials, and disrespectful treatment from others “because of your race or ethnic background.”

Items include, “How often has someone yelled a racial slur or racial insult at you…?”; “How often has

someone said something insulting to you…?”; and “How often has someone suspected you of doing

something wrong…?” Response categories ranged from 1 “Never” to 4 “Frequently.” The 13-item scales at

waves 4 and 5 (α = .90 for both) were standardized and combined to create a measure of persistent

interpersonal experiences with racial discrimination (α = .69).7

Experiencing racial discrimination was not uncommon; yet there was considerable variation in the

frequency among the respondents. Focusing on wave 4, the overwhelming majority (88%) of the youth

reported experiencing at least one of the racial discrimination events in the past year. On average, the youth

experienced 5 different acts of discrimination in the year preceding the wave 4 interview (when the youth

were aged 17-19). Although males and females reported experiencing similar amounts of racial

17

discrimination at wave 4, males reported experiencing significantly more racial discrimination than females

at wave 5.8

Racial Socialization. These measures are created from scales adapted from Hughes and colleagues

(Hughes and Chen 1999; Hughes and Dumont 1993), originally derived from focus groups of African

American families. The items measure the frequency of a range of familial behaviors and communications

with children around the issue of race in the previous 12 months and have demonstrated high validity and

reliability.9 Cultural socialization was measured at waves 3 and 4 with youth responses to five questions

about how often adults in their family engaged in activities or communications that highlighted African

American culture and history or promoted black pride, such as “celebrating cultural holidays” or “talking

about important people or events. Coefficient alpha for the measure was approximately .85 at both waves.

These scales were standardized and averaged to create a measure of cumulative cultural socialization across

the two waves (α = .53).

Preparation for bias was measured at waves 3 and 4 with 6 items that assess the frequency of a

variety of messages youth received about prejudice and discrimination from adults in their families (α = .87

and .91, respectively). The measure includes discussions about poor or unfair treatment on the basis of race

and racist mistreatment observed on television as well as the idea that youth will “have to be better than

others”. At wave 5, four items were retained and the instrument was changed to assess messages and

communications in the past year from family or friends (α = .83). The preparation for bias scales across the

three waves loaded onto a common factor, and thus, were standardized and combined to create a measure

of cumulative exposure to preparation for bias (α = .65).

Criminogenic Knowledge Structure (CKS). Consistent with prior work on SST (Burt and Simons

2015; Simons and Burt 2011), this construct is measured at wave 5 as a composite of three scales, including

immediate gratification (12 items α = .74), hostile views of relationships (18 items; α = .90), and

disengagement from conventional norms (7 items; α = .85). These subscales coalesce with high loadings on

a common factor predicted by discrimination and predictive of offending (Burt and Simons 2015; Simons

et al. 2014).10 Thus, to create the CKS the three subscales were standardized and averaged (α = .62)

18

Positive Racial Identity. This construct is assessed by combining two scales from a shortened version

of the Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity (MIBI, Sellers et al. 1997), which has demonstrated

reliability and validity and has been used in studies of Black adolescents and young adults (Sellers et al.

1997; Shelton and Sellers 2000). Respondents indicated their agreement with the items on a scale ranging

from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Racial centrality is measured with 7 items that assess the

extent to which being Black is an important part of respondents’ identities. Items include: “In general,

being Black is an important part of my self-image,” and “I have a strong attachment to other Black people.”

A higher score on this scale indicates that race is a more central or important aspect of individuals’ self

definitions (α = .62). Five items were used to assess private regard—the extent to which respondents

generally have positive feelings about being African American—including: “I am happy to be Black,” and

“I am proud to be Black” (α = .67). These two scales were standardized and averaged to form the measure

of positive racial identity (α = .61). High scores on this scale are indicative of positive views towards

African Americans and being African American, views that are a more central part of respondents’ self-

concepts/definitions of self.

Spirituality. This measure consists of respondent’s answers to the question: “In general, how

important are religious or spiritual beliefs in your day-to-day life?” Responses ranged from 1 “Very

important” to 4 “Not at all important,” and were reverse coded. This measure is related to, but distinct

from, measures of religious involvement.11

Controls. Several control variables are included where appropriate to capture theoretically relevant

characteristics of youth and their families. These include the respondents’ age and sex/gender; primary

caregiver’s race, gender, and age; and, as noted, involvement in prior delinquency. In addition, given its

association with racial socialization and offending, a composite measure of supportive parenting is

controlled in the models. This measure, used in numerous prior studies (e.g., Burt et al. 2006; Simons et al.

2014), is a composite of four scales from youth reports of primary caregiver warmth, monitoring, problem

solving, and (reverse coded) harsh parenting taken at wave 3 (α = .77) and wave 4 (α = .72), which were

then standardized and combined (α = .60). We also considered including neighborhood heterogeneity,

19

neighborhood disadvantage, household structure, and secondary caregiver characteristics, but preliminary

analyses indicated that these variables were not significantly associated with the processes under

consideration; hence, they were not incorporated in the models.

<B>Analytic Strategy

We investigate the hypothesized moderating and mediating effects in a series of structural equation models

(SEM) in Mplus, Version 7.3 (Muthén and Muthén 2012) corresponding to the path models depicted in

Figures 1 and 2. SEM has a number of advantages over alternatives, such as multiple regression, including

the ability to model correlated error terms and multiple endogenous variables. Perhaps most important for

the proposed study, SEMs allow us to test the significance of the hypothesized direct and indirect effects,

including the significance of specific paths, as well moderating effects through the incorporation of

interactions in a series of equations (Bollen 1989).

In terms of the specific model form, the various measures are modeled as continuous manifest

variables with the exception of crime, which is treated as a count variable and a Poisson regression is used.

We conduct Chi-square difference tests based on log-likelihood values and scaling correction factors to

compare the fit of various models (Muthén and Muthén 2012). Using an indirect effect test utilizing Monte

Carlo integration, we assay a series of mediating pathways. When significant moderating effects were

present, post hoc analyses of significant interaction terms were conducted using simple slope tests.

<A>RESULTS

<B>Descriptives and Preliminaries Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlation matrix for the study variables. The zero-

order pattern of associations is largely as expected. For example, racial discrimination is positively

associated with crime and the CKS. Preparation for bias and cultural socialization are strongly associated (r

= .49), and neither are directly associated with crime. Consistent with prior research using the FACHS,

cultural socialization is negatively correlated with the CKS whereas preparation for bias is positively

associated with the CKS. Consistent with our predictions, both forms of racial socialization are positively

associated with the two proposed mechanisms: spirituality and positive racial identity. In contrast to

positive racial identity, which is not associated with crime, spirituality has a significant negative correlation

20

with crime, and both racial identity and spirituality are inversely associated with the CKS. Among the

controls, supportive parenting is associated with most of the study variables as expected, including a

positive association with cultural socialization, spirituality, and racial identity, but is not significantly

correlated with preparation for bias. In addition, having an African American primary caregiver (versus

other racial/ethnic group) is associated with a lower CKS and higher levels of racial socialization,

spirituality, and racial identity. <Table 1 about here>

Notably, a few sex/gender differences were observed, supporting the inclusion of the control in the

models. As noted, due to higher reports of discrimination in the year preceding wave 5, being male is

correlated with more frequent racial discrimination. Consistent with extant scholarship, males had higher

levels of crime, CKSs, and prior delinquency; females, on the other hand, had higher average levels of

spirituality than males. No sex/gender differences in the measures of racial socialization or positive racial

identity were found.

<B>Mediation Model: Compensation Effects

Figure 3 displays the results of the reduced SEM of racial discrimination on crime through the proposed

mechanisms (standardized coefficients presented). We assessed model fit using the chi-square difference

test. The results showed that the chi-square difference between the fully recursive and our reduced models

did not approach statistical significance, indicating that the models displayed provide a more parsimonious

fit to the data. Consonant with bivariate correlations, the direct paths between racial socialization and crime

were nonsignificant and thus were dropped from the model in the reduction process.

<Figure 3 about here>

Consistent with our expectations and past work, Figure 3 reveals that racial discrimination

significantly increases the CKS, which in turn is strongly associated with crime. Specific indirect effects

and their significance are presented in Table 2. Also consonant with prior work, much of the effect of racial

discrimination on crime is indirect through the CKS. As can be seen at the bottom of Table 2, the indirect

effect of racial discrimination on crime through the CKS is -.16 (p<.001), which is approximately 82% of

the total effects of racial discrimination on crime. <Table 2 about here>

21

Turning to the novel hypotheses that are the focus of the present study, Figure 3 reveals that

cultural socialization is significantly linked to higher levels of spirituality (β = .14) and positive racial

identity (β = .09). Notably, cultural socialization continues to have a direct negative effect on the CKS (β =

.14). Turning to the other form of racial socialization we examine, preparation for bias is significantly

related to positive racial identity (β = .12), but not with spirituality. Moreover, no significant direct

relationship between preparation for bias and either the CKS or crime is observed. Among the final links in

the pathways, consistent with our hypotheses, both spirituality and positive racial identity have a significant

negative relationship with the CKS. Although both are negatively related to crime, these pathways are not

statistically significant. Consistent with our hypotheses, this suggests that by decreasing the CKS, which is

positively associated with crime, positive racial identities and spirituality are individual mechanisms that

mediate the compensatory effects of racial socialization.

We again examine the significance of these indirect effects and directly assess our hypotheses that

racial identity and spirituality mediate the compensatory effects of racial socialization on crime. The results

are displayed in Table 2. Here one can see that cultural socialization has a significant negative effect on the

CKS through spirituality, whereas preparation for bias has a marginally significant negative effect on the

CKS through positive racial identity. Notably, both explain a significant portion of the variance in the CKS.

Spirituality and positive racial identity, in turn, have a significant indirect effect on less crime through the

CKS. Thus, the findings from this mediation model indicate that racial socialization decreases crime in part

by increasing spirituality and positive racial identities, which in turn, are inversely associated with crime

indirectly through the CKS. Next we turn to the question of whether these two mechanisms buffer the

influence of racial discrimination or the CKS on offending.

<C>Moderation Model: Buffering Effects

Figure 4 displays the results of the model where we incorporate hypothesized buffering effects. First,

inconsistent with our expectations, neither spiritualty nor positive racial identities buffered the effects of

racial discrimination on the CKS. Notably, including these moderation effects reduced the fit of the model;

hence, they were dropped in the model reduction process. Consistent with hypotheses, however, both

22

spirituality and positive racial identity significantly attenuate the effect of the CKS on crime; these

buffering effects are displayed with dotted pathways in Figure 4. Notably, model fit comparisons between

Figures 3 and 4 with the added moderation pathways indicate that the addition of these two moderating

effects significantly improved the fit of the model (∆chi-square = 15.117, df = 2, p = .000).

<Figure 4 about here>

The two significant interactions were graphed to facilitate interpretation and are displayed in Figures

5 and 6. As shown in Figure 5, while no differences in the link between the CKS and crime are observed

for groups low and high in spirituality at low levels of the CKS, significant differences in the predicted

probability of offending for groups low and high in spirituality are observed at moderate high to high levels

of the CKS. The same buffering pattern is observed for positive racial identity in Figure 5, such that the

effects of a high CKS on increased offending is significantly attenuated by positive racial identities. Thus,

consistent with our hypotheses, these results suggest that spirituality and positive racial identities are

individual mechanisms through which racial socialization practices buffer the criminogenic effects of racial

discrimination. <Figures 5 and 6 about here>

<A>DISCUSSION

Building on recent studies that demonstrated that familial racial socialization practices provide

resilience to the criminogenic effects of interpersonal racial discrimination (e.g., Burt and Simons 2015;

Burt et al. 2012), we sought to advance knowledge by investigating the individual mechanisms through

which racial socialization—an external developmental asset common among African American families—

provides resilience. Specifically, this study asked, how—through what social psychological mechanisms –

does familial racial socialization reduce the criminogenic effects of discrimination among Black youth? We

examined two psychosocial resources, spirituality and racial identity, which have been shown to be fostered

by racial socialization and attenuate the negative effects of racial discrimination on development. In so

doing, we drew upon a recently elaborated social schematic theory of offending that links racial

discrimination to crime through social schemas that promote situational definitions conducive to crime

23

(Simons and Burt 2011). Several important findings emerged from our study and these are discussed below.

This is followed by a discussion of our study’s implications, limitations, and directions for future work.

Building on scholarship that highlights the link between racial socialization and racial identity

(e.g., Hughes et al. 2009; Neblett et al. 2009), as well as the positive effects of racial identities in promoting

psychological functioning and reducing the effects of racial discrimination (e.g., Cross et al. 1991; Sellers

et al. 2003; 2006), we examined the role of positive racial identity as a mechanism through which racial

socialization promotes resilience. Conceptualizing positive racial identities as the combined extent to which

individuals feel positively towards African Americans and their belonging to that group (private regard)

and the extent to which race is an important part of their self-concepts (centrality; e.g., Sellers et al. 1998),

we hypothesized that racial socialization practices increase positive racial identities, which, in turn, provide

resilience to the criminogenic effects of racial discrimination.

Our findings were largely consistent with our hypotheses. Both preparation for bias and cultural

socialization increased positive racial identity. A positive racial identity, in turn, was inversely associated

with the CKS. Decomposition of the indirect effects revealed that the effects of both forms of racial

socialization on the CKS through racial identity were significant. In addition, we found that racial identity

accounts, in part, for the buffering effects of racial socialization. Although racial identity did not buffer the

link between discrimination and the CKS, as we predicted, positive racial identity did reduce the effect of

the CKS on offending. Recall, these findings were net of various controls including general positive

parenting. Thus, the first finding from our study was that racial socialization provides resilience to the

criminogenic effects of racial discrimination in part by fostering a more positive racial identity.

We also focused on spirituality/religiosity as a potential resilience mechanism. Theory and research

have linked racial socialization to increased spirituality among African Americans (e.g., Nicolas et al.

2008; Stevenson 1997). Moreover, numerous studies have identified spirituality as an important resilience

factor (e.g., Pargament and Cummings 2010). In general, spirituality has been found to promote optimism

and hope for the future and hence perseverance in the pursuit of valued goals in the face of adversity.

Drawing on the reports of individuals who have demonstrated resilience, Masten and Wright (2010: 227)

24

noted: “The belief that life has meaning, faith, hope for a better future or afterlife, and related convictions

and attitudes appear to sustain mastery motivation” and efforts to adapt and thrive in the face of risk to

development. In addition to general research on the protective effects of spirituality, research has also

highlighted the salience of spirituality and religiosity among African American families and cultures and its

protective role in the face of racist obstacles and adversities (e.g., Blaine and Crocker 1989; DuBois 1899;

Lincoln and Mamiya 1990). Based on this work, we hypothesized that that spirituality is a mechanism

through which racial socialization reduces the criminogenic effects of racial discrimination.

Our results were generally consistent with our expectations. Cultural socialization, but not

preparation for bias, was associated with increased spirituality, which in turn, was negatively associated

with the CKS (which was positively associated with crime). Thus, racial socialization had an indirect

compensatory effect on less crime through spirituality and the CKS. Notably, spirituality was not directly

associated with crime, which is consistent with our expectation that the CKS should mediate the negative

effects of spirituality on crime. Decomposition of effects revealed that these indirect pathways were

significant. In addition to its effect crime through the CKS, spiritualty also buffered the effects of racial

discrimination. Specifically, spirituality significantly attenuated the link between the CKS and higher

offending. Thus, our results indicate that spirituality is an individual mechanism through which racial

socialization, specifically cultural socialization, reduces the criminogenic effect of racial discrimination.

In sum, our findings suggest that racial socialization fosters positive racial identities and spirituality,

which, in turn, are negatively related to the CKS (tendencies to view the world as threatening, problematic,

or distressing). Furthermore, these protective mechanisms blunt the effects of the CKS on crime, such that

these factors reduce the effects of potentially criminogenic worldviews on offending. That these factors

reduce the link between the CKS and crime but not the link between discrimination and the development of

the CKS is explicable from the social schematic perspective. Recall, SST proposes that individuals develop

CKS’s as a consequence of learning and adapting to the environments; racial discrimination is proposed to

lead to these criminogenic social schemas as individuals internalize these negative, unpredictable, hostile

messages. From this perspective, positive racial identities and spirituality do not decrease the link between

25

racial discrimination and the CKS because the harsh messages and experiences associated with racial

discrimination are still internalized in individuals’ schemas. Internalizing these messages is “adaptive” in

the sense that it promotes survival (in the face of racist hostilities).12 Instead, these protective mechanisms

reduce the likelihood that such potentially criminogenic social schemas engender criminal behavior.

The present study advanced knowledge on the resilience effects of familial racial socialization by

identifying psychosocial resources that are fostered by racial socialization and that operate to reduce the

criminogenic effects of racial discrimination. In so doing, it enhances our understanding of patterned

variations in response to racial discrimination at the micro-sociological level. Although we believe the

results of this study make an important contribution to this body of work, it is not without limitations.

Several deserve mention. First, the sample consists of African American families originally living in

various communities in Iowa and Georgia at the initiation of the study (though the respondents had spread

to 26 different states at wave 5). We assume that the processes identified here are not limited to this sample

or these contexts, an assumption bolstered by similar patterns of relationships observed in other samples

relating to racial socialization, racial identities, and psychological functioning (e.g., Sellers et al. 2006;

Neblett et al. 2009). Nonetheless, it is hoped that future research replicates these findings on different

samples.

Another caveat is related to our “perceptual” measure of discrimination. We assume our respondents

were relatively accurate in reporting their experiences with racial discrimination, and a growing body of

scholarship attests to the validity of perceptual measures of racial discrimination, including the SRE

instrument utilized here (Brody et al. 2006; Klonoff and Landrine 2000). Even so, it is important that future

work continue to probe the validity of various perceived discrimination measures. In addition, our measure

of spirituality/religiosity was based on a single item. While we believe that this single item captures the

concept we are focusing upon, future work should utilize different measures to test the robustness of our

findings with different measures.

Despite these limitations, this investigation contributes in important ways to our understanding of the

resilience effects of racial socialization and suggests a number of lines of future inquiry. In our view,

26

research should continue to explore the mechanisms through which familial racial socialization contributes

to resilience in conjunction with the processes identified here. For example, research might expand the

focus to the way that racial socialization fosters other external developmental assets, such familial social

support, as well as internal assets, such as self-esteem, agency, and mastery.

Broadly, resilience researchers have underscored the fact that resilience is not a static trait or

characteristic (e.g., Masten and Wright 2010). The risk and resilience processes examined here are

dynamic, developing within the individual and his/her transactions with various (also dynamic) cultures

and contexts. Resilience has been conceptualized in terms of developmental cascades, in which resilience

begets more resilience, thereby “catalyzing or setting into motion a cascade of positive experiences” (Ong

et al. 2010: 88). For example, White (1959) highlighted the role of “effectance motivation” in resilience,

noting that humans are wired to adapt to their social and physical environments and experience positive

emotions when they are successful. Similarly, Bandura (1997) demonstrated that individuals with more

optimistic views about their own effectiveness expend more effort to succeed and achieve their goals. Such

individuals are also more likely to persist in the face of adversity, which makes them more likely to succeed

under adverse conditions. In this way, competence begets competence; resilience engenders future

resilience (Masten and Wright 2010). Given the dynamic nature and cumulative effect of resilience, we

hope that future work takes a life-course approach, seeking to further understand these risk and resilience

processes across the life span and relate these patterns to shifts in the salience of various age-graded goals

and identities, recognizing that “resilience is an active process, not just the absence of pathology, and it can

be promoted by enhancing protective factors” (Feder, Nestler, and Charney 2009: 455).

Additionally, the degree of cross-situational consistency of resilience deserves more research

attention, as individuals can be resilient to certain stressors (e.g., certain forms of racial discrimination) or

outcomes but not others (Rutter 1997). Moreover, future research might benefit from examining how these

risk and resilience processes examined are influenced by culture and community. Individuals and families

are embedded in distinct contexts that shape racial socialization practices and condition their effects

(Hughes et al. 2006; Winkler 2010). The perspective taken in this study is that such practices are

27

adaptations to a racist context, and thus the efficacy of various racial socialization practices, including

specific messages and teachings, will differ based on contextual variations that influence the way race

shapes institutions and cultures in more localized milieus.

In conclusion, taking a micro-sociological perspective and drawing upon a recently elaborated social

schematic theory the present study illuminates mechanisms whereby racial socialization provides resilience

to the criminogenic effects of racial discrimination. This study advances our understanding of adaptive

cultural practices that African American families are utilizing to promote resilience to racism based on

evidence that resilience is a dynamic process that can be enhanced by social practices. Certainly, the onus

should not be on African Americans or any other minority group to deal with racial discrimination. Given

the persistence of racism, racial socialization is one tool that African Americans are using to promote

resilience; thus, we believe that understanding how such cultural and familial practices foster resilience is

worthwhile.

28

ENDNOTES1 In noting that African Americans engage in higher rates of street crime than whites, we do not imply that

law-breaking in general is more common among African Americans, nor do we deny the harms that are

perpetrated by whites (including those against Blacks) that are not deemed illegal. It is unquestionably the

case that certain crimes are committed more frequently per capita by whites (e.g., white-collar crimes) and

that by focusing on street crimes, racial disparities are magnified (Reiman 1979). Even so, the damaging

effect of street crime on African Americans as both victims and offenders deserves attention, even if only

part of the larger construct of law violation. We use the term crime throughout this article, but readers

should note that we focus on street crimes.

2 Parlance in the risk and resilience literature, compensatory factors are those associated with beneficial

outcomes or that promote positive adjustment across all levels of risk (Zimmerman, Bingenheimer, and

Notaro 2002).

3 We wish to emphasize at the outset that although we focus on various familial and cultural strategies that

have been shown to provide resilience to the effects of racism, this focus does not imply that the onus

should be on African Americans to deal with racism. Reducing or eliminating discrimination is the just

solution; however, given the persistence of racism, we believe that identifying and better understanding

how such cultural practices provide resilience against discrimination is a valuable endeavor.

4 For clarity in exposition, we use the term “spirituality” to refer to both spirituality and religiosity.

Although some scholars have argued that these are distinct but related concepts (Mattis 2002), our measure

inquires about the importance of “spirituality or religiosity,” thus tapping into both.

5 The focus of the current study is on the lived experiences of African Americans and how this influences

risk and resilience factors influencing the likelihood of criminal behavior. This focus does not imply that

Blacks are the only group facing ethnic-racial injustices. However, given that the peerless worldview of

Blacks has been “shaped by their incomparable racial subordination” (Unnever and Gabbidon 2011:7), we

believe that a focus on African Americans is warranted. This work builds, in part, on the scholarship of

Black criminologists and critical race theorists who have highlighted the need for a distinctive body of

29

work focusing on African American lived experiences and offending (e.g., Du Bois 1899; Mann 1993).

Even so, these findings have implications for risk and resilience processes among other ethnic-racial

minority groups. It is hoped that future research explores these processes in other ethnic-racial groups.

6 Although out of the scope of the present paper, see Pargament and colleagues’ (1998) typology and

informative discussion of various forms of spiritual coping, including seeking spiritual support and spiritual

connection.

7 See Appendix A for a more detailed discussion of the discrimination measure and research behind it.

8 Significant differences were determined by t-tests with equal variances (p<.01). Although sex/gender

differences are not the focus of our analyses, importantly, preliminary analyses revealed that the magnitude

of the effect of discrimination on crime did not differ by sex/gender. Interested readers can consult an

earlier paper (Burt and Simons 2015) that focused on sex/gender differences in racial discrimination, racial

socialization, and offending using the FACHS sample.

9 See Burt and Simons 2015 for a list of the items and their frequencies by sex/gender.

10 See Burt and Simons 2015 for a list of all the items in the CKS measure.

11 We initially considered a measure that combined spirituality/religiosity and religious involvement, but

preliminary analyses indicated that the item assessing spirituality was only moderately related to those

measuring religious involvement. Analyses conducted separately indicated that spirituality was the more

relevant mediating mechanism.

12 To be super clear, “adaptive” here is not used in the sense of promoting “success” in a cultural sense,

such as that promoted by Western cultural values or in terms of individual health or happiness. Instead, the

social schematic theory conceptualizes adaptation in the evolutionary sense to refer to evolved mechanisms

that promote survival.

30

References

Akers, Ronald L. 1985. Deviant Behavior: A Social Learning Approach. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. American Psychiatric Association. 1994. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. Anderson, Elijah. 1999. Code of the Street: Decency, Violence, and the Moral Life of the Inner City. New

York: W. W. Norton and Company. Bandura, Albert. 1997. Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman. Barnes, Sandra L. 2009. “Enter into His Gates: An Analysis of Black Church Participation Patterns.”

Sociological Spectrum 29:173-200. Billingsley, Andrew. 1992. Climbing Jacob's Ladder. New York: Simon and Schuster. Billingsley, Andrew, and Cleopatra Howard Caldwell. 1991. “The Church, the Family and the School in

the African American Community.” Journal of Negro Education 60:427-440. Blaine, Bruce, and Jennifer Crocker. 1995. “Religiousness, Race and Psychological Well-Being: Exploring

Social Psychological Mediators.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21:1031-41. Bollen, Kenneth. 1989. Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York: Wiley. Bowman, Phillip J., and Cleopatra Howard. 1985. “Race-related Socialization, Motivation, and Academic

Achievement: A Study of Black Youths in Three-Generation Families.” Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry 24:134-141.

Bowen-Reid, Terra L., and Jules P. Harrell. 2002. “Racist Experiences and Health Outcomes: An

Examination of Spirituality as a Buffer.” Journal of Black Psychology 28:18-36. Brega, Angela G., and Lerita M. Coleman. 1999. “Effects of Religiosity and Racial Socialization on

Subjective Stigmatization in African-American Adolescents.” Journal of Adolescence 22:223-242. Brody, Gene, Yi-Fu Chen, Velma McBride Murry, Xiaojia Ge, Ronald L. Simons, Frederick X. Gibbons,

Meg Gerrard, and Carolyn E. Cutrona. 2006. “Perceived Discrimination and the Adjustment of African American Youths: A Five-Year Longitudinal Analysis with Contextual Moderation Effects.” Child Development 77:1170-89.

Brown, Danice L. 2008. “African American Resiliency: Examining Racial Socialization and Social Support

as Protective Factors.” Journal of Black Psychology 34:32-48. Brown, Diane R., and Lawrence E. Gary. 1987. “Stressful life Events, Social Support Networks, and the

Physical and Mental Health of Urban Black Adults.” Journal of Human Stress 13:165-174. Burt, Callie Harbin. 2009. “Discrimination and Deviance: Racial Socialization Matters.” PhD dissertation,

Department of Sociology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA. Burt, Callie H., and Ronald L. Simons. 2015. “Interpersonal Racial Discrimination, Ethnic-racial

Socialization, and Offending: Risk and Resilience among African American Females. Justice Quarterly 32:532-570.

31

Burt, Callie H., Ronald L. Simons, and Frederick X. Gibbons. 2012. “Racial Discrimination, Ethnic-Racial

Socialization, and Crime: A Micro-Sociological Model of Risk and Resilience.” American Sociological Review 77:648-677.

Burt, Callie Harbin, Ronald Simons, and Leslie Simons. 2006. “A Longitudinal Test of the Effects of

Parenting and the Stability of Self-Control: Negative Evidence for the General Theory of Crime.” Criminology 44:353–96.

Bynum, Mia S., E. Thomaseo Burton, and Candace Best. 2007. “Racism Experiences and Psychological

Functioning in African American College freshmen: Is Racial Socialization a Buffer?” Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 13:64-71.

Caldwell, Cleopatra Howard, Laura P. Kohn-Wood, Karen H. Schmeelk-Cone, Tabbye M. Chavous, and

Marc A. Zimmerman. 2004. "Racial Discrimination and Racial Identity as Risk or Protective Factors for Violent Behaviors in African American Young Adults." American Journal of Community Psychology 33:91-105.

Carter, Robert T. 1991. “Racial Identity Attitudes and Psychological Functioning.” Journal of Multicultural

Counseling and Development 19:105-14. Caughy, Margaret O’Brien, Patricia O’Campo, Suzanne Randolph, and Kim Nickerson. 2002. “The

Influence of Racial Socialization Practices on the Cognitive and Behavioral Competence of African American Preschoolers.” Child Development 73:1611–25.

Clark, Rodney, Norman Anderson, Vernessa Clark, and David Williams. 1999. “Racism as a Stressor for

African Americans: A Biopsychosocial Model.” American Psychologist 54:805–16. Crick, Nicky R., and Dodge, Kenneth A. 1994. “A Review and Reformulation of Social Information-

Processing Mechanisms in Children’s Social Adjustment.” Psychological Bulletin 115, 74-101. Cross, William E., Jr. 1991. Shades of Black: Diversity in African-American Identity. Philadelphia: Temple

University Press. Cross, William E., Jr., Thomas A. Parham, and Janet E. Helms. 1991. “The Stages of Black Identity

Development: Nigrescence Models.” Pp. 319-38 in Black Psychology 3rd Ed, edited by R. Jones. Hampton, VA: Cobb and Henry.

------. 1998. Nigrescence revisited: Theory and research. In R. L. Jones (Ed.), African American Identity

Development: Theory, Research, and Intervention. Hampton, VA: Cobb and Henry. Curtis, Lynn A. 1975. Violence, Race, and Culture. Lexington, MA: DC Health and Company. Demo, David H., and Michael Hughes. 1990. “Socialization and Racial Identity among Black Americans.”

Social Psychology Quarterly 53:364-74. Dodge, Kenneth A. 2006. “Translational Science in Action: Hostile Attributional Style and the

Development of Aggressive Behavior Problems.” Development and Psychopathology 18:791-814. Dodge, Kenneth A. and Gregory S. Pettit. 2003. “A Biopsychosocial Model of the Development of Chronic

Conduct Problems in Adolescence. Developmental Psychology 39:349-71.

32

Donahue, Michael J., and Peter L. Benson. 1995. “Religion and the Well-Being of Adolescents.” Journal of Social Issues 51:145-60.

Dotterer, Aryn M., Susan M. McHale, and Ann C. Crouter. 2009. “Sociocultural Factors and School

Engagement Among African American Youth: The Roles of Racial Discrimination, Racial Socialization, and Ethnic Identity.” Applied Developmental Science 13: 61-73.

Du Bois, William Edward Burghardt. 1899. The Philadelphia Negro: A Social Study. Philadelphia, PA:

University of Pennsylvania Press. Ellison, Christopher G. 1994. “Religion, the Life-Stress Paradigm, and the Study of Depression. In Religion

in Aging and Health, edited by J.S. Levin. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Essed, Philomena. 1991. Understanding Everyday Racism: An Interdisciplinary Theory. Newbury Park,

CA: Sage Publications. Fischer, Ann R., and Christina M. Shaw. 1999. “African Americans' Mental Health and Perception of

Racist Discrimination: The Moderating Effects of Racial Socialization Experiences and Self-Esteem. Journal of Counseling Psychology 46:395-407.

Feagin, Joe R. 1991. “The Continuing Significance of Race: Antiblack Discrimination in Public Places.”

American Sociological Review 56:101–16. ------. 2010. Racist America: Roots, Current Realities, and Future Reparations. New York: Routledge. Feder, Adriana, Eric J. Nestler, Maren Westphal, and Dennis S. Charney. 2010. “Psychobiological

Mechanisms of Resilience to Stress.” Pp. 35-54 in Handbook of Adult Resilience, Edited by J. W. Reich, A.J. Zautra, and J.S. Hall. New York: The Guilford Press.

Gottfredson, Michael R., and Travis Hirschi. 1990. A General Theory of Crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford

University Press. Greene, Melissa L., Niobe Way, and Kerstin Pahl. 2006. “Trajectories of Perceived Adult and Peer

Discrimination among Black, Latino, and Asian American Adolescents: Patterns and Psychological Correlates.” Developmental Psychology 42: 218-36.

Harris-Britt, April, Cecelia Valrie, Beth Kurtz-Costes, and Stephanie Rowley. 2007. “Perceived Racial

Discrimination and Self-Esteem in African American Youth: Racial Socialization as a Protective Factor.” Journal of Research on Adolescence 17:669–82.

Hirschi, Travis. 1969. Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Hughes, Diane and Lisa Chen. 1999. “When and What Parents Tell Children about Race: An Examination

of Race-Related Socialization among African American Families.” Applied Developmental Science 1:200–214.

Hughes, Diane and Kimberly Dumont. 1993. “Using Focus Groups to Facilitate Culturally Anchored

Research.” American Journal of Community Psychology 21:775–806. Hughes, Diane, James Rodriguez, Emilie Smith, Deborah Johnson, Howard Stevenson, and Paul Spicer.

2006. “Parents’ Ethnic-Racial Socialization Practices: A Review of Research and Directions for Future Study.” Developmental Psychology 42:747–70.

33

Hughes, Diane, Dawn Witherspoon, Deborah Rivas-Drake, and Nia West-Bey. 2009. “Received Ethnic-

Racial Socialization Messages and Youths’ Academic and Behavioral Outcomes: Examining the Mediating Role of Ethnic Identity and Self-Esteem.” Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 15:112-24.

Hughes, Michael, K. Jill Kiecolt, Verna M. Keith, David H. Demo. 2015. “Racial Identity and Well-Being

among African Americans.” Social Psychology Quarterly 78:25-48. Huizinga, David and Delbert Elliott. 1986. “Reassessing the Reliability and Validity of Self-Report

Delinquency Measures.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 2:293–326. Jagers, Robert J., and Lynne Owens Mock. 1993. “Culture and Social Outcomes among Inner-City African

American Children: An Afrographic Exploration. Journal of Black Psychology 19:391-405. Klonoff, Elizabeth A., and Hope Landrine. 2000. “Is Skin Color a Marker for Racial Discrimination?

Explaining the Skin Color-Hypertension Relationship.” Journal of Behavioral Medicine 23:329-38. Krieger, Nancy. 2000. “Discrimination and Health.” Pp. 36-75 in Social Epidemiology, Edited by L.F.

Berkman and I. Kawachi. New York: Oxford University Press. Landrine, Hope and Elizabeth Klonoff. 1996. “The Schedule of Racist Events: A Measure of Racial

Discrimination and a Study of its Negative Physical and Mental Consequences.” Journal of Black Psychology 22:144–68.

Lesane-Brown, Chase L. 2006. “A Review of Race Socialization within Black Families.” Developmental Review 26:400–26. Lincoln, C. Eric, and Lawrence H. Mamiya. 1990. The Black Church in the African-American Experience.

Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Little, Roderick J. A. and Donald B. Rubin. 2002. Statistical Analyses with Missing Data, 2nd ed. New

York: John Wiley. Mann, Coramae Richey. 1993. Unequal Justice: A Question of Color. Bloomington: Indiana University

Press. Martin, Monica J., Bill McCarthy, Rand Conger, Frederick X. Gibbons, Ronald L. Simons, Carolyn E.

Cutrona, and Gene H. Brody. 2011. “The Enduring Significance of Racism: Discrimination and Delinquency among Black American Youth. Journal of Research on Adolescence 21:662-76.

Masten, Ann S., and Margaret O’Dougherty Wright. 2010. “Resilience Over the Lifespan.” Pp. 213-37 in

Handbook of Adult Resilience, Edited by J. W. Reich, A.J. Zautra, and J.S. Hall. New York: The Guilford Press.

Masten, A.S., Karin M. Best, and Norman Garmezy. 1990. “Resilience and Development: Contributions

from the Study of Children Who Overcome Adversity.” Development and Psychopathology 2:425-44.

Mattis, Jacqueline S. 2002. “Religion and Spirituality in the Meaning-Making and Coping Experiences of

African American Women: A Qualitative Analysis.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 26:309-21.

34

Mattis, Jacqueline S., and Robert J. Jagers. 2001. “A Relational Framework for the Study of Religiosity and Spirituality in the Lives of African Americans.” Journal of Community Psychology 29:519-39.

Miller, David B., and Randall MacIntosh. 1999. “Promoting Resilience in Urban African American

Adolescents: Racial Socialization and Identity as Protective Factors. Social Work Research 23:159-69

Muhammad, Khalil Gibran. 2010. The Condemnation of Blackness: Race, Crime, and the Making of

Modern Urban America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Muthén, Linda K., and Muthén, Bengt O. (1998-2012). Mplus User's Guide. Seventh Edition. Los Angeles,

CA: Muthén and Muthén. Neblett, Jr., Enrique, Ciara P. Smalls, Kahlil R. Ford, Hoa X. Nguyen, and Robert M. Sellers. 2009. “Racial

Socialization and Racial Identity: African American Parents’ Messages about Race as Precursors to Identity. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 38:189-203.

Nicolas, Guerda, Janet E. Helms, Maryam M. Jernigan, Theresa Sass, Adrienne Skrzypek, and Angela M.

DeSilva. 2008. “A Conceptual Framework for Understanding the Strengths of Black Youths.” Journal of Black Psychology 34:261-80.

Ong, Anthony D., C. S. Bergemean, Sy-Miin Chow. 2010. “Positive Emotions as a Basic Building Block of

Resilience in Adulthood.” Pp. 81-111 in Handbook of Adult Resilience, edited by J. W. Reich, A.J. Zautra, and J.S. Hall. New York: The Guilford Press.

Pargament, Kenneth I. 1997. The Psychology of Religion and Coping: Theory, Research, and Practice.

New York: The Guilford Press. Pargament, Kenneth I. and Jenny Cumming. 2010. “Anchored by Faith: Religion as a Resilience Factor.

Pp. 193-210 in Handbook of Adult Resilience, edited by J. W. Reich, A.J. Zautra, and J.S. Hall. New York: The Guilford Press.

Pargament, Kenneth I., Bruce W. Smith, Harold G. Koenig, and Lisa Perez. 1998. “Patterns of Positive and

Negative Religious Coping with Major Life Stressors.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 37: 710-24.

Park, Crystal. L., Lawrence H. Cohen, and Renee L. Murch. 1996. “Assessment and Prediction of Stress-

Related Growth.” Journal of Personality 64:71-105. Peters, Marie. 1985. “Racial Socialization of Young Black Children.” Pp. 159–73 in Black Children:

Social, Educational, and Parental Environments, edited by H. P. McAdoo and J. L. McAdoo. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Peters, Marie and Grace Massey. 1983. “Mundane Extreme Environmental Stress in Family Stress

Theories: The Case of Black Families in White America.” Marriage and Family Review 6:193–218.

Poussaint, Alvin F. 1983. “Black-on-Black Homicide: A Psycho-Political Perspective.” Victimology 8: 161-

9. Reiman, Jeffrey. 1979. The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison. New York: Wiley.

35

Rutter, Michael. 1987. “Psychosocial Resilience and Protective Mechanisms.” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 57:316-31.

Sanchez, Delida, and Robert T. Carter. 2005. “Exploring the Relationship Between Racial Identity and

Religious Orientation among African American College Students.” Journal of College Student Development 46:280-95.

Sellers, Robert M., Nikeea Copeland-Linder, Pamela P. Martin, and R. L’Heureux Lewis. 2006. “Racial

Identity Matters: The Relationship between Racial Discrimination and Psychological Functioning in African American Adolescents.” Journal of Research on Adolescence 16:187-216.

Sellers, Robert M., Stephanie A. J. Rowley, Tabbye M. Chavous, J. Nicole Shelton, and Mia A. Smith.

1997. “Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity: A Preliminary Investigation of Reliability and Construct Validity.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73: 805-15.

Sellers, Robert M., and J. Nicole Shelton. 2003. “The Role of Racial Identity in Perceived Racial

Discrimination.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 84:1079-92. Sellers, Robert M., Mia A. Smith, J. Nicole Shelton, Stephanie A.J. Rowley, and Tabbye M. Chavous.

1998. “Multidimensional Model of Racial Identity: A Reconceptualization of African American Racial Identity.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Review 2:18-39.

Shank, Roger C., and Robert P. Abelson. 1977. Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding. Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum. Shelton, J. Nicole, and Robert M. Sellers. 2000. “Situational Stability and Variability in African American

Racial Identity.” The Journal of Black Psychology 26:27-50. Simons, Ronald L. and Callie Harbin Burt. 2011. “Learning to Be Bad: Adverse Social Conditions, Social

Schemas, and Crime.” Criminology 49:553–98. Simons, Ronald L., Callie H. Burt, Ashley Barr, Man Kit Lei, and Eric A. Stewart. 2014. “Incorporating

Situational Definitions and Contexts for Action into the Social Schematic Theory of Crime.” Criminology 52: 655-87.

Simons, Ronald L., Leslie G. Simons, Callie H. Burt, Gene H. Brody, and Carolyn Cutrona. 2005.

“Collective Efficacy, Authoritative Parenting, and Delinquency: A Longitudinal Test of a Model Integrating Community- and Family-Level Processes.” Criminology 43: 989-1029.

Simons, Ronald L., Leslie Simons, Callie Harbin Burt, Holli Drummund, Eric Stewart, Gene Brody,

Frederick Gibbons, and Carolyn Cutrona. 2006. “Supportive Parenting Moderates the Effect of Discrimination upon Anger, Hostile View of Relationships, and Violence among African American Boys.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 47:374–89.

Spencer, Margaret Beale. 1983. “Children’s Cultural Values and Parental Child Rearing Strategies.”

Developmental Review 3:351-70. Spilka, Bernard, Phillip Shaver, and Lee A. Kirkpatrick. 1985. “A General Attribution Theory for the

Psychology of Religion.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 24:1-20. Stewart, Eric A., and Ronald L. Simons. 2006. “Structure and Culture in African American Adolescent

Violence: A Partial Test of the ‘Code of the Street’ Thesis. Justice Quarterly 23:1-33

36

Stevenson, Howard C. 1995. “Relationship of Adolescent Perceptions of Racial Socialization to Racial

Identity.” Journal of Black Psychology 21:49-70. -------. 1997. “Managing Anger: Protective, Proactive, or Adaptive Racial Socialization Identity Profiles

and African-American Manhood Development.” Journal of Prevention and Intervention in the Community 16:35-61.

Stevenson, Howard C., ed. 2003. Playing with Anger: Teaching Coping Skills to African American Boys

through Athletics and Culture. Westport, CT: Praeger. Sweeten, Gary. 2012. “Scaling Criminal Offending.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 28:533-57. Tatum, Beverly D. 1997. Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria? New York: Basic

Books Inc. Umaña-Taylor, Jessie J. Wong, Nancy A. Gonzales, and Larry E. Dumka. 2012. “Ethnic Identity and

Gender as Moderators of the Association Between Discrimination and academic Adjustment among Mexican-origin Adolescents.” Journal of Adolescence 35:773-86.

Unnever, James and Shaun Gabbidon. 2011. A Theory of African American Offending. New York:

Routledge. Unnever, James, Francis Cullen, Scott Mathers, Timothy McClure, and Marisa Allison. 2009. “Racial

Discrimination and Hirschi’s Criminological Classic: A Chapter in the Sociology of Knowledge.” Justice Quarterly 26:377–409.

White, Robert W. 1959. “Motivation Reconsidered: The Concept of Competence.” Psychological Review

66: 297-333. White, Joseph L., and Thomas A. Parham. 1990. The Psychology of Blacks: An African American

Perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Williams, David R. 1997. “Race and Health: Basic Questions, Emerging Directions.” Annals of

Epidemiology 7:322–33. Williams, Joanna L., Sophie M. Aiyer, Myles I. Durkee, and Patrick H. Tolan. 2014. “The Protective Role

of Ethnic Identity for Urban Adolescent Males Facing Multiple Stressors.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 43: 1728-41.

Winkler, Erin N. 2010. “’I Learn Being Black from Everywhere I Go’: Color Blindness, Travel, and the

Formation of Attitudes among African American Adolescents.” Sociological Studies of Children and Youth 13: 423-53.

------. 2011. “’My Aunt Talks about Black People All the Time’: The Significance of Extended Family

Networks in the Racial Socialization of African American Adolescents.” Pp. 273-95 in Extended Families in Africa and the African Diaspora, edited by O. Aborampah and N. Sudarkasa. Trenton: Africa World Press.

Wolfgang, Marvin and Franco Ferracuti. 1967. The Subculture of Violence: Towards an Integrated Theory

in Criminology. London: Tavistock Publications.

37

Wong, Carol A., Jacquelynn S. Eccles, and Arnold Sameroff. 2003. “The Influence of Ethnic Discrimination and Ethnic Identification on African American Adolescents’ School and Socioemotional Adjustment.” Journal of Personality 71:1197-1232.

Wright, John Paul, and Mark Alden Morgan. 2014. Human biodiversity and the egalitarian fiction. Pp. 55-

73 in The Nurture Versus Biosocial Debate in Criminology, Edited by K.M. Beaver, J.C. Barnes, and B.B. Boutwell. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Yasui, Miwa, Carole LaRue Dorham, and Thomas J. Dishion. 2004. “Ethnic Identity and Psychological

Adjustment: A Validity Analysis for European American and African American Adolescents.” Journal of Adolescent Research 19:807-25.

Zautra, Alex J., John Stuart Hall, and Kate E. Murray. “Resilience: A New Definition of Health for People

and Communities.” Pp. 3-29 in Handbook of Adult Resilience, Edited by J. W. Reich, A.J. Zautra, and J.S. Hall. New York: The Guilford Press.

Zimmerman, Marc, Jeffrey Bingenheimer, and Paul Notaro. 2002. “Natural Mentors and Adolescent

Resiliency: A Study with Urban Youth.” American Journal of Community Psychology 30:221–43.

38

Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 131. CrimeW5 .70 1.50 ―2. Racial DiscriminationW4+W5 .01 .91 .12 ** ―3. Criminogenic Knowledge StructureW5 .00 .76 .41 ** .27 ** ―4. Preparation for BiasW3+W4+W5 .00 .80 -.04 .50 ** .11 ** ―5. Cultural SocializationW3+W4 .00 .85 -.06 .14 ** -.08 * .49 ** ―6. Supportive ParentingW3+W4 .00 .86 -.13 ** -.09 * -.28 ** .05 .24 ** ―7. Positive Racial IdentityW5 .00 .85 -.05 .10 * -.13 ** .16 ** .14 ** .17 ** ―8. SpiritualityW5 .00 .81 -.13 ** -.06 -.27 ** .09 * .14 ** .16 ** .21 ** ―9. Prior DelinquencyW1+W2+W3 .01 .90 .18 ** .22 ** .23 ** .05 -.06 -.21 ** .00 -.04 ―10. AgeW4 .00 1.00 -.02 .11 ** -.01 -.05 -.22 ** -.09 * -.06 -.06 .17 ** ―11. Target Sex/Gender (1=male) .44 .50 .08 * .10 ** .23 ** -.03 -.05 .03 -.01 -.12 ** .11 ** -.02 ―12. Primary Caregiver RaceW4 (1 = Black) .92 .27 -.04 -.03 -.16 ** .11 ** .07 * .12 ** .18 ** .28 ** -.09 * .00 -.01 ―13. Primary Caregiver AgeW4 45.01 7.91 -.08 -.01 -.01 -.05 -.05 -.02 -.08 * -.08 * -.02 .08 -.01 -.11 ** ―

14. PC Sex/Gender (1=female) .94 .24 .07 .00 .07 .04 .08 * .03 .06 .03 -.09 * -.08 * -.02 -.03 -.05

**<.01; *p<.05; n ranges from 627 to 804 using all available cases for each pairwise correlation.

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Matrix for Study Variables

39

Table 2. Indirect and direct effects (relying on Integration=Montcarlo) from Figure 3 Predictor Mediators Outcome Indirect effect

[95% CI] The portion of the

total variance

Cultural Socializationw3+w4 Spiritualityw5 Criminogenic

Knowledge StructureW5 -.037**

[-.065, -.009] 25.517%

Preparation for Biasw3+w4+w5 Spiritualityw5 Criminogenic

Knowledge StructureW5 -.015

[-.043, .014] ----

Cultural Socializationw3+w4 Positive Racial Idenityw5 Criminogenic

Knowledge StructureW5 -.012

[-.026, .002] ----

Preparation for Biasw3+w4+w5 Positive Racial Idenityw5 Criminogenic

Knowledge StructureW5 -.017†

[-.037, .003] 20.732%

Spiritualityw5 Criminogenic Knowledge

StructureW5 Crimew5

-.129** [-.194, -.064] 59.722%

Positive Racial Idenityw5 Criminogenic Knowledge

StructureW5 Crimew5

-.060** [-.106, -.015] 46.154%

Racial discriminationw4+w5 Criminogenic Knowledge

StructureW5 Crimew5

.158** [.088, .227] 81.865%

40

Figure 1. Social Schematic Model of Racial Discrimination, Racial Socialization, and Crime.

CriminogenicKnowledgeStructure

RacialDiscrimination Crime

Racial Socialization: 1) Preparation for Bias

2) Cultural Socialization

Impulsivity DisengagementfromNorms

HostileViewsOf

Relationships

- --

+ +

Note: Dashed lines refer to hypothesized buffering effects.

41

Figure 2. Model Depicting Racial Socialization Mechanisms.

CriminogenicKnowledgeStructureW5

RacialDiscriminationW4+W5 CrimeW5

RacialSocialization:PreparationforBiasW3+W4+W5CulturalSocializationW3+W4

PositiveRacialIdentityW5

Spirituality/ReligiosityW5

Control Variables: Sex/gender Age PC race, sex, age Prior delinquency Supportive parenting Neighborhood racial heterogeneity (%Black)

+ +

+ +

--

- --

Note: Dashed lines refer to hypothesized buffering effects.

+

-

42

Figure 3. Poisson Model Depicting Racial Socialization Mechanisms: Mediating Model.

CriminogenicKnowledgeStructureW5

RacialDiscriminationW4+W5

CrimeW5

CulturalSocializationW3+W4

PositiveRacialIdentityW5

Control Variables: Sex/gender Age PC race, sex, age Prior delinquency Supportive parenting

Note: Values presented are standardized parameter estimates; **p ≤ .01; *p ≤ .05, †p < .10 (two-tailed tests), n = 609.

SpiritualityW5

PreparationforBiasW3+W4+W5

.466**

.137**

-.090*

.093†

.122* .049

.049

.235**

-.045

.869**

-.225**

-.132

-.105** -.106

.186**

43

Figure 4. Poisson Model Depicting Racial Socialization Mechanisms: Moderation Model.

CriminogenicKnowledgeStructureW5

RacialDiscriminationW4+W5

CrimeW5

CulturalSocializationW3+W4

PositiveRacialIdentityW5

Control Variables: Sex/gender Age PC race, sex, age Prior delinquency Supportive parenting

Note: Values presented are standardized parameter estimates; **p ≤ .01; *p ≤ .05, †p < .10 (two-tailed tests), n = 609.

SpiritualityW5

PreparationforBiasW3+W4+W5

.466**

.137**

-.090*

-.093†

.122* .049

.049

.235**

-.015

.864**

-.225**

.105 -.105** .092

-.205**

-.266*

.186**

44

Figure 5. The effect of the CKS on crime across levels of spirituality. The lines represent the regression lines for different levels of spirituality (low: 1 SD below the mean; high: 1 SD above the mean). Numbers in parentheses refer to simple slope test with 95% confidence interval.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

-2SD(Min.) -1SD mean=0 1SD 2SD 3SD 4SD 5SD(Max.)

Pred

icted

Proba

bilityo

fCrim

eW5

CriminogenicKnowledgeStructureW5

LowLevelsofSpiritualityW5[logodds:.693**,95%CI(.547,.838)]HighLevelsofSpiritualityW5[logodds:.453**,95%CI(.258,.649)]

45

Figure 6. The effect of the CKS on crime across levels of positive racial identity. The lines represent the regression lines for different levels of positive racial identity (low: 1 SD below the mean; high: 1 SD above the mean). Numbers in parentheses refer to simple slope test with 95% confidence interval.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

-2SD(Min.) -1SD mean=0 1SD 2SD 3SD 4SD 5SD(Max.)

Pred

icted

Proba

bilityo

fCrim

eW5

CriminogenicKnowledgeStructureW5

LowLevelsofPositiveRacialIdentityW5[logodds:.751**,95%CI(.509,.993)]

HighLevelsofPositiveRacialIdentityW5[logodds:.395**,95%CI(.191,.600)]