Unpacking complexities in ethnic–racial socialization in transracial adoptive families: A process-oriented transactional system

Abstract

Over 50% of adoptions are transracial, involving primarily White parents and children of color from different ethnic or racial backgrounds. Transracial adoptive (TRA) parents are tasked with providing ethnic–racial socialization processes (ERS) to support TRA adoptees’ ethnic–racial identity development and prepare them to cope with ethnic–racial discrimination. However, unlike nonadoptive families of color, TRA parents lack shared cultural history with adoptees and have limited experience navigating racial discrimination. Knowledge of ERS among TRA families has centered on unidirectional processes between parenting constructs, ERS processes, and children's functioning. However, ERS processes in this population have complexities and nuances that warrant more sensitive and robust conceptualization. This paper proposes a process-oriented dynamic ecological model of the system of ERS, situating transacting processes in and across multiple family levels (parent, adoptee, family) and incorporating developmental and contextual considerations. With its framing of the complexities in ERS among TRA families, the model offers three contributions: a conceptual organization of parenting constructs related to ERS, a more robust understanding of ERS processes that inform how parents provide ERS, and framing of transacting processes within and between parenting constructs, ERS processes, and children's functioning. Implications for research, policy, and practice are discussed.

Looking through a kaleidoscope: The phenomenological ethnic‐racial socialization conceptual model and its application to U.S. Black and Latino Youth and families

“…Although we considered skin color within context, more research on how the meaning of skin color within specific contexts (e.g., U.S. geographic regions, neighborhoods) can influence ERS would strengthen knowledge on person‐context interactions and the influence on ERS (e.g., Hughes et al., 2016). Relatedly, we did not reflect on how meaning‐making about skin color may differ among mono‐, bi‐, transracial and multiracial families to inform their ERS processes, as these processes may vary by the racial composition of the family (e.g., Pinderhughes et al., 2021). Rather, we contribute a guiding model that can be used to further examine meaning‐making and the particular processes and experiences of these groups in more detail in future research.…”

“…For some families, that stress may be reflected in the content of ERS messages (Romero et al., 2015). Stressed families also may hesitate, avoid engaging in ERS, or wait for youth to initiate (Hughes et al., 2006; Pinderhughes et al., 2021).…”

“…Some families may avoid or hesitate to engage in ERS with concern about their ERS competency (Anderson & Stevenson, 2019; Pinderhughes et al., 2021). Despite these concerns, families may be motivated to engage in ERS in the face of conflicting messages and to buffer potential negative effects on youths’ development.…”

“…Within society and neighborhoods, youth and their families make meaning of living in contexts where the social construction of race, which incorporates skin color hierarchy, is used to stratify and limit groups’ access to resources and opportunities (Emerson & Smith, 2001). Variation in how families make meaning of skin color, dependent on their contexts, may result in differences in families’ comfort with ERS engagement, attitudes about other racial groups, motivation to engage in ERS, and stress related to preparing children to navigate a racialized society (Anderson & Stevenson, 2019; Pinderhughes et al., 2021).…”

“…Furthermore, families’ constant consideration of contexts and youths’ functioning along with their emotional responses to racial stress and ERS conversations may cause families to consider, consciously or unconsciously, to shift or change their ERS goals, and engagement (Path A). Concerns, fears and uncertainty may cause families to abandon ERS goals temporarily (e.g., Pinderhughes et al., 2021). As youth change developmentally, families also may reassess and change ERS goals and attitudes (e.g., Pinderhughes et al., 2021) (Path H).…”