ASRXXX10.1177/0003122415623286American Sociological ReviewDavenport 6232862015

American Sociological Review 2016, Vol. 81(1) 57–84­ The Role of Gender, Class, and © American Sociological Association 2015 DOI: 10.1177/0003122415623286 Religion in Biracial Americans’ http://asr.sagepub.com Racial Labeling Decisions

Lauren D. Davenporta

Abstract Racial attachments are understood to be socially constructed and endogenous to gender, socioeconomic, and religious identities. Yet we know surprisingly little about the effect of such identities on the particular racial labels that individuals self-select. In this article, I investigate how social identities shape the racial labels chosen by biracial individuals in the United States, a rapidly growing population who have multiple labeling options. Examining national surveys of more than 37,000 respondents of Latino-white, Asian-white, and black- white parentage, I disentangle how gender, socioeconomic status, and religious identity influence racial labeling decisions. Across biracial subgroups and net of all other influences, economic affluence and Jewish identity predict whiter self-identification, whereas belonging to a religion more commonly associated with racial minorities is associated with a minority identification. Gender, however, is the single best predictor of identification, with biracial women markedly more likely than biracial men to identify as multiracial. These findings help us better understand the contextual nature of racial identification and the processes via which social identities interact with racial meanings in the United States.

Keywords identity, race/ethnicity, gender, religion, minority groups

That race is endogenous to historical and There is an important relationship between social dynamics and can be redefined via these social identities and the significance of political processes is a long-standing premise race, but less is known about the effect of such in social science (Brubaker 2009; Omi and identities on the particular racial labels indi- Winant 1994). Prior research also reveals that viduals choose. In the United States, racial the meanings individuals attach to race are labels have traditionally been treated as an influenced by its intersection with other social ascribed characteristic, with group membership categories (Haney López 2006). Accordingly, either devoid of choice or structured by legal placement into such identity categories as gender (Gay and Tate 1998; Saperstein and aStanford University Penner 2012), social class (Dawson 1994; Wilson 1980), and religion (Chong 1998; Corresponding Author: Lauren D. Davenport, Stanford University, ­Harris-Lacewell 2006) may reinforce or Department of Political Science, 305 Encina Hall weaken racial attachments depending on the West, 616 Serra Street, Stanford, CA 94305 way these intersect with race. E-mail: [email protected] 58 American Sociological Review 81(1) and social norms such as hypodescent (Snipp assess the determinants of exclusive white 2003; Williams 2006). Group membership was identification, a racial label about which we especially stringent for people of mixed Afri- currently understand relatively little, but that can ancestry, who were typically identified as has major implications for the future U.S. singularly black (Davis 2001). Changes to the racial structure (Cross 2002; Gans 2012). U.S. Census in 2000, however, which permit More generally, I examine how biracial young multiple-race classification, show that racial adults are choosing to assert their identifica- labels are no longer a disjoint construct in U.S. tion in the twenty-first century, and the degree politics and culture. to which hypodescent influences their choices. How do central nonracial identities—spe- This research also contributes to our cifically, gender, socioeconomic status, and understanding of identity construction among religion—affect the choice of racial labels? I biracial Latinos, a group often excluded from examine this question by focusing on the rap- multiracial identity studies. Because most idly growing number of biracial Americans— surveys use a two-question approach in which individuals whose parents are from two racial Hispanic origin is distinguished from race, it categories.1 Biracials have a range of racial is often impossible to separate respondents of labels from which to choose.2 Assessing the Latino/non-Latino parentage from respond- labeling decisions of biracials allows us to ents who have two Latino parents and iden- better understand how social class, gender, tify their ethnicity as Hispanic but their race and religion inform personal understandings as white, black, Asian, or other. Because sur- of race in the United States. Prior research vey question formats preclude these distinc- that examines biracials’ labeling choices tions, multiracialism scholars commonly emphasizes the importance of family, peers, refrain from analyzing Latinos in their stud- and environmental context, but gives little ies. The exclusion of Latinos leaves a sub- attention to the influence of nonracial social stantive void in our understanding of biracial identities. This gap in the literature can be identification. This gap is significant for two attributed to the fact that available data have reasons. First, 43 percent of intermarriage not allowed an in-depth analysis of the effects pairings in the United States are between of these factors until now. whites and Latinos; second, the rapid growth Drawing on identity theory and other rate of the Latino population can be attrib- research in sociology and social psychology, I uted, in part, to the rising number of children argue that biracials negotiate their identifica- born to Latino-white couples (Wang 2012). tions based on interpersonal encounters, The surveys I assess have a combined race neighborhoods, and places of worship, classi- and Latino-origin question, allowing me to fying themselves in relation to their peers and pinpoint individuals who are explicitly of adopting the label deemed most acceptable in Latino/non-Latino parentage. Thus, the pre- a given context. To examine the effects of sent work heeds Harris and Sim’s (2002) call social identities on racial construction, I lever- for better understanding biracial Latino age national surveys of more than 37,000 identity. Asian-white, Latino-white, and black-white This article reports three core findings. biracial college students. These surveys allow First, racial identification is gendered in sig- me to include important variables lacking in nificant ways: all else being equal, biracial previous studies, extending the literature in women are much more likely than biracial men three ways. First, I separate the effect of par- to identify as multiracial. The gender disparity ents’ marital status, family income, and reli- exists across biracial category combinations gion on respondents’ self-labeling. Second, to but is greatest (2x) for black-white biracials— ascertain how socioeconomic context shapes pointing to the rigidity of the black/white identification, I examine the effect of neigh- boundary for African American men. Second, borhood median income. Third, I empirically I demonstrate the importance of religion for Davenport 59 racial identification: biracials who practice number of mixed-race subgroups—the survey “ethnic” religions are more likely than non- I assess has a total of 127 possible racial religious biracials to identify with only one combinations—I center my attention on the racial group. Finally, I provide robust evi- largest biracial groups: Asian-whites, Latino- dence that affluence—as measured sepa- whites, and black-whites.3 Together, these rately by household income and median groups compose the majority of the multiple- neighborhood income—“whitens” racial race population.4 ­self-identification. Other studies (notably Examining the racial labeling decisions of Schwartzman 2007) have found that “money these three groups helps clarify the processes whitens.” These studies typically rely on sam- via which racial identification patterns are ples from Spanish-speaking America or ­Brazil constructed. In concentrating on these groups, and use education as a proxy for income. In however, my intention is not to fix the refer- contrast, the data I use are U.S.-based and esti- ence of the term “biracial” as applicable pri- mate the effects of income while holding edu- marily to people who are white and non-white, cational attainment constant. rather than individuals belonging to multiple Taken together, these findings inform our minority groups.5 Nor is it my aim to essen- understanding of how racial categories are tialize race by focusing on first-generation used in the contemporary United States. The biracials.6 Instead, my intent is pragmatic: approach I take in this article highlights the narrowing the scope to these subgroups facili- importance of carefully disentangling the tates a more straightforward analysis and a meanings attached to core social identities. cleaner assessment of the findings. Finally, these findings clarify how racial I assess the construction of racial identifi- labels can be the product of social group cation, or how people publicly articulate their attachments while being intimately linked to race to others, such as on a form or in a sur- social class, religion, and gender. vey. One’s expressed identification does not always perfectly correlate with one’s racial identity, or internal beliefs and perceptions Racial Population of about race, but the two phenomena often Interest overlap. Although these survey data do not The issue of proper definitions and consistent enable an analysis of the processes of identity terminology is a persistent challenge facing development, understanding the choice of scholars of race and ethnicity (Omi and public racial labels among biracials is of great Winant 1994; Waters 2000). Race, by itself, is importance. Sociology has a long tradition of not intrinsically meaningful, and its signifi- taking racial labels seriously as a dependent cance is socially constructed—yet racial labels variable, precisely because it is a meaningful have real consequences. There is thus a ten- way individuals assert their public identity sion between acknowledging that racial (Campbell and Rogalin 2006; Clark and Clark boundaries are fuzzy and labels are subjective, 1939; Francis and Tannuri-Pianto 2013; Lan- while developing a definition of “biracial” so dale and Oropesa 2002; Lee 1993; Nagel as to enable a clearer understanding of the 1995). individual components of identification. Public racial identification is also conse- Here, I differentiate between people who quential for the allocation of political are immediately mixed, who identify their resources and the implementation of legisla- parents with different races, and those who are tion (Perlmann and Waters 2005; Williams more remotely mixed, at the level of grandpar- 2006). Racial identification is cited in research ents or earlier generations (Spencer 2004). I used to develop and inform federal policies, focus on predicting identification outcomes such as legislation aimed at addressing racial among immediately mixed individuals, whom health disparities. States use race statistics to I refer to as “biracial.” Given the myriad fulfill legislative redistricting obligations and 60 American Sociological Review 81(1) enforce anti-discrimination laws in employ- heritage are more likely to label their children ment, education, and housing (Fred and Clif- as racial minorities than are couples in which ford 1996; Goldstein and Morning 2005; the minority spouse is female, non-U.S.-born, Massey and Denton 1993). Racial identifica- or has some white heritage (Qian 2004). Hav- tion is thus both an expression of subjective ing a biracial parent also decreases the likeli- group connections and an act with very real hood of identifying as multiracial, relative to political ramifications. To accurately ascer- having parents of two different single-races tain the impact of race in society, we must (Bratter 2007). first understand how such labels are chosen. In addition to the predictors of labels given to biracial children, scholars have examined the determinants of children’s self-labeling Identity and Mixed-Race practices. Such work finds that family mem- Heritage bers and peers are the main reference groups According to identity theory, the self is a mul- shaping self-labeling practices (Bratter and tidimensional construct shaped by social Heard 2009; Funderburg 1994; Root 1992, interactions (Burke 1980; McCall and Sim- 1996). Belonging to a racially heterogeneous mons 1966; Stryker 1968, 1980; Stryker and peer group is predictive of a non-white or Serpe 1982). Individuals are performers in singular minority identification (Herman particular roles, and the meanings associated 2004; Renn 2004). And when asked what race with identities are learned from the reflected best describes them, black-white biracials are appraisals of others (Burke 1981; Burke and more inclined than American Indian-white Stets 2009). One’s commitment to specific biracials to name their minority background identities develops out of interpersonal con- (Harris and Sim 2002). The order in which tact and experiences, which can confirm, multiple races are listed (Campbell 2007), reinforce, or alter these self-identities (Foote experiences with racial discrimination (Panter 1951). Indeed, extant research indicates that et al. 2009), phenotype (Khanna 2004; Rock- biracial children engage in a sort of racial quemore and Brunsma 2008), regional and acculturation, choosing racial labels that neighborhood racial surroundings (Harris and reflect the norms and expectations of majority Sim 2002), and spouse’s race (Campbell populations in their environment. People of 2007) are also consequential. Moreover, self- interracial and interethnic ancestry often identification is contextual; being in the pres- spend years grappling with their identities, ence of family members or peers influences incorporating or rejecting labels based on the momentary self-identification of biracials their interactions and the settings in which (Harris and Sim 2002; Twine 1996). Finally, they are socialized (Alba 1992; Bailey 2008; biracials who come from more disadvantaged DaCosta 2007). class backgrounds, as given by mother’s edu- Over the past two decades, an emerging cation, are more likely to change their identi- literature has examined processes of racial fication over time (Doyle and Kao 2007). identification among biracials. Some research In spite of this growing line of research, assesses determinants of the labels that par- many important questions regarding biracials’ ents impart onto their children, including the identification remain unanswered. Prior research racial composition of a child’s school has given scant attention to the roles that gender, (Brunsma 2005), parent’s level of educational social class, and religion play in shaping racial attainment (Roth 2005), and proximity to the identification. This limitation can be attributed immigrant experience (Xie and Goyette 1997). to the fact that the data commonly used to Characteristics of the ethnic minority parent examine biracial Americans yield insufficient are also important: among non-white/white sample sizes or do not include important married couples, those in which the minority sociodemographic indicators. For example, in spouse is male, U.S.-born, or has no white studying the U.S. biracial population, scholars Davenport 61 often use the National Longitudinal Survey of race and is a vital component of adolescent and Adolescent Health (also known as Add Health), early adulthood identity development (Erikson due to its vast set of questions and multiple 1968; Sciarra and Gushue 2003). Religious measures of racial identity (Doyle and Kao institutions also play an important role in the 2007; Fryer et al. 2012; Harris and Sim 2002; construction of identity among members of Hitlin, Brown, and Elder 2006). Yet Add Health some racial and ethnic communities. Religion includes only a few hundred biracial respond- and spirituality are dominant components of ents, with studies lacking sufficient sample size self-identity for black college students in par- to generate statistically significant and robust ticular (Sanchez and Carter 2005; Spencer, results (Burke and Kao 2013). Fegley, and Harpalani 2003). Places of wor- Census samples have also been used to study ship in the United States are strikingly racially biracials’ identification (e.g., Qian 2004; Roth homogeneous; approximately half of U.S. con- 2005; Saenz et al. 1995; Xie and Goyette 1997). gregations are composed entirely of a single These data boast thousands of observations as racial group (Dougherty and Huyser 2008), well as neighborhood contextual variables, but and in 90 percent of congregations, 4-in-5 they do not explicitly inquire about parents’ race. members belong to the same race (Emerson Researchers thus typically confine analyses to and Woo 2006).7 Given the strong intersection households that include a child currently living between religion and race, I argue that the with two interracially married adults, presumed racial homogeneity of certain religious denom- to be the child’s biological parents. As Harris inations may foster a collective racial identity and Sim (2002) note, such research cannot be among biracial group members. generalized to single-parent households. This is problematic because a nontrivial subset of bira- cials have divorced or never-married parents. Gender Qualitative studies are restricted to nonrandom Men and women encounter distinct chal- samples, limiting the capacity to make infer- lenges affecting their approach to race and ences about incidence or rates generalizable to ethnicity (Crenshaw 1989; hooks 1981; Portes the population as a whole (Khanna 2004; Rock- and Rumbaut 2001), and research suggests quemore and Brunsma 2008). that racial boundaries are less malleable for men. Interviewers are more likely to classify Construction of women as non-black than men, all else being equal (Penner and Saperstein 2013), particu- Race Among Biracial larly if the women are well-educated (Telles Americans 2004). Similarly, when observers label people I focus on the effects of gender, socioeco- of biracial or racially ambiguous back- nomic status (SES), and religion on racial grounds, women are less likely than men to identification for several reasons. Gender and be perceived as racial minorities (Ho et al. SES are status characteristics highly corre- 2011; Villarreal 2010). lated with racial identity (Crenshaw 1989; Several explanations have been proposed Saperstein and Penner 2012); together, these to account for these differences in classifica- markers compose what Penner and Saperstein tion, one of which is the gendered nature of (2013:321) call “the original trinity of inter- racism in the United States. Men of color are sectionality.” Despite there being strong evi- substantially more likely than women of color dence that gender and SES are central to report experiencing discrimination, wit- components of racial identity, little research nessing displays of fear from whites, and explores whether and how these traits shape being unfairly treated by the police because of biracials’ identification. their race (Kennedy 1997; Weitzer and Tuch Religion is less commonly studied along- 2002). Waters (1999) argues that such nega- side racial identity. Yet it too interweaves with tive interactions help explain the construction 62 American Sociological Review 81(1) of an African American identity among single racial minority group. Following the ­second-generation West Indian boys but not model of identity construction via reflected girls. Waters shows that due to the heightened appraisals from others, I thus expect that bira- racism males face, West Indian boys are seen cial women will be more likely to identify as as “simply black” by outsiders, prompting multiracial than comparable biracial men, them to embrace a black identification.8 who will tend to adopt a singular minority In addition to men’s and women’s differ- identification. ing encounters with racism, physical attrac- tiveness is a more important social resource for women than for men, and skin tone is a Socioeconomic Status crucial trait in the evaluation of attractiveness The social status and networks associated (Hunter 2007; Wolf 1991). Studies show that with income and education also shape racial East Asian cultures venerate Eurocentric fea- outlooks (Schwartzman 2007). Specifically, tures as reflecting high status for women affluence may discourage biracial individuals (Fraser 2003; Rafael 2000), and light-skinned from selecting a “darker” label (e.g., black or black and Latino women are perceived as brown) in favor of a “lighter” one (e.g., more desirable than dark-skinned women brown or white). Economic affluence may (Hunter 2004). For men, however, skin tone “whiten” identification by allowing individu- has a mostly insignificant effect on attractive- als to display external markers of wealth— ness ratings (Hill 2002) or no effect at all such as wearing designer clothes and owning (Maddox and Gray 2002). Fair skin tone is the latest technology—leading others to label also associated with greater self-esteem biracials as white or multiracial. Affluence among black women but not among black can also facilitate contact with well-to-do men (Thompson and Keith 2004). Indeed, white peers, via private schools or member- Rockquemore (2002) shows that such skin ship in prestigious social clubs. tone stratification, along with high rates of Residing in a more economically prosper- intermarriage among high-status black men, ous neighborhood may similarly lighten iden- make the experiences of black-white biracial tification by increasing social mobility and women different from those of biracial men. permitting a transition into higher status social Khanna (2011) finds that whereas black- circles, where others view biracials as white or white biracial men are usually embraced by multiracial (Telles 2002, 2004). Well-off their self-identified black male peers as “one whites may impose a “whiteness standard” on of them,” biracial women can face hostility or their biracial peers, and the desire for group rejection from self-identified black women. acceptance may compel these individuals to Taken together, prior research indicates choose a lighter self-label (Schwartzman that men and women in the United States are 2007). All else being equal, biracials from racialized in systematically distinct ways. more affluent families and who live in wealth- This work suggests that biracial women may ier areas will perceive greater commonality have an easier time blurring and crossing with their white peers and be less apt to iden- racial boundaries. Perceived as men of color, tify as singular racial minorities. biracial males may be more susceptible to There is reason to believe that education discrimination and stereotypes tied to crimi- will have a countervailing effect to that of nality; as a result, others may tend to label income. For instance, better-educated parents them exclusively as members of the racial may encourage their biracial children to adopt minority category—denying their white herit- a non-white label, because education raises age. In contrast, the value placed on Eurocen- awareness of racial discrimination and ine- tric features may enable biracial women to be quality (Bailey and Telles 2006; Dawson seen as an ambiguous racial Other who is not 1994). Education is also likely to stimulate necessarily categorized as belonging to a outside-the-box racial thinking (Roth 2005), Davenport 63 such that a minority or multiracial conscious- fact, separate black Baptist congregations ness may resonate more strongly among were first formed to establish and maintain a ­college-educated parents. These parents may distinctly spiritual racial community in the be more inclined than less-educated parents wake of the Civil War. Black-white biracials to pass a non-white self-identification on to who are Baptist may thus feel stronger racial their children—one that is either reflective of rapport with African Americans and be more their minority racial heritage or unconstrained inclined than nonreligious black-white bira- by hypodescent. cials to identify as singularly black. Being Catholic may similarly reinforce a minority racial self-identification among Religion Latino-white biracials, as Catholicism is a Places of worship function as sites for the major component of Hispanic/Latino cultural formation of social networks connecting indi- identity: 68 percent of Latino Americans are viduals to others who share their ethnic back- Catholic, compared to only one-quarter of all ground (Calhoun-Brown 1999). Congregations Americans (Pew Research Center 2007a, provide a community where immigrants can 2007b). Likewise, identifying with a religion meet, offer support from ethnic and racial more commonly practiced among Asian eth- discrimination, and potentially develop friend- nic groups—specifically, Hinduism, Islam, or ships with co-ethnics (Alba and Nee 2003; Buddhism—may strengthen a singular Asian Foner and Alba 2008). For example, Chong identification for Asian-white biracials (1998) finds that Korean ethnic Protestant (Kurien 2005; Ying and Lee 1999). churches help transmit Korean culture and In a different way, the racial homogeneity values to second-generation Korean Ameri- of the Jewish American community may pro- cans. Participation in church programs can mote the adoption of a singular white label also lead to stronger ethnic identification by among Jewish biracials. Judaism is a socially increasing use of native languages (Bankston closed ethnoreligious group, in which mem- and Zhou 1996). bership is strictly determined by birth or con- For biracials in the United States, religious version and characterized by a common ethnic identity has theological and racial dimen- ancestry (Gans 1979; Hartman and Kaufman sions, providing a source of spiritual fulfill- 2006). Because 94 percent of American Jews ment while also instilling and strengthening a identify as non-Hispanic white (Pew Research sense of ethnic community. Biracials belong- Center 2013), Jewish biracials may be more ing to ethnic religions—religions that are inclined than similarly non-religious biracials racially homogeneous and accentuate a shared to identify as singularly white. cultural heritage, history, or homeland—may emphasize their religious culture by embrac- ing the racial identification of their religious Additional Influences on Racial peers. Accordingly, the religious faiths that Identification should have the most influence on biracials’ Beyond these three primary sources of social identification are Baptist for black-whites; identities, other familial, sociocultural, and Catholicism for Latino-whites; Hinduism, environmental factors should shape biracials’ Islam, and Buddhism for Asian-whites; and identification. Parents’ race is central for chil- Judaism for all biracial subgroups. dren’s ethnoracial self-identification. The In the African American community, the labels given by parents to Asian-white and black church—especially the Baptist church— Latino-white biracial children most often has historically been instrumental in forging match children’s paternal race, because sur- beliefs about black group identity, interests, name—a powerful symbolic indicator of eth- and leadership (Harris-Lacewell 2006; Lin- nic heritage—is typically inherited from the coln and Mamiya 1990; McDaniel 2008). In father (Qian 2004; Xie and Goyette 1997).9 64 American Sociological Review 81(1)

However, findings are mixed regarding the exposure (Khanna 2004; Saenz et al. 1995). labels given to black-white biracials, for For Asian and Latino biracials, being a native whom surname is less likely to disclose race English speaker may be indicative of social (Brunsma 2005; Roth 2005). Notably, some distance from the immigrant experience, or of the leading activists in the multiracial acculturation to U.S. society, and be predic- movement of the 1980s and 1990s were white tive of a non-Asian or non-Latino racial label. mothers upset that their biracial black chil- dren were expected to “deny” their back- ground (Williams 2006). Black-white biracial Data and Methods children may be particularly encouraged to To assess the effects of these factors on racial develop an identification inclusive of their identification, I examine data from the CIRP mother’s race. The matrilineal line of influ- Freshman Surveys, which are conducted by ence should similarly shape identification as the Higher Education Research Institute at it relates to parents’ marital status. Because UCLA and completed every year by thou- children with divorced or never-married par- sands of incoming college freshmen across the ents tend to be raised primarily by their United States (Sax et al. 2003; Sax et al. 2001, mother, biracial children whose parents sepa- 2002). The surveys are administered at hun- rated may identify with their mother’s race at dreds of higher-learning institutions, including greater rates than biracial children with mar- two- and four-year colleges; research univer- ried parents. sities; public, private, and religious schools; Societal attitudes toward race-mixing— single-sex schools; and historically black col- which reflect the broader environment in leges and universities. The surveys encompass which biracials develop their identities—may a wide range of topics, including questions also be predictive of self-labeling. A concen- about students’ socioeconomic and ethnic tration of racial minorities in one’s neighbor- backgrounds, educational history and career hood increases the likelihood that parents will goals, social and behavioral interests, and val- identify biracial children with a minority race ues and attitudes. The surveys are completed (Qian 2004). In light of the strong relation- during registration, freshman orientation, or ship between residential segregation, racial the first few weeks of classes, before students discrimination, and racial unity (Gay 2004; have had much exposure to the college experi- Tate 1993), living in an area with a higher ence. Full details on the Freshman Survey proportion of minority residents should methodology and sample are available in the increase biracials’ solidarity with their minor- online supplement (https://people.stanford ity peers, encouraging the adoption of a sin- .edu/ldd/research). gular minority identification. These surveys are arguably the best avail- Region also captures racial dynamics. A able data source for studying the attitudes and multiple-race label may be a less viable option behavior of the U.S. biracial population. for biracials living in the South, given the Pooling data from the three years in which region’s traditional resistance to interracial respondents were asked their parents’ race marriage and strong adherence to the hypo- (2001, 2002, and 2003) yields more than descent rule (Davis 2001). In contrast, the 37,000 Asian-white, black-white, and Latino- racial diversity and high intermarriage rates of white biracials—a sample size unparalleled in the Pacific West reflect an environment that studies of self-identification and public opin- places a positive emphasis on multiracial- ion. I also append census sociodemographic ism.10 Biracials in the Pacific West should thus measures for population density, racial com- be more likely to use the multiracial label. position, and median household income at Finally, ethnic identities are communi- respondents’ parents’ home zip-code level. cated through language (Howard 2000), Like many other studies that examine the which is a prominent measure of cultural identities of mixed-race adolescents, my Davenport 65 analyses focus on college students (e.g., one’s subsequent attitudes and behaviors. For Cheng and Lively 2009; Cooney and Radina example, most college freshmen have not had 2000; Doyle and Kao 2007; Harris and Sim significant experiences in the labor market, 2002; Hitlin et al. 2006; Khanna 2011; which might affect their racial self-­ ­Rockquemore 2002; Rockquemore and presentation. This research cannot speak to Brunsma 2008). Given the youth of the bira- the extent to which identification is manipula- cial population (Fryer et al. 2012), surveying ble due to instrumental or employment con- respondents in their late teens and early twen- siderations. Finally, these data do not tap into ties helps yield a larger sample size. respondents’ phenotypic features (e.g., skin There are some drawbacks of focusing on tone, eye color, hair color/texture, and nose college freshmen. In particular, these data do shape), which can influence how people of not include the roughly 10 percent of students mixed-race are treated in society and can who drop out of high school (National Center restrict their identification options (Khanna for Education Statistics 2014), making the find- 2004; Rockquemore and Brunsma 2008). ings not quite generalizable to the entire popu- Future work would do well to explore the lation of 17- to 19-year-olds. That said, given relationship between these traits and racial that about two-thirds of students who graduate identification outcomes. high school enroll in college immediately after their senior year (National Center for Educa- tion Statistics 2014; Norris 2014), the findings Variable Descriptions are still generalizable to a good portion of the Dependent variable. The outcome of inter- relevant age group. The participation of com- est is respondent self-identification. This vari- munity college freshmen in these surveys helps able is constructed from three racial labels: ensure a socioeconomically diverse sample. In singularly white, singularly minority (i.e., addition, unlike many other census-based stud- either Asian, Latino, or black, depending on ies (e.g., Roth 2005; Xie and Goyette 1997), the race of the non-white parent), or multira- these surveys include children with unmarried cial.11 These analyses exclude an additional 2 parents, increasing the representation of stu- percent of each biracial subgroup who iden- dents coming from less advantaged back- tify with any other race or races, as well as grounds (McLeod and Kessler 1990). respondents who identify at least one parent A few other caveats are worth mentioning. with multiple races.12 Only respondents who Racial labels are one aspect of racial identity, report one parent as white and the other par- and these surveys access respondents’ self- ent as either Asian, Latino, or black are reporting of their race/ethnicity at a single included in the analysis. point in time, preventing me from speaking to the stability of identification across contexts. Primary independent variables. The Although these college freshmen have noth- key predictors are gender, religion, and socio- ing at stake when filling out their surveys, economic status. An indicator variable for gen- some might be influenced by the college der is coded one for women and zero for men. application process, in which students see Religious affiliation is coded into six catego- their racial identification as part of the admis- ries reflecting the largest and most racially sions game (Panter et al. 2009). During col- homogeneous religious categories in the lege, young adults are “finding themselves” United States: Baptist, Catholic, other Chris- and navigating a new racial environment; for tian (including Eastern Orthodox, Episcopal, some, figuring out “who they are” racially LDS, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, may be especially salient at this time. Quaker, Seventh Day Adventist, Unitarian, and In addition, the shared social meanings of United Church of Christ), Jewish,­ some other identity, and the degree of importance that an religion (including Hinduism, Buddhism, and individual places on that identity, may shape Islam), and no religion (the reference). 66 American Sociological Review 81(1)

I use three indices of socioeconomic sta- and 1-in-20 black-whites. Such stark varia- tus. Family income is self-reported in four tion suggests that the boundaries of whiteness categories: less than $30,000 (the reference); are more permeable for Latino-white biracials $30,000 to $59,999; $60,000 to $99,999; and and more rigid for biracials with an Asian or $100,000 or more. Median neighborhood black parent. That black-white biracials are income is a continuous zip-code level varia- the least likely to adopt a singular white iden- ble taken from Census 2000 figures. Parents’ tification is to be expected, given the legacy education is coded categorically for both of hypodescent, historical norms against white and minority parents in four categories: “passing” as white, and the greater tendency high school or less (the reference), some col- for black-white biracials to be categorized as lege or associate’s degree, bachelor’s degree, non-white by others (Ho et al. 2011). and some graduate work/degree. Nevertheless, most Asian-white and black- white biracials select a multiracial label— Additional independent variables. I black-white biracials overwhelmingly so, at also adjust for other covariates related to fam- 71 percent. Black-white biracials are also the ily and sociocultural environment. Parents’ least likely to identify exclusively with their marital status is a binary variable indexing minority race, a finding that indicates the one- whether parents are married (not married is drop rule does not define their identifica- the reference). To gauge whether respondents tion.14 Still, the rule continues to constrain are more likely to identify with the race of a black-white biracials’ identification deci- single mother, I created an interaction term sions, as evidenced by the fact that 95 percent between parents’ marital status and parents’ identify as non-white. However, black-white race. Native English speaker is an indicator biracials are not necessarily seeking to dis- variable (non-native English speaker is the tance themselves from their minority herit- reference). Region is a categorical variable age: most identify as both white and black— coded as Pacific, Midwest, Mountains/Plains, and by implication, as neither white nor Northeast, and South (the reference). Percent black. minority race—the population of each bira- Table 1 breaks down identification by cial subgroup’s minority race (e.g., percent mother’s and father’s race, demonstrating that Asian for Asian-white biracials)—is meas- Asian-white and black-white biracials are ured at the respondent’s home zip-code level more likely to identify with their mother’s and categorized into quartiles. I also include race. Panel A shows that relative to Asian- year of survey and zip-code population den- white biracials who have an Asian mother, sity in the regression models.13 those with a white mother are 3.1 percent more likely to identify as white and less likely to identify as Asian.15 Panel B shows that Results having a white mother has a slightly different Parents’ Race and Self-Identification effect for black-white biracials.16 Relative to I begin by examining identification patterns black-white biracials with a black mother, across biracial categories (see Figure 1). Sev- those with a white mother are 6 percent less eral findings here are worth noting. First, likely to identify as black and 6.7 percent regardless of category, biracial respondents more likely to identify as multiracial. are more likely to identify as a minority rather Latino-white biracials are more likely to than as white. Latino-white biracials are the identity with the race of their father (see most likely to do so, with 45 percent identify- Panel C of Table 1). Relative to Latino-white ing as Latino only. Latino-whites are also the biracials with a white father, respondents with most likely to adopt an only-white label: a Latino father are 7.1 percent more likely to approximately 1-in-5 Latino-whites self-label identify as Latino, 3 percent less likely to iden- as white, compared to 1-in-10 Asian-whites tify as white, and 4.1 percent less likely to Davenport 67

Figure 1. Respondent Self-Identification, by Racial Background identify as multiracial. These differences are Asian-white biracials. Table 2 presents all statistically significant, and they parallel regression results predicting non-Asian racial prior research showing that labels used by par- identification.20 Findings indicate that relative ents to describe Latino-white children most to men, biracial women are much more often match the father’s race or ethnicity.17 inclined to adopt a non-white identification: women are 15 percent less likely to self-label as white, and 31 percent more likely to self- Multivariate Model and Results label as multiracial, than to self-label as Asian. To predict identification for each biracial sub- The effect of parents’ educational attain- group, I specified multinomial logistic regres- ment depends on their race. Compared to sions with a three-category outcome variable: biracials with a white parent who has at most white, multiracial, or minority. These models a high school diploma, those with well-­ estimate the differences between respondents educated white parents are less likely to iden- who self-label as either white or multiracial, tify as white and more likely to identify as relative to a reference group identifying with multiracial (relative to Asian). Yet having an only the minority race.18 Given the hard to Asian parent with at least some college is interpret nature of multinomial logistic predictive of selecting a white or multiracial regression coefficients, I present results in label over an exclusive minority identity. terms of more conceptually interpretable rela- Higher family income also lowers the odds of tive risk ratios.19 Given the large sample size, selecting exclusive minority or multiracial many of the differences found are statistically identifications. After accounting for other significant. In the following sections, I assess factors, higher income is associated with a the more prominent substantive findings greater likelihood of identifying as white. The within each biracial subgroup. In the Discus- likelihood of adopting a white label is simi- sion section, I review the patterns that persist larly higher among biracials who reside in across groups. more affluent neighborhoods. 68 American Sociological Review 81(1)

Table 1. Mother’s Race and Father’s Race as Predictors of Respondent Self-Identification

A: Asian-White Biracials

White Mother, Asian Mother, Identification Asian Father White Father Difference P-value

White 12.6 9.5 3.1*** .000 (N = 488) (N = 703) Asian 33.8 37.1 –3.3** .001 (N = 1,308) (N = 2,746) Multiracial 53.6 53.5 .1 .900 (N = 2,074) (N = 3,963) B: Black-White Biracials

White Mother, Black Mother, Identification Black Father White Father Difference P-value

White 4.4 5.1 –.7 .301 (N = 180) (N = 61) Black 23.5 29.5 –6.0*** .000 (N = 968) (N = 355) Multiracial 72.2 65.5 6.7*** .000 (N = 2,978) (N = 788) C: Latino-White Biracials

White Mother, Latino Mother, Identification Latino Father White Father Difference P-value

White 16.9 19.9 –3.0*** .000 (N = 1,803) (N = 2,092) Latino 48.2 41.1 7.1*** .000 (N = 5,130) (N = 4,310) Multiracial 34.9 39.0 –4.1*** .000 (N = 3,712) (N = 4,087)

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001 (two-tailed tests).

As hypothesized, for Asian-white bira- to identify as multiracial, as are biracials who cials, religious affiliation is strongly predic- live in neighborhoods where Asians make up tive of racial identification. Relative to a larger percentage of the population. biracials who choose “no religion,” affiliated biracials are more likely to identify as Asian Latino-white biracials. Table 3 shows over multiracial—except for Jews. Among that racial/ethnic identification among Latino- Jewish biracials, affiliation has a whitening white biracials tends to be inherited patriline- effect; Jewish biracials are 2.7 times as likely ally.21 Relative to those with a single white as nonreligious biracials to identify as white. mother, biracials with a single Latina mother In addition, relative to non-native English have 31 percent higher odds of identifying as speakers, Asian-white biracials whose first white and 18 percent higher odds of identify- language is English are 2.4 times as likely to ing as multiracial. Respondents with a mar- identify as white and 5.1 times as likely to ried Latina mother and white father have 24 identify as multiracial. percent higher odds of identifying as multira- Geographic effects on Asian-white bira- cial than as Latino. cials’ identification are also notable. Non- Gender also shapes Latino-white biracials’ Southerners are more likely than Southerners identification. Compared to men, women Davenport 69

Table 2. Relative Risk Ratios of Identifying as Non-Asian among Asian-White Biracials

Predictors White vs. Asian Multiracial vs. Asian

Parents’ Race/Status (excluded = single white mother) Single Asian Mother .734* 1.018 (.105) (.102) Married White Mother/Asian Father .809 1.190 (.107) (.113) Married Asian Mother/White Father 1.042 1.028 (.177) (.121) Female (excluded = male) .847* 1.312*** (.064) (.065) White Parent’s Education (excluded = high school) Some College .838 1.014 (.106) (.087) College Degree .927 1.227* (.110) (.099) Graduate Education .705** 1.194* (.090) (.100) Asian Parent’s Education (excluded = high school) Some College 1.640*** 1.268** (.206) (.101) College Degree 1.855*** 1.247** (.214) (.092) Graduate Education 1.571** 1.529*** (.205) (.124) Family Income (excluded = under $30,000) $30,000 to $59,999 1.164 .932 (.172) (.086) $60,000 to $99,999 1.330 .998 (.196) (.092) $100,000 or more 1.584** 1.097 (.238) (.104) Median Household Income in Zip Code (continuous) 1.103* 1.033 (.046) (.028) Religion (excluded = no religion) Baptist 1.141 .764* (.178) (.080) Catholic 1.191 .777*** (.127) (.053) Other Christian 1.262* .742*** (.124) (.046) Jewish 2.743** 1.199 (.834) (.284) Other Religion (including Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim) .640* .773* (.123) (.081) Native English Speaker (excluded = non-native English) 2.428*** 5.067*** (.589) (.773) Region (excluded = South) Pacific .763* 1.883*** (.091) (.140) Mountains/Plains .835 1.217 (.152) (.146)

(continued) 70 American Sociological Review 81(1)

Table 2. (continued)

Predictors White vs. Asian Multiracial vs. Asian

Northeast 1.121 1.508*** (.117) (.111) Midwest .732** 1.285** (.085) (.098) Percent Asian in Zip Code (excluded = 1st quartile) 2nd quartile .832 1.066 (.113) (.105) 3rd quartile .869 1.371** (.130) (.144) 4th quartile .833 1.990*** (.140) (.228) Constant .094*** .064*** (.030) (.014)

Note: N = 8,731. Standard errors are in parentheses. Multinomial logistic regressions also account for zip-code population density and year surveyed. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001 (two-tailed tests).

Table 3. Relative Risk Ratios of Identifying as Non-Latino among Latino-White Biracials

Predictors White vs. Latino Multiracial vs. Latino

Parents’ Race/Status (excluded = single white mother) Single Latino Mother 1.310*** 1.178** (.100) (.073) Married White Mother/Latino Father .935 .940 (.063) (.050) Married Latino Mother/White Father 1.129 1.237** (.106) (.093) Female (excluded = male) .970 1.393*** (.042) (.050) White Parent’s Education (excluded = high school) Some College .941 .899* (.062) (.047) College Degree 1.031 1.064 (.068) (.057) Graduate Education .910 .939 (.067) (.056) Latino Parent’s Education (excluded = high school) Some College 1.010 1.047 (.063) (.052) College Degree 1.015 .945 (.066) (.050) Graduate Education .946 .904 (.068) (.053) Family Income (excluded = under $30,000) $30,000 to $59,999 1.078 1.014 (.083) (.061) $60,000 to $99,999 1.197* 1.107 (.095) (.069) $100,000 or more 1.420*** 1.065 (.118) (.070)

(continued) Davenport 71

Table 3. (continued)

Predictors White vs. Latino Multiracial vs. Latino

Median Household Income in Zip Code (continuous) 1.024 1.000 (.024) (.019) Religion (excluded = no religion) Baptist 1.338** .881 (.130) (.077) Catholic .770*** .825*** (.047) (.040) Other Christian .945 .874* (.062) (.047) Jewish 1.481** .902 (.201) (.115) Other Religion (including Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim) 1.084 .920 (.131) (.093) Native English Speaker (excluded = non-native English) 3.477*** 3.136*** (.519) (.340) Region (excluded = South) Pacific 1.029 1.710*** (.064) (.085) Mountains/Plains .831* 1.088 (.078) (.083) Northeast 1.432*** 1.961*** (.089) (.105) Midwest .621*** 1.259*** (.047) (.075) Percent Hispanic in Zip Code (excluded = 1st quartile) 2nd quartile .760** 1.109 (.067) (.090) 3rd quartile .851 1.314*** (.072) (.102) 4th quartile .686** 1.508*** (.059) (.117) Constant .134*** .113*** (.026) (.017)

Note: N = 16,719. Standard errors are in parentheses. Multinomial logistic regressions also account for zip-code population density and year surveyed. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001 (two-tailed tests).

have 39 percent higher odds of identifying as are native English speakers are considerably multiracial than as Latino. Having a higher more likely to identify as white or multiracial— family income, however, increases the likeli- compared to their peers who are not native hood of identifying as white. English speakers—over two times more likely. With respect to religion, after accounting for Region of residence affects the racial iden- other factors, Catholic Latino-white biracials tification patterns of Latino-white biracials. are more prone to identify exclusively as Latino In general, after accounting for other factors, than are their non-affiliated counterparts. In residing outside the South increases the odds contrast, being Jewish or Baptist is predictive of of multiracial identification, living in the a higher likelihood of identifying as white. As Northeast has a whitening effect, and people with Asian-whites, Latino-white biracials who who live in the Mountains/Plains and 72 American Sociological Review 81(1)

Midwest are more likely to choose a Latino Discussion label. Beyond the influence of geographic Table 5 summarizes the results. The results region, living in a neighborhood with a higher show that racial label use depends on multiple proportion of Latinos lowers the odds of iden- social, cultural, and economic factors—par- tifying as white and increases the odds of ticularly gender, socioeconomic status, reli- identifying as multiracial. gion, and region of residence. Black-white biracials. Table 4 presents regression results for black-white biracials.22 Gender Findings indicate that the gender effect on As Table 5 shows, gender is a significant pre- racial identification is substantial, with dictor of racial identification for all three women being about twice as likely as men to biracial subgroups. The + under each M col- identify as multiracial. umn for Asian-white, Latino-white, and For black-white biracials, the effect of par- black-white indicates that biracial women are ent’s education depends on parent’s race. significantly more likely than biracial men to Having a highly educated black parent has no self-label as multiracial rather than only their significant influence on racial labeling, but minority race.23 Overall, this finding is con- having a highly educated white parent reduces sistent with Penner and Saperstein’s the likelihood of white identification. Rela- (2013:333) claim that “‘Blackness’ in general tive to having a white parent who has earned is stickier for men.” It also corroborates at most a high school diploma, having a white Waters’s (1999) argument that it is more parent with at least some graduate education socially acceptable for women to live in mul- lowers the odds of identifying as white by 53 tiple racial cultures simultaneously. That bira- percent and increases the odds of identifying cial women are more inclined than men to as multiracial by 30 percent. identify as multiracial is consistent with the Interestingly, we do not see a significant interactive model of identity, which contends difference in identification between biracials in that an individual’s multiple marginalized lower- and middle-income families. Neverthe- identities interact synergistically (Crenshaw less, biracials in more affluent families (e.g., 1989; Reid and Comas-Diaz 1990; Settles those earning at least six-figure incomes) have 2006). a greater likelihood of identifying as white. Although some research shows that bira- Residing in a more affluent neighborhood also cial women negotiate their race differently or decreases the odds of black identification. are more likely to identify as multiracial, it is In contrast to non-affiliated black-white often impossible to know where the gender biracials, Baptists have 56 percent lower odds difference comes from. Some studies sample of identifying as white. Jewish biracials, how- on multiracial self-identification, but others ever, are more than three times as likely to sample on parental race, focusing on how identify as white than as black. The odds of parents label their children. Because this large identifying as multiracial decline by 44 per- biracial Freshman Survey sample has parents’ cent for Baptists, by 18 percent for other race and self-identification, we can be confi- Christians, and by 46 percent for Jews. dent that the gender findings are not an arti- In terms of region, I find that relative to fact of regional or non-representative data. black-white biracials who reside in the South, Given previous research showing that biracial biracials in the Midwest are significantly less men and women are categorized differently likely to identify as white and more likely to (Ho et al. 2011; Rockquemore 2002), these identify as multiracial. In addition, living in a gender differences likely reflect the differen- neighborhood with a higher proportion of tial effects of phenotype for men and women, black residents decreases the likelihood that as well as external judgments about racial black-white biracials will identify as white. authenticity. Biracial men may be relatively Davenport 73

Table 4. Relative Risk Ratios of Identifying as Non-Black among Black-White Biracials

Predictors White vs. Black Multiracial vs. Black

Parents’ Race/Status (excluded = single white mother) Single Black Mother .682 .571*** (.213) (.072) Married White Mother/Black Father 1.100 .902 (.223) (.084) Married Black Mother/White Father 1.761 1.433* (.694) (.253) Female (excluded = male) 1.229 1.996*** (.201) (.152) White Parent’s Education (excluded = high school) Some College 1.068 1.128 (.242) (.122) College Degree .823 1.026 (.193) (.114) Graduate Education .471* 1.299* (.143) (.168) Black Parent’s Education (excluded = high school) Some College .972 .977 (.225) (.105) College Degree .975 .947 (.232) (.106) Graduate Education .816 .815 (.227) (.105) Family Income (excluded = under $30,000) $30,000 to $59,999 1.100 .970 (.268) (.103) $60,000 to $99,999 .985 .959 (.266) (.113) $100,000 or more 1.824* 1.195 (.530) (.167) Median Household Income in Zip Code (continuous) 1.264** 1.210*** (.111) (.050) Religion (excluded = no religion) Baptist .441** .560*** (.137) (.068) Catholic .945 .885 (.243) (.107) Other Christian .907 .820* (.195) (.082) Jewish 3.247** .537* (1.348) (.159) Other Religion (including Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim) 1.598 .838 (.511) (.145) Native English Speaker (excluded = non-native English) .669 1.757 (.326) (.519) Region (excluded = South) Pacific .656 .990 (.187) (.134) Mountains/Plains .822 .884 (.294) (.162)

(continued) 74 American Sociological Review 81(1)

Table 4. (continued)

Predictors White vs. Black Multiracial vs. Black

Northeast .875 1.192 (.200) (.131) Midwest .558* 1.288* (.150) (.148) Percent Black in Zip Code (excluded = 1st quartile) 2nd quartile .658 .985 (.172) (.149) 3rd quartile .504* 1.117 (.136) (.167) 4th quartile .375** 1.343 (.107) (.205) Constant .375 .729 (.235) (.259)

Note: N = 4,084. Standard errors are in parentheses. Multinomial logistic regressions also account for zip-code population density and year surveyed. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p <.001 (two-tailed tests). more inclined to identify as Asian, Latino, or groups previously assigned as non-white black because they are more likely to be cul- (Bonilla-Silva 2006; Gans 2012). turally perceived as “men of color,” whereas Asian-white and black-white biracials who biracial women may be viewed as exotic eth- have a well-educated white parent are more nic “others” and internalize this perception of likely to select a multiracial label over a difference. minority one. However, as Table 5 shows, biracials who have a well-educated white par- ent are also more likely to choose a minority Family SES label over a white one. Taken together, these Economic prosperity has a distinct racial results suggest that education may generate a whitening effect on biracials’ self-identifica- racially liberal consciousness for white par- tion, as indicated in Table 5 by the + under the ents, leading them to foster patterns of minor- W columns for the variables family income ity or multiple-race identification in their and median household income in zip code. All children (for Asian-white and black-white else being equal, coming from a family earn- biracials). Such findings support the idea that ing at least $100,000 increases the likelihood one need not be a member of a minority group of identifying as white, and living in a higher- to espouse racially liberal principles (Shelby income zip code is also predictive of a whiter 2005). label for black-white and Asian-white bira- For Latino or black parents, educational cials. Note that these whitening effects persist attainment has a null effect on the racial iden- independently of one another. tification of their children. This finding may These findings can be explained by the be attributed to the fact that these two groups dynamics of “boundary crossing”—that is, bira- face relatively higher levels of prejudice than cials become whiter as they acquire traits (in this do Asians and whites. That is, Latinos and case, income and neighborhood affluence) that blacks who are parents of biracial children allow them to bridge racial boundaries separat- may possess a hyperawareness of racism and ing them from “white” status markers (Love- discrimination that is unaffected by additional man and Muniz 2007). This boundary crossing years of formal schooling. is likely aided by societal shifts in attitudes Curiously, having an educated Asian par- about racial categories—the once-rigid rules for ent is predictive of a white or multiracial label white identification have broadened to include over an Asian label. High levels of academic Davenport 75

Table 5. Summary of Significant Predictors of Racial Identification

Biracial Subgroup

Asian-White Latino-White Black-White

W M W M W M

Female (excluded = male) – + + + Family Income (excluded = under $30,000) $30,000 to $59,999 $60,000 to $99,999 + $100,000 or more + + + Median Household Income in Zip Code + + + (continuous) Education of White Parent (excluded = high school) Some College – College Degree + Graduate Education – + – + Education of Minority Parent (excluded = high school) Some College + + College Degree + + Graduate Education + + Religion (excluded = no religion) Baptist – + – – Catholic – – – Other Christian + – – – Jewish + + + – Other Religion (including Hindu, – – Buddhist, Muslim) Parents’ Race/Status (excluded = single white mother) Single Minority Mother – + + – Married White Mother Married Minority Mother + + Region (excluded = South) Pacific – + + Mountains/Plains – Northeast + + + Midwest – + – + – + Percent Minority in Zip Code (excluded = 1st quartile) 2nd quartile – 3rd quartile + + – 4th quartile + – + – Native English Speaker (excluded = + + + +

non-native)

Note: Column W = greater likelihood of selecting a white label, and Column M = greater likelihood of selecting a multiracial label, relative to a minority label. + reflects a significantly positive effect on identification; – reflects a significantly negative effect on identification, at a 95 percent confidence level. Shaded cells denote variables that have similar effects for at least two of the three biracial subgroups. 76 American Sociological Review 81(1) achievement among Asian Americans, cou- interact. In addition, religion fosters cultural pled with their minority group status, may solidarity by underscoring membership in explain this result. As Zhou (2004) argues, historically oppressed minority groups (Alba Asian Americans associate “white” with 2006). This intersection of religion and race mainstream success and privilege, and thus also explains why biracial Jews are dispropor- turn to whites as a model for status attain- tionately likely to call themselves white. The ment. But although Asian Americans are socio- influence of religion on racial identification economically similar to whites, the model may be due to physical proximity and a high minority stereotype distinguishes them as a level of sustained interpersonal contact with racial other—increasing the salience of the members of a particular race, as well as the disadvantages tied to being non-white. emotional bond that stems from sharing the However, intermarriage with whites can same spiritual beliefs with co-ethnics. enable very well-educated Asians to become Places of worship in the United States are integrated into the white mainstream. This in highly segregated by race. This suggests that turn may weaken the “otherness” associated the positive effects of religious affiliation on with being Asian. Accordingly, while a white minority identification may be driven as identification is out of reach for most Asian much by feelings of exclusion as by affection Americans, it is accessible to those who have for co-ethnics. Racially homogeneous reli- a white parent. Because their high-status gions may be less welcoming of non-co- Asian parent has achieved the socioeconomic ethnics, especially members of the white success associated with whiteness, Asian- majority. Research shows that different-race white biracials may be more likely to be cul- members of ethnic congregations often feel turally identified as white or multiracial, like outsiders. This may increase their likeli- rather than Asian. These biracials may also hood of exiting, whereas people who are part perceive greater cultural commonality with of the majority ethnic group may remain loyal their white peers than their Asian peers, which for a longer period (Scheitle and Dougherty could lead to their selecting a “lighter” racial 2010). Accordingly, different-race biracials in label.24 Asian-white biracials might also be ethnic congregations may face greater social aware of the “Asian penalty” that admissions rejection, which could cause them to exit their officers exact on Asian college applicants, place of worship or religion altogether. Con- because of their overrepresentation at elite versely, biracials who are embraced by their schools (Espenshade and Radford 2009). This religious peers as part of the dominant ethnic could lead them to hide their Asianness, at least or racial group may have a particularly strong when identifying their race on college forms. ethnic identification.

Religion Other Influences Table 5 also provides evidence of the central- Beyond the effects of nonracial social identi- ity of religion in the construction of race: all ties, family structure has relatively little else being equal, biracials who affiliate with impact on identification. Latino-white and ethnic religions are more likely than non- black-white biracials whose minority mothers affiliated biracials to identify exclusively as a are married, however, are more likely than minority. This suggests that the cultural over- those with single white mothers to identify as lap between certain religious identities and multiracial, suggesting a preference for incor- racial/ethnic backgrounds—Baptist for blacks; porating the race of both parents into their Catholic for Latinos; and Hindu, Buddhist, self-identification. and Muslim for Asians—reinforces identifica- Racial identification is also subject to tion with that minority group. Churches, tem- regional and neighborhood effects. Asian-white ples, and mosques are settings where people and Latino-white biracials who reside in the with shared interests and backgrounds can Pacific West or the Northeast are more likely to Davenport 77 choose a multiracial label, whereas those living Shapiro 2006), and the significant influence in the Midwest are more likely to adopt a non- of racial identification on behavior and atti- white or multiracial identification (relative to tudes is well-established (e.g., Hutchings and those living in the South). In addition, as the Valentino 2004; Kinder and Sanders 1996; proportion of same minority race in the neigh- McClain et al. 2009). Disentangling the pre- borhood increases, Latino-white and black- dictors of racial identification allows us to white biracials are less likely to identify as understand the sociopolitical ramifications of white, indicating that living around more peo- race in a more incisive way. ple of one’s minority heritage fosters greater Furthermore, examining the political posi- solidarity with that group. Yet increased contact tions of those who straddle racial cleavages, with one’s minority race does not necessarily such as biracials, can improve our under- translate to a singular identification with that standing of the role of racial divides in poli- group, as evidenced by the fact that Asian- tics. The increasing number of multiracial white and Latino-white biracials living in identifiers raises important questions about minority neighborhoods are more inclined to the future of racial group solidarity in U.S. select a multiracial label over a singular minor- politics (Williams 2006). However, does it ity one. make a difference whether people call them- Finally, Asian-white and Latino-white selves white, minority, or multiracial? How biracials whose native language is English are do these labels translate into voting behavior, significantly more likely, all else being equal, racial attitudes, and policy opinions? Social to adopt a whiter racial label than are biracials identity theory (SIT) suggests that people ori- whose native language is not English, thus ent their cognition and behavior toward the illustrating how a shared linguistic back- social category to which they belong (Tajfel ground can reinforce shared racial identity. 1981; Tajfel and Turner 1979). For instance, research shows that individuals who identify with members of a given social category per- Sociopolitical Significance of Racial ceive a strong loyalty and greater dedication Identification to other group members (Ellemers, Spears, According to identity theory, the self is com- and Doosje 1997; Hogg and Hardie 1992). posed of multiple identities, and the meaning This suggests that biracials should share the and influence of a particular identity depends political attitudes of the racial category with on its relation to other identities (Burke which they most strongly identify, and indeed, 1980). These identities vary in salience; more research in political science has found empiri- prominent identities, at the top of one’s hier- cal support for this conjecture (Davenport archy of available identities, are more likely forthcoming). In light of the well-established to be referenced than are lower-ranked identi- relationship between racial identity and polit- ties (McCall and Simmons 1966; Stryker ical behavior, additional work is needed on 1968). Race is but one of several identities an the political ramifications of multiracial iden- individual can draw on at a given point in tification, especially as it pertains to minority time. Other social identities, including those group solidarity and voting. tied to gender and sexual orientation, and role identities tied to occupation, can be pivotal to one’s overall outlook. Conclusions Racial identification has always been fun- Traditionally, biracial Americans of part-white damental to the structuring of U.S. society parentage have identified culturally and politi- and politics (Du Bois [1903] 1989; Myrdal cally with their minority race (Nobles 2000; 1944). As such, it is a core social identity for U.S. Bureau of the Census 1930; White 1948). Americans. Racial inequality is a deep and Some demographers (e.g., Farley 2002) postu- enduring element of U.S. culture (Alexander late that the 2000 Census change will not lead 2012; Massey and Denton 1993; Oliver and to a substantive increase in multiracial 78 American Sociological Review 81(1) identification, but the reality is that millions of States. The whitening effect of income on Americans now identify this way on census racial identification implies that the long- forms (Jones and Bullock 2012). standing black/white divide may be giving Although the multiple-race population is way to a more complex hierarchy linking small proportionally—3 percent of Americans racial categorization and social class. This marked two or more races in 2014—this hierarchy may be sustained if affluent bira- amounts to a 41 percent increase since 2000, a cials begin to distance themselves from more sharp rate of growth when compared to the disadvantaged minority groups by opting out single-race population (13 percent) and most of their minority identification in favor of a other major groups (U.S. Bureau of the Cen- singularly white racial label. sus 2015). And this overall rate masks striking What are the consequences of such identifi- increases within racial subgroups. Notably, cation patterns? Scholars of ethnic politics the percentage of respondents who identified have shown that seeing one’s fate as linked to as Asian-white more than doubled over this that of other co-ethnics, and identifying with period. In 2000, black-white was just the one’s ethnic culture, is critical to Latino, Asian, fourth-most frequently selected multiple-race and black political unity (Dawson 1994; Junn label; 14 years later it had become the most and Masuoka 2008; Schildkraut 2012). It is not popular, tripling in size to 2.5 million. Such a just the presence of particular racial and ethnic high level of black-white identification is labels, but the meanings attached to them, that remarkable, given decades of legislation but- produce political consequences. Just as racial tressed by the rule of hypodescent. labels have expanded over time, the political Overall, an estimated 1-in-5 Americans meanings associated with race will continue to will be of mixed-race by 2050 (Lee and Bean evolve. As the biracial population grows in the 2004). The findings reported in this article coming decades, it is important for scholars to show that the majority of Asian-white and continue to assess the relationship between black-white biracials, and a large percentage subjective racial group identification and polit- of Latino-white biracials, now opt to call ical behavior. themselves multiracial. Given that multiracial labels are increasingly accepted and intermar- riage rates continue to rise (Wang 2012), it Acknowledgments seems that these racial identification patterns I thank Will Bullock, Chris Achen, Tony Carey, Corey Fields, Paul Frymer, Martin Gilens, Rachel Gillum Jack- reflect not an age effect, but instead a more son, Justin Grimmer, James Fearon, Vincent Hutchings, lasting and transformative cohort effect. Tomàs Jiménez, Zoltan Hajnal, David Laitin, Taeku Lee, The surveys used here capture one segment Lauren Prather, Deborah Schildkraut, Gary Segura, and of the U.S. population—teenagers entering the ASR editors and anonymous reviewers for their help- college—but the sample is large, heterogene- ful comments. Previous versions of this article were presented at the 2013 APSA meetings, 2014 MPSA meet- ous, and comprehensive. This enables a rigor- ings, the Center for the Study of American Politics at ous empirical assessment of the effects of Yale, and the UC-Berkeley Colloquium on Race, Ethnic- religious affiliation and income on biracials’ ity, and Immigration. self-identification. Results show that for Asian- white, Latino-white, and black-white biracials, identification is predictably structured by socio- Data and Code Files economic status, religion, and, most signifi- I am grateful to the Cooperative Institutional Research cantly, gender. These findings shed light on the Program (CIRP) at the Higher Education Research Insti- extent to which the boundaries of racial group tute (HERI) at UCLA for providing Freshman Survey membership—once rigidly defined—are now data access. The analysis dataset for this article is hosted by HERI and can be requested here: http://www.heri more blurred. .ucla.edu/gainaccess.php. Online appendices and analy- All told, the evidence indicates that a new sis files are available at https://people.stanford.edu/ldd/ color line may be materializing in the United research. Davenport 79

Notes you stand in the most segregated hour of Chris- tian America” (quoted in Scheitle and Dougherty 1. The term “biracial,” as I use it here, refers to par- 2010:405). entage and denotes individuals whose mother and 8. Waters (1999) suggests that boys are also ostracized father are reported to belong to two different races. for engaging in stereotypically “white” behavior This definition is commonly used throughout iden- but girls are not. This ostracism calls into question tity research (e.g., Allen et al. 2013; Khanna 2011; boys’ racial loyalties and their masculinity. Such Nishimura 1995; Rockquemore and Brunsma 2008; social sanctioning, Waters argues, can reinforce an Wardle 1992). For example, a person with one ethnically black American identity for boys but not Asian parent and one white parent is “Asian-white for girls. biracial.” “Biracial” is hence not reflective of self- 9. Multiethnic whites also experience this patrilineal identification; people who are biracial may identify transmission of ethnicity (Waters 1990). in a number of ways. I instead use “multiracial” to 10. Only 2.4 percent of the overall U.S. population signal self-identification with multiple races or with identified with at least two races in 2010, but the the category “other race.” states with the highest percentages of multiple-race 2. This is evidenced in the New York Times’ declara- identifiers—Hawaii (23.6 percent), Alaska (7.3 per- tion, “It is official: Barack Obama is the nation’s cent), and California (4.9 percent)—were all in the first black president” after President Obama marked Pacific West. The two other states in this region, “black” as his race on the 2010 Census (Roberts and Oregon and Washington, also had multiple-race Baker 2010). The Times argued that in light of his populations that exceeded the national rate (Jones black-white parentage, Obama could have labeled and Bullock 2012). himself as black only, white only, both white and 11. Multiracial includes marking multiple races or black, or “some other race.” marking “other race.” I combine multiple-race 3. Because most biracial individuals in the United (e.g., black and white) and “other race” identifiers, States are of non-white/white parentage, I list the because comparisons of these two groups reveal minority race first to more directly signal the racial subgroup to which an individual belongs. This no substantive differences and both are considered ordering does not necessarily reflect a respondent’s “interracial identities” that move beyond a mutually deeper bond to one race over the other. exclusive conception of race (Roth 2005). Combin- 4. Among people who married interracially in 2010 ing these groups also increases the precision of the in the United States, in 70 percent of couples one estimates and simplifies interpretation of the analy- spouse was white and the other was Latino, Asian, ses. Among Asian-white biracials, 20.5 percent or black (Wang 2012). Because Hispanic/Latino is identify as other and 33.0 percent identify as Asian considered an ethnic group in the U.S. Census, the and white; among Latino-white biracials, 10.9 per- precise number of biracials who identify as multi- cent identify as other and 26.0 percent as Latino racial, Latino and white is unclear. The American and white; and among black-white biracials, 35.4 Indian/Alaska Native (AIAN) population also percent identify as other and 35.3 percent identify has a high rate of intermarriage and multiple-race as black and white. identification (Humes, Jones, and Ramirez 2011). 12. Respondents are presented with three columns of Evidence from the Freshman Surveys indicate that racial groups and are instructed, “Please indicate AIAN-white biracials are more likely than other the ethnic background of yourself, your father, groups to identify with only one of their component and your mother. (Mark all that apply in each col- races (i.e., either white or AIAN); however, I do not umn.)” Respondents are asked about their own race examine AIAN-white biracials here because the before that of their parents, which may minimize overall AIAN population is very small. the chance they feel compelled to mark a multira- 5. Individuals identifying with exactly two minority cial label. The question wording does not specify races made up just .5 percent of the total U.S. popu- that the mother and father mentioned be the respon- lation in 2010, across a total of 10 racial combina- dent’s biological parents. Some respondents might tions. provide the race of a step-parent or adoptive parent, 6. Indeed, many people in the United States who typi- but it seems unlikely that many respondents would cally identify with a single racial group—and an interpret “mother’s race” and “father’s race” as ref- estimated 75 to 90 percent of African Americans— erences to anything other than the races of one’s are actually of mixed-race backgrounds (Davis biological parents. 2001; Spencer 2004). 13. Full question wording, response coding, and 7. The racially segregated nature of religion in the descriptive statistics for each subgroup are provided United States is reinforced by Reverend Dr. Mar- in the online supplement. tin Luther King’s famous line, “You must face the 14. Such a high level of multiracial labeling is unlikely tragic fact that when you stand at 11:00 on Sun- among older generations of black-white biracials, day morning to sing ‘All Hail the Power of Jesus for whom identification developed under the era of Name’ and ‘Dear Lord and Father of all Mankind,’ the one-drop rule. 80 American Sociological Review 81(1)

15. Bratter and Heard (2009) similarly find that Asian- Allen, G. E., Patton O. Garriott, Carla J. Reyes, and Cath- white biracials are more likely to self-identify with erine Hsieh. 2013. “Racial Identity, Phenotype, and their mother’s race. Self-Esteem among Biracial Polynesian/White Indi- 16. Because the boundaries of whiteness are less acces- viduals.” Family Relations 62(1):82–91. sible to Americans of black heritage, we should not Bailey, Stanley R. 2008. “Unmixing for Race Making in expect a large percentage of biracials to identify as Brazil.” American Journal of Sociology 114(3):577– singularly white. 614. 17. I also ran bivariate analyses that include each of the Bailey, Stanley R., and Edward E. Telles. 2006. “Multi- independent variables. These findings, presented in racial Versus Collective Black Categories: Examining the online supplement, suggest several interesting Census Classification Debates in Brazil.” Ethnicities predictive relationships. But because some of these 6(1):74–101. bivariate findings may be intercorrelated, I refrain Bankston, Carl L., and Min Zhou. 1996. “The Ethnic from discussing them at length here. Instead, I Church, Ethnic Identification, and the Social Adjust- concentrate on the multivariate regression results, ment of Vietnamese Adolescents.” Review of Reli- which will determine whether these effects persist gious Research 38(1):18–37. when accounting for systematic differences across Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 2006. Racism without Racists: covariates among respondents. Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial 18. The minority group is the excluded category, due to Inequality in the United States. Lanham, MD: Row- the history of hypodescent in the United States. man & Littlefield Publishers. 19. This methodological approach follows that of other Bratter, Jenifer. 2007. “Will ‘Multiracial’ Survive to researchers of multiracial identification (e.g., Qian the Next Generation? The Racial Classification of 2004; Roth 2005). Children of Multiracial Parents.” Social Forces 20. Even when not stated, findings discussed in this 86(2):821–49. section should be interpreted as relative to identify- Bratter, Jenifer, and Holly E. Heard. 2009. “Mothers, ing as Asian. Fathers, or Both? Parental Gender and Parent-Child 21. Even when not stated, findings discussed in this Interactions in the Racial Classification of Adoles- section should be interpreted as relative to identify- cents.” Sociological Forum 24(3):658–88. ing as Latino. Brubaker, Rogers. 2009. “Ethnicity, Race, and National- 22. Even when not stated, findings discussed in this ism.” Annual Review of Sociology 35:21–42. section should be interpreted as relative to identify- Brunsma, David L. 2005. “Interracial Families and the ing as black. Racial Identification of Mixed-Race Children: Evi- 23. Although prior work finds that children generally dence from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study.” identify more with their same-gendered parent than Social Forces 84(2):1131–57. their opposite-gendered parent (Starrels 1994), find- Burke, Peter J. 1980. “The Self: Measurement Require- ings here cannot be attributed to respondents simply ments from an Interactionist Perspective.” Social being more likely to incorporate the race of their same- Psychology Quarterly 43(1):18–29. gendered parent. When the interaction term female x Burke, Peter J., and Donald C. Reitzes. 1981. “The Link minority mother is added to the model, the correspond- between Identity and Role Performance.” Social Psy- ing coefficients are not significant and overall results chology Quarterly 44(2):83–92. do not change for Asian-whites and black-whites. Burke, Peter J., and Jan E. Stets. 2009. Identity Theory. 24. This finding supports some prior research showing New York: Oxford University Press. that the likelihood of identifying as Asian declines Burke, Ruth, and Grace Kao. 2013. “Bearing the Burden as socioeconomic status rises (Khanna 2004). of Whiteness: The Implications of Racial Self-Identi- fication for Multiracial Adolescents’ School Belong- ing and Academic Achievement.” Ethnic and Racial References Studies 36(5):747–73. Alba, Richard D. 1992. Ethnic Identity: The Transforma- Calhoun-Brown, Allison. 1999. “The Image of God: tion of White America. New Haven, CT: Yale Univer- Black Theology and Racial Empowerment in the sity Press. African American Community.” Review of Religious Alba, Richard D. 2006. “On the Sociological Signifi- Research 30(3):197–212. cance of the American Jewish Experience: Boundary Campbell, Mary E. 2007. “Thinking Outside the (Black) Blurring, Assimilation, and Pluralism.” Sociology of Box: Measuring Black and Multiracial Identification Religion 67(4):347–58. on Surveys.” Social Science Research 36(3):921–44. Alba, Richard D., and Victor Nee. 2003. Remaking the Amer- Campbell, Mary E., and Christabel L. Rogalin. 2006. ican Mainstream: Assimilation and Contemporary Immi- “Categorical Imperatives: The Interaction of Latino gration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. and Racial Identification.” Social Science Quarterly Alexander, Michelle. 2012. The New Jim Crow: Mass 87(5):1030–52. Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. New Cheng, Simon, and Kathryn J. Lively. 2009. “Multira- York: The New Press. cial Self-Identification and Adolescent Outcomes: A Davenport 81

Social Psychological Approach to the Marginal Man Farley, Reynolds. 2002. “Racial Identities in 2000: The Theory.” Social Forces 88(1):61–98. Response to the Multiple-Race Response Option.” Chong, Kelly H. 1998. “What It Means to Be Chris- Pp. 33–61 in The New Race Question: How the Cen- tian: The Role of Religion in the Construction of sus Counts Multiracial Individuals, edited by J. Perl- Ethnic Identity and Boundary among Second-Gen- mann and M. C. Waters. New York: Russell Sage. eration Korean Americans.” Sociology of Religion Foner, Nancy, and Richard Alba. 2008. “Immigrant Reli- 59(3):259–86. gion in the US and Western Europe: Bridge or Bar- Clark, Kenneth B., and Mamie K. Clark. 1939. “Segrega- rier to Inclusion?” International Migration Review tion as a Factor in the Racial Identification of Negro 42(2):360–92. Pre-School Children: A Preliminary Report.” Journal Foote, Nelson N. 1951. “Identification as the Basis for of Experimental Education 8(2):161–63. a Theory of Motivation.” American Sociological Cooney, Teresa M., and M. Elise Radina. 2000. “Adjust- Review 16(1):14–21. ment Problems in Adolescence: Are Multiracial Chil- Francis, Andrew M., and Maria Tannuri-Pianto. 2013. dren at Risk?” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry “Endogenous Race in Brazil: Affirmative Action and 70(4):433–44. the Construction of Racial Identity among Young Crenshaw, Kimberlé. 1989. “Demarginalizing the Inter- Adults.” Economic Development and Cultural section of Race and Sex.” University of Chicago Change 61(4):731–53. Legal Forum 140:139–67. Fraser, Suzanne. 2003. Cosmetic Surgery, Gender and Cross, William E. 2002. “Interrogating ‘In-Between- Culture. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. ness’: A Review of Beyond Black: Biracial Identity in Fred, Phillips-Patrick J., and Rossi V. Clifford. 1996. America.” Contemporary Psychology: APA Review of “Statistical Evidence of Mortgage Redlining? A Books 49(2):205–207. Cautionary Tale.” Journal of Real Estate Research DaCosta, Kimberly McClain. 2007. Making Multiracials: 11(1):13–23. State, Family, and Market in the Redrawing of the Fryer Jr., Roland G., Lisa Kahn, Steven D. Levitt, and Color Line. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Jorg L. Spenkuch. 2012. “The Plight of Mixed Race Davenport, Lauren D. Forthcoming. “Beyond Black and Adolescents.” Review of Economics and Statistics White: Biracial Attitudes in Contemporary U.S. Poli- 94(3):621–34. tics.” American Political Science Review. Funderburg, Lise. 1994. Black, White, Other: Biracial Davis, F. James. 2001. Who Is Black: One Nation’s Defi- Americans Talk about Race and Identity. New York: nition. University Park: Pennsylvania State Univer- Harper Perennial. sity Press. Gans, Herbert J. 1979. “Symbolic Ethnicity: The Future Dawson, Michael C. 1994. Behind the Mule: Race and of Ethnic Groups and Cultures in America.” Ethnic Class in African-American Politics. Princeton, NJ: and Racial Studies 2(1):1–20. Princeton University Press. Gans, Herbert J. 2012. “Whitening and the Chang- Dougherty, Kevin D., and Kimberly R. Huyser. 2008. ing American Racial Hierarchy.” Du Bois Review “Racially Diverse Congregations: Organizational Iden- 9(2):267–79. tity and the Accommodation of Differences.” Journal Gay, Claudine. 2004. “Putting Race in Context: Iden- for the Scientific Study of Religion 47(1):23–44. tifying the Environmental Determinants of Black Doyle, Jamie Mihoko, and Grace Kao. 2007. “Are Racial Racial Attitudes.” American Political Science Review Identities of Multiracials Stable? Changing Self-Iden- 98(4):547–62. tification among Single and Multiple Race Individu- Gay, Claudine, and Katherine Tate. 1998. “Doubly als.” Social Psychology Quarterly 70(4):405–423. Bound: The Impact of Gender and Race on the Du Bois, W.E.B. [1903] 1989. The Souls of Black Folk. Politics of Black Women.” Political Psychology New York: Bantam. 19(1):169–84. Ellemers, Naomi, Russell Spears, and Bertjan Doosje. Goldstein, Joshua R., and Ann J. Morning. 2005. “Back 1997. “Sticking Together or Falling Apart: In-Group in the Box: The Dilemma of Using Multiple-Race Identification as a Psychological Determinant of Data for Single-Race Laws.” Pp. 119–36 in The New Group Commitment versus Individual Mobil- Race Question: How the Census Counts Multiracial ity.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Individuals, edited by J. Perlmann and M. C. Waters. 72(3):617–26. New York: Russell Sage. Emerson, Michael O., and Rodney M. Woo. 2006. Peo- Haney López, Ian. 2006. White by Law: The Legal Con- ple of the Dream: Multiracial Congregations in the struction of Race. New York: NYU Press. United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Harris, David R., and Jeremiah Joseph Sim. 2002. “Who Press. Is Multiracial? Assessing the Complexity of Lived Erikson, Erik H. 1968. Identity: Youth and Crisis. New Race.” American Sociological Review 67(4):614–27. York: WW Norton & Company. Harris-Lacewell, Melissa V. 2006. Barbershops, Bibles, Espenshade, Thomas J., and Alexandria Walton Radford. and BET: Everyday Talk and Black Political Thought. 2009. No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal: Race and Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Class in Elite College Admission and Campus Life. Hartman, Harriet, and Debra Kaufman. 2006. “Decen- Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. tering the Study of Jewish Identity: Opening the 82 American Sociological Review 81(1)

­Dialogue with Other Religious Groups.” Sociology of Kurien, Prema A. 2005. “Being Young, Brown, and Religion 67(4):365–85. Hindu: The Identity Struggles of Second-Generation Herman, Melissa. 2004. “Forced to Choose: Some Deter- Indian Americans.” Journal of Contemporary Eth- minants of Racial Identification in Multiracial Ado- nography 34(4):434–69. lescents.” Child Development 75(3):730–48. Landale, Nancy S., and Ralph Salvatore Oropesa. 2002. Hill, Mark E. 2002. “Skin Color and the Perception of “White, Black, or Puerto Rican? Racial Self-Identi- Attractiveness among African Americans: Does Gen- fication among Mainland and Island Puerto Ricans.” der Make a Difference?” Social Psychology Quar- Social Forces 81(1):231–54. terly 65(1):77–91. Lee, Jennifer, and Frank D. Bean. 2004. “America’s Hitlin, Scott, J. Scott Brown, and Glen H. Elder Jr. 2006. Changing Color Lines: Immigration, Race/Ethnic- “Racial Self-Categorization in Adolescence: Mul- ity, and Multiracial Identification.” Annual Review of tiracial Development and Social Pathways.” Child Sociology 30:221–42. Development 77(5):1298–1308. Lee, Sharon M. 1993. “Racial Classifications in the US Ho, Arnold K., Jim Sidanius, Daniel T. Levin, and Mahza- Census: 1890–1990.” Ethnic and Racial Studies rin R. Banaji. 2011. “Evidence for Hypodescent and 16(1):75–94. Racial Hierarchy in the Categorization and Percep- Lincoln, C. Eric, and Lawrence H. Mamiya. 1990. The tion of Biracial Individuals.” Journal of Personality Black Church in the African American Experience. and Social Psychology 100(3):492–506. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Hogg, Michael A., and Elizabeth A Hardie. 1992. “Pro- Loveman, Mara, and Jeronimo O. Muniz. 2007. “How totypicality, Conformity and Depersonalized Attrac- Puerto Rico Became White: Boundary Dynamics tion: A Self-Categorization Analysis of Group and Intercensus Racial Reclassification.” American Cohesiveness.” British Journal of Social Psychology Sociological Review 72(6):915–39. 31(1):41–56. Maddox, Keith B., and Stephanie A. Gray. 2002. “Cogni- hooks, bell. 1981. Ain’t I a Woman? Black Women and tive Representations of Black Americans: Reexplor- Feminism. Boston: South End Press. ing the Role of Skin Tone.” Personality and Social Howard, Judith A. 2000. “Social Psychology of Identi- Psychology Bulletin 28(2):250–59. ties.” Annual Review of Sociology 26:367–93. Massey, Douglas S., and Nancy A. Denton. 1993. American Humes, Karen R., Nicholas A. Jones, and Roberto R. Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Under- Ramirez. 2011. “Overview of Race and Hispanic class. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Origin: 2010.” Pp. 1–23, U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 McCall, George J., and Jerry Laird Simmons. 1966. Iden- Census Briefs, Washington, DC. tities and Interactions. New York: Free Press. Hunter, Margaret. 2004. “Light, Bright, and Almost McClain, Paula D., Jessica D. Johnson Carew, Eugene White: The Advantages and Disadvantages of Light Walton Jr., and Candis S. Watts. 2009. “Group Mem- Skin.” Pp. 22–44 in Skin Deep: How Race and Com- bership, Group Identity, and Group Consciousness: plexion Matter in the “Color-Blind” Era, edited by Measures of Racial Identity in American Politics?” C. Herring, V. Keith, and H. Horton. Chicago: Uni- Annual Review of Political Science 12:471–85. versity of Illinois Press. McDaniel, Eric L. 2008. Politics in the Pews: The Politi- Hunter, Margaret. 2007. “The Persistent Problem of Col- cal Mobilization of Black Churches. Ann Arbor: Uni- orism: Skin Tone, Status, and Inequality.” Sociology versity of Michigan Press. Compass 1(1):237–54. McLeod, Jane D., and Ronald C. Kessler. 1990. “Socio- Hutchings, Vincent L., and Nicholas A. Valentino. 2004. economic Status Differences in Vulnerability to “The Centrality of Race in American Politics.” Undesirable Life Events.” Journal of Health and Annual Review of Political Science 7:383–408. Social Behavior 31(2):162–72. Jones, Nicholas A., and Jungmiwha Bullock. 2012. “The Myrdal, Gunnar. 1944. An American Dilemma: The Two or More Races Population: 2010.” Pp. 1–23, U.S. Negro Problem and Modern Democracy. New York: Census Bureau, Census 2010 Briefs, Washington, DC. Harper & Row. Junn, Jane, and Natalie Masuoka. 2008. “Asian American Nagel, Joane. 1995. “American Indian Ethnic Renewal: Identity: Shared Racial Status and Political Context.” Politics and the Resurgence of Identity.” American Perspectives on Politics 6(4):729–40. Sociological Review 60(6):947–65. Kennedy, Randall. 1997. Race, Crime, and the Law. New National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Edu- York: Pantheon. cation Sciences. 2014. “Fast Facts: Back to School Khanna, Nikki. 2004. “The Role of Reflected Appraisals Statistics.” U.S. Department of Education (http:// in Racial Identity: The Case of Multiracial Asians.” nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372). Social Psychology Quarterly 67(2):115–31. Nishimura, Nancy J. 1995. “Addressing the Needs of Khanna, Nikki. 2011. Biracial in America: Forming and Biracial Children: An Issue for Counselors in a Multi- Performing Racial Identity. Lanham, MD: Lexington cultural School Environment.” The School Counselor Books. 43(1):52–57. Kinder, Donald R., and Lynn M. Sanders. 1996. Divided Nobles, Melissa. 2000. Shades of Citizenship: Race and By Color: Racial Politics and Democratic Ideals. the Census in Modern Politics. Stanford, CA: Stan- Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ford University Press. Davenport 83

Norris, Floyd. 2014. “Fewer U.S. Graduates Opt for Col- Root, Maria P. P. 1996. The Multiracial Experience: lege After High School.” New York Times, April 25, Racial Borders as the New Frontier. London, UK: p. B3 (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/26/business/ Sage Publications. fewer-us-high-school-graduates-opt-for-college Roth, Wendy D. 2005. “The End of the One-Drop Rule? .html). Labeling of Multiracial Children in Black Intermar- Oliver, Melvin L., and Thomas M. Shapiro. 2006. Black riages.” Sociological Forum 20(1):35–67. Wealth, White Wealth: A New Perspective on Racial Saenz, Rogelio, Sean-Shong Hwang, Benigno E. Inequality. New York: Taylor & Francis. ­Aguirre, and Robert N. Anderson. 1995. “Persis- Omi, Michael, and Howard Winant. 1994. Racial For- tence and Change in Asian Identity among Children mation in the United States: From the 1960s to the of Intermarried Couples.” Sociological Perspectives 1990s. New York: Routledge. 38(2):175–94. Panter, A. T., Charles E. Daye, Walter R. Allen, Linda F. Sanchez, Delida, and Robert T. Carter. 2005. “Exploring Wightman, and Meera E. Deo. 2009. “It Matters How the Relationship between Racial Identity and Reli- and When You Ask: Self-Reported Race/Ethnicity of gious Orientation among African American College Incoming Law Students.” Cultural Diversity and Eth- Students.” Journal of College Student Development nic Minority Psychology 15(1):51–66. 46(3):280–95. Penner, Andrew M., and Aliya Saperstein. 2013. “Engen- Saperstein, Aliya, and Andrew M. Penner. 2012. “Racial dering Racial Perceptions: An Intersectional Analysis Fluidity and Inequality in the United States.” Ameri- of How Social Status Shapes Race.” Gender & Soci- can Journal of Sociology 118(3):676–727. ety 27(3):319–44. Sax, Linda, Alexander W. Astin, Jennifer A. Lindholm, Perlmann, Joel, and Mary C. Waters, eds. 2005. The New William S. Korn, Victor B. Saenz, and Kathryn M. Race Question: How the Census Counts Multiracial Mahoney. 2003. The American Freshmen: National Individuals. New York: Russell Sage. Norms for Fall 2003. Los Angeles: Higher Education Pew Research Center. 2007a. “Changing Faiths: Latinos Research Institute, UCLA. and the Transformation of American Religion.” The Sax, Linda, Jennifer A. Lindholm, Alexander W. Astin, Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. Washington, William S. Korn, and Kathryn M. Mahoney. 2001. DC: Pew Research Center. The American Freshmen: National Norms for Fall Pew Research Center. 2007b. “Religious Composition 2001. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Insti- of the U.S.” The Pew Forum on Religion and Public tute, UCLA. Life. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Sax, Linda, Jennifer A. Lindholm, Alexander W. Astin, Pew Research Center. 2013. “A Portrait of Jewish Ameri- William S. Korn, and Kathryn M. Mahoney. 2002. cans.” Pew Religion and Life Project. Washington, The American Freshmen: National Norms for Fall DC: Pew Research Center. 2002. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Insti- Portes, Alejandro, and Ruben G. Rumbaut. 2001. Lega- tute, UCLA. cies: The Story of the Immigrant Second Generation. Scheitle, Christopher P., and Kevin D. Dougherty. Berkeley: University of California Press. 2010. “Race, Diversity, and Membership Duration Qian, Zhenchao. 2004. “Options: Racial/Ethnic Identifi- in Religious Congregations.” Sociological Inquiry cation of Children of Intermarried Couples.” Social 80(3):405–423. Science Quarterly 85(3):746–66. Schildkraut, Deborah J. 2012. “Which Birds of a Feather Rafael, Vicente L. 2000. White Love and Other Events Flock Together? Assessing Attitudes about Descrip- in Filipino History. Durham, NC: Duke University tive Representation among Latinos and Asian Ameri- Press. cans.” American Politics Research 41(4):699–729. Reid, Pamela Trotman, and Lillian Comas-Diaz. 1990. Schwartzman, Luisa Farah. 2007. “Does Money Whiten? “Gender and Ethnicity: Perspectives on Dual Status.” Intergenerational Changes in Racial Classification in Sex Roles 22(7–8):397–408. Brazil.” American Sociological Review 72(6):940– Renn, Kristen A. 2004. Mixed Race Students in College: 63. The Ecology of Race, Identity, and Community on Sciarra, Daniel T., and George V. Gushue. 2003. “White Campus. Albany: State University of New York Press. Racial Identity Development and Religious Ori- Roberts, Sam, and Peter Baker. 2010. “Asked to Declare entation.” Journal of Counseling & Development His Race, Obama Checks ‘Black.’” New York Times, 81(4):473–82. April 2, p. A9. Settles, Isis H. 2006. “Use of an Intersectional Frame- Rockquemore, Kerry A. 2002. “Negotiating the Color work to Understand Black Women’s Racial and Gen- Line: The Gendered Process of Racial Identity Con- der Identities.” Sex Roles 54(9–10):589–601. struction among Black/White Biracial Women.” Gen- Shelby, Tommie. 2005. We Who Are Dark: The Philo- der & Society 16(4):485–503. sophical Foundations of Black Solidarity. Cam- Rockquemore, Kerry, and David L. Brunsma. 2008. bridge, MA: Harvard Belknap Press. Beyond Black: Biracial Identity in America, 2nd ed. Snipp, C. Matthew. 2003. “Racial Measurement in Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. the American Census: Past Practices and Implica- Root, Maria P. P. 1992. Racially Mixed People in tions for the Future.” Annual Review of Sociology ­America. London, UK: Sage Publications. 29:563–88. 84 American Sociological Review 81(1)

Spencer, Margaret B., Suzanne G. Fegley, and Vinay U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2015. “Race: 2014.” Harpalani. 2003. “A Theoretical and Empirical ­American FactFinder. Census Summary File 1(SF1) Examination of Identity as Coping: Linking Coping 100-Percent Data, Washington, DC. Resources to the Self Processes of African American Villarreal, Andrés. 2010. “Stratification by Skin Color Youth.” Applied Developmental Science 7(3):181–88. in Contemporary Mexico.” American Sociological Spencer, Rainier. 2004. “Assessing Multiracial Identity Review 75(5):652–78. Theory and Politics: The Challenge of Hypodescent.” Wang, Wendy. 2012. “The Rise of Intermarriage.” Wash- Ethnicities 4(3):357–79. ington, DC: Pew Research Center. Starrels, Marjorie E. 1994. “Gender Differences in Wardle, Francis. 1992. “Supporting Biracial Children Parent-Child Relations.” Journal of Family Issues in the School Setting.” Education and Treatment of 15(1):148–65. Children 15(2):163–72. Stryker, Sheldon. 1968. “Identity Salience and Role Per- Waters, Mary C. 1990. Ethnic Options: Choosing Iden- formance: The Relevance of Symbolic Interaction tities in America. Berkeley: University of California Theory for Family Research.” Journal of Marriage Press. and the Family 4(4):558–64. Waters, Mary C. 1999. Black Identities: West Indian Stryker, Sheldon. 1980. Symbolic Interactionism: A Immigrant Dreams and American Realities. Cam- Social Structural Version. Palo Alto, CA: Benjamin- bridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cummings Publishing Company. Waters, Mary C. 2000. “Immigration, Intermarriage, Stryker, Sheldon, and Richard T. Serpe. 1982. “Commit- and the Challenges of Measuring Racial/Ethnic ment, Identity Salience, and Role Behavior: Theory Identities.” American Journal of Public Health and Research Example.” Pp. 199–218 in Personality, 90(11):1735–37. Roles, and Social Behavior, edited by W. Ickes and Weitzer, Ronald, and Steven A. Tuch. 2002. “Perceptions E. S. Knowles. New York: Springer. of Racial Profiling: Race, Class, and Personal Experi- Tajfel, Henri. 1981. Human Groups and Social Catego- ence.” Criminology 40(2):435–56. ries: Studies in Social Psychology. New York: Cam- White, Walter. 1948. A Man Called White: The Autobiog- bridge University Press. raphy of Walter White. New York: Viking. Tajfel, Henri, and John C. Turner. 1979. “An Integrative Williams, Kim M. 2006. Mark One or More: Civil Rights Theory of Intergroup Conflict.” Pp. 33–47 in Social in Multiracial America. Ann Arbor: University of Psychology of Intergroup Relations, edited by W. Michigan Press. Austin and S. Worchel. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Wilson, William Julius. 1980. The Declining Significance Tate, Katherine. 1993. From Protest to Politics: The New of Race. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Black Voters in American Elections. Cambridge, MA: Wolf, Naomi. 1991. The Beauty Myth: How Images of Harvard University Press. Beauty Are Used Against Women. New York: William Telles, Edward E. 2002. “Racial Ambiguity among the Morrow & Company. Brazilian Population.” Ethnic and Racial Studies Xie, Yu, and Kimberly Goyette. 1997. “The Racial Iden- 25(3):415–41. tification of Biracial Children with One Asian Par- Telles, Edward E. 2004. Race in Another America: The ent: Evidence from the 1990 Census.” Social Forces Significance of Skin Color in Brazil. Princeton, NJ: 76(2):547–70. Princeton University Press. Ying, Yu-Wen, and Peter A. Lee. 1999. “The Develop- Thompson, Maxine S., and Verna M. Keith. 2004. ment of Ethnic Identity in Asian-American Adoles- “Copper Brown and Blue Black: Colorism and Self cents: Status and Outcome.” American Journal of Evaluation.” Pp. 45–64 in Skin Deep: How Race and Orthopsychiatry 69(2):194–208. Complexion Matter in the “Color-Blind” Era, edited Zhou, Min. 2004. “Are Asian Americans Becoming by C. Herring and V. M. Keith. Urbana, IL: Univer- ‘White’?” Contexts 3(1):29–37. sity of Illinois Press. Twine, France Winddance. 1996. “Brown Skinned White Lauren D. Davenport is Assistant Professor of Political Girls: Class, Culture and the Construction of White Iden- Science at Stanford University and a faculty affiliate at tity in Suburban Communities.” Gender, Place and Cul- the Center for Comparative Studies in Race and Ethnic- ture: A Journal of Feminist Geography 3(2):205–224. ity. Her research focuses on public opinion and political U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1930. “Census History behavior in the United States. She is currently working through the Decades–1930 (Population).” U.S. Cen- on a book that explores the identities and political atti- sus Bureau Index of Questions, Washington, DC. tudes of the American multiracial population.