1. travel
2. tourist destinations
3. caribbean

Are Black Immigrants A Model Minority:
Race, Ethnicity and Social Mobility in the United States
BY
MOSI MORRISON
B.S., University of Illinois at Chicago, 2003
M.S., University of Illinois at Chicago, 2007
THESIS
Submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology
in the Graduate College of the
University of Illinois at Chicago, 2011
Chicago, Illinois
Defense Committee:
Maria Krysan, Advisor and Chair
Tyrone Forman, Emory University
Sharon Collins
William Bielby
Sherri-Ann Butterfield, Rutgers University
William Darity, Jr., Duke University
This thesis is dedicated principally to my mother, Valena Marie Williams, and
father, Songodina Ifatunji, whose love, encouragement and support has been vital to my
educational success. In addition, as the first to have attained a doctorate of philosophy in
my family, I dedicate this dissertation to all family members – those living and deceased.
iii
AKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my thesis committee – Maria Krysan, Tyrone Forman, Sharon
Collins, William Bielby, Sherri-Ann Butterfield and William Darity, Jr. – for their
unwavering support and assistance. They provided guidance in all areas that helped me
accomplish my research goals and grow personally in the process. I would also like to
thank James Jackson, who provided unrestricted access to the data used in this thesis and
Philip Bowman for his support and guidance early on in my educational career. In
addition, I would like to acknowledge the support of Amanda Lewis for encouraging me
to pursue advanced study in sociology.
In addition, there are a number of individuals who have supported me over the years that
I would like to acknowledge: Cathy Cohen, Kerry Ann Rockquemore, Beth Richie, Lunar
Ford, Jose Perales, Katrina Caldwell, Ray Muhammad, David Stovall. There are also a
number of institutions that have been important in determining my success: the Institute
for Research on Race and Public Policy at UIC, the African American Cultural Center at
UIC, the Black Student Union at UIC, the Center for the Study of Race Politics Culture
and Department of Political Science at the University of Chicago, the Department of
African American Studies at UIC and Northwestern, and the Public Square.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION: ARE BLACK IMMIGRANTS A MODEL MINORITY?............. 1
II. “CAN’T KNOCK THE HUSTLE?” BLACK ETHNICITY, IMMIGRANT
SELECTIVITY AND SOCIAL INEQUALITY IN THE UNITED STATES........... 14
A. Black Ethnic Disparities in the United States....................................................... 17
B. Immigrant Selectivity and Black Ethnic Disparities............................................. 18
C. Hypotheses............................................................................................................ 23
D. Data and Methods................................................................................................. 23
E. Results................................................................................................................... 30
F. Discussion............................................................................................................. 36
G. Conclusion............................................................................................................ 37
H. Cited literature...................................................................................................... 39
III. A TEST OF THE AFRO CARIBBEAN ‘MODEL MINORITY MYTH’:
BLACK ETHNICITY AND SOCIAL INEQUALITY IN THE UNITED STATES 43
A. Black Ethnic Disparities in the United States....................................................... 48
B. The Model Minority Myth and Afro Caribbean Immigrants................................ 49
C. Hypotheses............................................................................................................ 64
D. Data and Methods................................................................................................. 64
E. Results................................................................................................................... 74
F. Discussion............................................................................................................. 82
G. Conclusion............................................................................................................ 92
H. Cited literature...................................................................................................... 94
IV. EXPLORING THE ROLE OF
WHITE INTEREST IN BLACK ETHNIC DISPARITIES..................................... 103
A. Explanations for Black Ethnic Disparities.......................................................... 105
B. White Interest and Black Ethnic Disparities....................................................... 108
C. Hypotheses.......................................................................................................... 117
D. Data and Methods............................................................................................... 118
E. Results................................................................................................................. 126
F. Discussion........................................................................................................... 131
G. Conclusion.......................................................................................................... 139
H. Cited literature.................................................................................................... 141
V. CONCLUSION: BLACK IMMIGRANTS
ARE NOT A MODEL MINORITY......................................................................... 146
A. Differences Between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans......................... 147
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
B. Explaining Black Ethnic Disparities................................................................... 148
C. Limitations.......................................................................................................... 158
D. Racialization, Racism and Racial Inequality in the United States...................... 160
CITED LITERATURE................................................................................................... 163
CURRICULUM VITA................................................................................................... 176
TABLES......................................................................................................................... 182
APENDICIES................................................................................................................. 208
Appendix A2.1.................................................................................................... 208
Appendix A3.1.................................................................................................... 209
Appendix A4.1.................................................................................................... 210
Appendix A4.2.................................................................................................... 211
Appendix A4.3.................................................................................................... 212
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Unadjusted Means for the Association Between
Black Ethnicity and Socioeconomic Status.................................................................... 182
Table 2.2: Unadjusted Means for the Association Between
Black Ethnicity and Selectivity Attributes...................................................................... 183
Table 2.3: Unadjusted Means for the Association Between
Self-Selection and Selectivity Attributes by Black Ethnicity......................................... 184
Table 2.4: LOGIT Regression of Currently Employed on
Black Ethnicity, Self-Selection and Selectivity Factors................................................. 185
Table 2.5: OLS Regression of Occupational Prestige on
Black Ethnicity, Self-Selection and Selectivity Factors................................................. 186
Table 2.6: OLS Regression of Log Personal Income on
Black Ethnicity, Self-Selection and Selectivity Factors................................................. 187
Table 3.1: Unadjusted Means for the Association Between
Black Ethnicity and Socioeconomic Status.................................................................... 188
Table 3.2: Unadjusted Means for the Association Between
Black Ethnicity and Model Minority Attribute............................................................... 189
Table 3.3: LOGIT Regression of Currently Employed on
Black Ethnicity and Model Minority Attributes............................................................. 190
Table 3.4: OLS Regression of Occupational Prestige on
Black Ethnicity and Model Minority Attributes............................................................. 191
Table 3.5: OLS Regression of Log Personal Income on
Black Ethnicity and Model Minority Attributes............................................................. 192
Table 3.6: Unadjusted Means for the Association Between
Afro Caribbean Ethnic Identity and Socioeconomic Status........................................... 193
Table 3.7: Unadjusted Means for the Association Between
Afro Caribbean Ethnic Identity and Model Minority Attributes.................................... 194
vii
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table 3.8: LOGIT Regression of Currently Employed on
Afro Caribbean Ethnic Identity and Model Minority Attributes.................................... 195
Table 3.9: OLS Regression of Occupational Prestige on
Afro Caribbean Ethnic Identity and Model Minority Attributes.................................... 196
Table 3.10: OLS Regression of Log Personal Income on
Afro Caribbean Ethnic Identity and Model Minority Attributes.................................... 197
Table 4.1: Unadjusted Means for the Association Between
Black Ethnicity and Socioeconomic Status.................................................................... 198
Table 4.2: Unadjusted Means for the Association Between
Black Ethnicity and Factors Related to White Favoritism.............................................. 199
Table 4.3: Unadjusted Means for the Association Between
Black Ethnicity and Factors Related to White Comfort................................................. 200
Table 4.4: Unadjusted Means for the Association Between
Black Ethnicity and Responses to Everyday Discrimination......................................... 201
Table 4.5: LOGIT Regression of Currently Employed on
Black Ethnicity and Factors Related to
White Favoritism and Comfort....................................................................................... 202
Table 4.6: OLS Regression of Occupational Prestige on
Black Ethnicity and Factors Related to
White Favoritism and Comfort....................................................................................... 203
Table 4.7: OLS Regression of Log Personal Income on
Black Ethnicity and Factors Related to
White Favoritism and Comfort....................................................................................... 204
Table 4.8: Threefold Multivariate Decomposition
of Current Employment by Black Ethnicity................................................................... 205
Table 4.9: Threefold Multivariate Decomposition
of Occupational Prestige by Black Ethnicity.................................................................. 206
Table 4.10: Threefold Multivariate Decomposition
of Log Personal Income by Black Ethnicity................................................................... 207
viii
SUMMARY
Social science research has consistently documented that Afro Caribbeans outperform
African Americans in terms of labor market outcomes and socioeconomic status.
Explanations for these disparities have typically focused on the human capital and
cultural differences between the two groups. Unfortunately, these explanations do not
consider how racial dynamics might shape these disparities. Thus, the primary goal of
this dissertation is to systematically investigate the roles of human capital, culture and
racial dynamics in influencing socioeconomic disparities between African Americans and
Afro Caribbeans in the United States. In order to do this, I draw upon data from the
National Survey of American Life, which includes a representative sample of whites
(N=1,006), African Americans (N=3,570) and the first national oversample of Afro
Caribbeans (N=1,623). First, I assess the role of immigrant selectivity. Next, I examine
the degree to which black ethnic disparities are a result of Afro Caribbeans having higher
levels of model minority cultural attitudes and behaviors than African Americans.
Finally, I explore the role of US race relations. I find that attributes associated with
immigrant selectivity and attitudes and behaviors associated with being a model minority
explain as much as 20 percent of the black ethnic disparities. Unexpectedly, controlling
for these factors often results in an increase in black ethnic disparities. Finally, I find that
as much as 54 percent of the disparity is due to the labor market rewarding these two
groups differently for having the same levels of the attributes under study. I offer, the
differential racialization thesis as a possible motive or explanation for this differential
treatment. Specifically I argue that despite having the same racial phenotype, African
Americans and Afro Caribbeans are racialized differently in the US. Accordingly,
employers are less critical and more accepting of Afro Caribbeans than they are of
African Americans. I conclude with a discussion of the implications of these findings for
our understanding of race, ethnicity and social mobility.
ix
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Are Black Immigrants A Model Minority?
Arguably, the key distinguishing feature of American sociology is its concern
with race, ethnicity and migration (Du Bois 1899, Du Bois 1903, Park 1950a). That is,
while European sociology provided early understandings of class and capital (Marx
1890), American sociology offered some of the earliest insights into the peculiarities of
race, culture and national origin. Indeed, many of the canonical studies of race and
ethnicity studied the rising tides of immigration at the dawn of twentieth century
America. However, despite these origins, much of contemporary sociological research
has not fully investigated the conceptual tensions and overlaps between race, ethnicity
and migration (Jung 2009, McKee 1993, Pierre 2004, Sanchez 1999).
In this dissertation, I offer three contributions to the literature on race, ethnicity
and migration. First, I continue the effort to insert notions of ‘blackness’ into the
literature on immigration and migration (Foner 2001, Kasinitz 1992, Model 2008e, Reid
1939, Rogers 2006, Vickerman 1999b, Waters 1999a). That is, despite the long history
and recent upsurges in black immigration, immigration scholars have either ignored or
only made passing comments on the presence of black immigrants in the United States
(Bryce-Laporte 1972, Reid 1939). Second, I contribute to the debate on the ‘causes of
racial disparities in the US’ by offering the black ethnic comparative1 as an analytic
1
I use the term ‘black ethnic comparative’ broadly to refer to social, political and economic comparisons
between African Americans and black immigrants from Africa, the Caribbean or South America. In this
dissertation, I compare African Americans and Afro Caribbeans on select measures of socioeconomic
status. I refer to this kind of comparison as the study of ‘black ethnic disparity’ or ‘black ethnic
socioeconomic disparity.’
1
stratagem that allows the researcher to better parse the relative roles of ‘racial
discrimination’ and ‘cultural pathology’ in the manufacture of persistent racial inequality.
Finally, I employ the black ethnic comparative as a way of moving away from studies of
race that are based strictly on physiognomy and toward more nuanced considerations of
how race works in twenty-first century America which go beyond notions of the ‘racial
phenotype’ (Goldberg 1993, Hesse 2007, Kim 1999, Ngai 2004). That is, some have
promoted the use of the black ethnic comparative as a means of ‘holding race constant,’
in order to advance our understanding of how cultural values and practices shape racial
disparities (Sowell 1978). In this dissertation, I reintroduce the comparative as a way to
better understand the multilayered and changing ways in which race and racism continue
to matter in debates concerning racial and ethnic disparities in the US (Almaguer 1994,
Bonilla-Silva 2004, Bryce-Laporte 1973, Kim 1999, Ngai 2004).
In recent decades, the black ethnic comparative has become a more viable site of
social inquiry as the proportion of blacks living in the US that are Caribbean-born has
increased sharply (i.e., Afro Caribbeans; Kent 2007, Model 2008a). While some thinkers
have been primarily concerned with what this population shift portends for the meaning
of ‘blackness’ in the US (Butterfield 2003, Kasinitz 1992, Kasinitz 2001, Rogers 2001,
Vickerman 1999b, Waters 1999a), others have been primarily concerned with black
ethnic disparities between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans (Butcher 1994,
Chiswick 1979, Model 2008e, Sowell 1978).2 That is, since the first waves of
2
I use the term ‘black ethnic socioeconomic disparity’ to refer to disparate rates, levels or outcomes
between blacks across national-origin. In this paper, I am specifically interested in disparate outcomes on
various measures of socioeconomic attainment – e.g., labor market participation and earnings. Although
this term generally includes African Americans and black immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean, in
this study I use this term to refer to disparities between African Americans and black immigrants from the
Caribbean only. I occasionally use the term ‘black ethnic disparity,’ to refer to black ethnic socioeconomic
disparity.
2
immigration from the Caribbean to the US, Afro Caribbeans have outperformed African
Americans on various measures of socioeconomic status (Butcher 1994, Chiswick 1978,
Chiswick 1979, Model 1991, Model 1995, Model 2008e, Sowell 1975, Sowell 1978).
According to the most recent estimates, Afro Caribbeans have earnings that are
approximately 16 percent higher than African Americans and they are as much as 15
percent more likely to be employed than African Americans (Mason 2009, Model
2008a).3 Despite much speculation on the matter, the sources of these black ethnic
disparities are not well understood (Model 2008e).
Scholars have met findings on black ethnic disparities with three different
explanations, two of which focus on endogenous differences in the group level
characteristics of African Americans and Afro Caribbeans. For instance, some have
argued that the cultural attitudes and behaviors of Afro Caribbeans are more in line with
the Protestant work ethic than are the cultural attitudes and behaviors of African
Americans (Ogbu 1992, Portes and Zhou 1993, Sowell 1975, Sowell 1978). This
argument has been most vigorously countered by the ‘immigrant self-selection thesis’
which argues that to compare native-born blacks to foreign-born black immigrants is not
to compare ‘African American culture’ to ‘Afro-Caribbean culture’, but to compare the
human capital differences of ‘movers’ and ‘non-movers’ (Butcher 1994, Chiswick 1979,
Model 2008c, Winston 2002).
Although the majority of scholarship has focused on these group level differences,
some analysts have also pointed to race relations as a potential exogenous factor – i.e.,
3
These percentages reflect group averages at the margins. After adjustments for age, education, time since
migration, census year, cohort of arrival and marital status, Afro Caribbeans continue to outpace African
Americans. See Model, Suzanne. 2008a. "Documenting the Difference between West Indians and African
Americans." Pp. 12-48 in West Indian Immigrants: A Black Success Story? New York, New York: Russell
Sage Foundation.
3
stemming from issues outside of the black body politic (Bryce-Laporte 1973, Model
2008d, Waters 1999a). Specifically, they argue that white comfort, or the idea that
because Afro Caribbeans do not ‘represent’ or ‘bring up’ the tragic history of US race
relations in the same way that African Americans do, white employers hire and promote
them at greater rates than they do African Americans (Waters 1999a). White comfort is
an exogenous factor because it implicates the interests of whites in the manufacture of
black ethnic disparities. This kind of racial project does not rely on ‘racial phenotype,’
per se, but it remains nonetheless motivated by white supremacy and the current state of
US race relations. Although these scholars do well to begin considering more exogenous
factors they have not adequately considered the potential role of differential treatment as
a key exogenous factor in shaping black ethnic disparities (Bryce-Laporte 1973). That is,
while this work has considered the role of white interests, it has assumed that there are in
fact large differences in the racial attitudes of African Americans and Afro Caribbeans. In
making this assumption it has overlooked the possibility that differences between Afro
Caribbeans and African Americans are small and that whites are discriminating against
African Americans in order to propagate the idea that Afro Caribbean success is due to
their hard work and disinvestment in race and racism. This oversight represents the
failure of the social scientific literature to capture the more multilayered and complex
ways that race and racism influence social inequality in the US (Bonilla-Silva 2004,
Bryce-Laporte 1973, Kim 1999, Pierre 2004).
The goal of this dissertation is to provide a more nuanced and complex
understanding of how race and ethnicity continue to matter in the manufacture of social
inequality in the United States. In order to do this, I examine the causes of socioeconomic
4
disparities between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans. Specifically, the
dissertation investigates the roles of human capital, culture and race relations in shaping
black ethnic socioeconomic disparities. The three empirical chapters in which I
investigate these issues are: “‘Can’t Knock the Hustle’: Black Ethnicity, Immigrant
Selectivity and Social Inequality in the United States,” “A Test of the Afro Caribbean
‘Model Minority Myth’: Black Ethnicity and Social Inequality in the United States,”
and “Exploring the Role of White Interest in Black Ethnic Disparities.” All three chapters
use data from the National Survey of American Life in order to assess the role of these
three factors – human capital, cultural attitudes and race relations – in shaping black
ethnic disparities in employment, occupational prestige and annual personal income.
In Chapter 2, “Can’t Knock the Hustle,” I investigate the role of immigrant
selectivity in producing socioeconomic disparities between African Americans and Afro
Caribbeans in the United States (Butcher 1994, Chiswick 1979, Model 2008c). Briefly,
the immigrant selectivity thesis posits that Afro Caribbeans ‘do better’ than African
Americans because they are movers and those who move have higher levels of ability,
motivation and self-efficacy than those who do not move. Therefore, in this Chapter I test
if Afro Caribbeans have higher levels of ability, motivation and self-efficacy than African
Americans. I also test if those who move from state-to-state (either African Americans or
Afro Caribbeans) or country-to-country (foreign born Afro Caribbeans) have greater
levels of these selectivity attributes than those who do not move. Finally, I assess if
differences in these selectivity attributes account for black ethnic disparities in
employment, occupational prestige and annual personal income. I find that Afro
Caribbeans have higher levels of ability and motivation than African Americans but that
5
they are no more efficacious than African Americans. Although those who move tend to
have more ability, I find little support for the idea that movers have higher levels of
motivation and self-efficacy. Unexpectedly, I found that comparing African Americans
and Afro Caribbeans with the same levels of ability, motivation and self-efficacy
generally resulted in no reduction in black ethnic disparities, in fact controlling for these
attributes leads to a slight increase in disparities. I speculate on potential reasons for this
unexpected finding – namely, that Afro Caribbeans may be deriving greater returns for
possessing the same attributes as African Americans.
In Chapter 3, “A Test of the Afro Caribbean ‘Model Minority Myth’”,” I
investigate the degree to which cultural attitudes and behaviors that are associated with
the ‘model minority myth’ are in fact responsible for socioeconomic disparities between
African Americans and Afro Caribbeans (Ogbu 1992, Portes and Zhou 1993, Sowell
1978). That is, I explore whether or not Afro Caribbeans ‘do better’ than African
Americans because they ‘work harder’ and are ‘less invested in racial politics.’
Specifically, I test for the relative roles of protestant work ethic, economic autonomy,
oppositional posturing, family structure and function, race consciousness and ethnic
identification in the manufacture of disparate socioeconomic outcomes between African
Americans and Afro Caribbeans. I find little support for the notion that Afro Caribbeans
have greater levels of model minority attributes than African Americans. Although
disparities in occupational prestige and personal income are generally explained by social
background characteristics, model minority attributes provide a partial explanation for
disparities in employment. I discuss the implications of these findings for arguments that
6
suggest African Americans can ‘do better’ if they work harder and complain less about
race and racism in the US.
In Chapter 4, “Exploring the Role of White Interest in Black Ethnic Disparities,” I
extend thinking on the role that race plays in the production of disparities between
African Americans and Afro Caribbeans in the United States (Bryce-Laporte 1973,
Model 2008d, Waters 1999a). That is, I examine the relative roles of white favoritism,
white comfort, and differential treatment as key race-related exogenous factors in the
manufacture of black ethnic socioeconomic disparities. The white favoritism hypothesis
argues that whites prefer to hire and promote Afro Caribbeans because Afro Caribbeans
are better workers than African Americans (Dominguez 1975, Foner 1985, Sowell 1978,
Waters 1999g). On the other hand, the white comfort hypothesis argues that whites are
more likely to hire and promote Afro Caribbeans because they do not ‘represent’ or
‘bring up’ the history of racial injustice in America in the same way as African
Americans (Bryce-Laporte 1972, Grosfoguel and Georas 2003, Waters 1999b). My
argument for ‘race related differential treatment’ proposes that Afro Caribbeans ‘do
better’ than African Americans because they are treated more favorably than African
Americans even when holding the same human capital, cultural and racial attitudinal
characteristics (Bryce-Laporte 1973). I indirectly test this explanation and find strong
support for it.
I conclude Chapter 4 with a call for further research and provide an alternative
explanation for racial and ethnic disparities in general and black ethnic disparities in
particular. That is, recent theorization on race has noted that – in addition to ‘racial
phenotype’ – perceived foreignness, national origin, and language are key attributes used
7
in the assignment of racial meaning (Kim 1999, Ngai 2004, Tuan 1998, Urciuoli 1996).
Building on this insight, I develop the concept of differential racialization in order to
argue that societies and localities assign different racial meanings to the black body based
on perceived foreignness.4 Perceived regional origin is identified by language accent and
personal or network ethnic identification. When actors identify the black body as
descending from the Caribbean, they assign it racial meanings that are most often
associated with industriousness and lower investments in racialized system blame (see
Chapter 2). These racial meanings are different from the notions of laziness and high
investment in racialized system blame that social actors often prescribe to the block body
when they perceive it to be of American origin. These racial meanings then inform
national debates concerning black ethnic socioeconomic disparity, such that Afro
Caribbeans are thought to do better than African Americans because they work harder
and are less race conscious (Pierre 2004, Prashad 2000). Given this discursive context,
employers are lead to discount the poor work performance and race consciousness of
Afro Caribbeans – when present – while remaining hypersensitive and vigilant when
these same attitudes and behaviors are observed among African Americans (Waters
1999f). These social processes encourage employers to hire and promote Afro Caribbeans
at greater rates than African Americans and result in black ethnic socioeconomic
disparities.
I conclude that while endogenous factors (i.e., human capital and cultural
attitudes) certainly play a role in shaping black ethnic disparities, exogenous factors (i.e.,
4
Although in discussions regarding immigrants in general and black immigrants in particular, scholars
conflate national origin and regional origin. I maintain that these two concepts are interrelated but distinct.
For example, being a black immigrant from Jamaica is different from being a black immigrant from
Guyana; and being a black immigrant from the Caribbean is different from being a black immigrant from
Africa. In this paper, I focus on regional origin.
8
race relations and differential treatment) also play an important role and should therefore
garner greater attention within the social sciences.
In the concluding chapter, I discuss the limitations of the current study and
propose future directions for research on black ethnic disparities in the United States. I
also examine the implications of this project for how we understand race and ethnicity in
twenty-first century America.
9
RFERENCES
Almaguer, Tomas. 1994. Racial Fault Lines: The Historical Origins of White Supremacy
in California. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 2004. ""We Are All Americans" The Latin Americanization of
Race Relations in the United States." Pp. 149-183 in The Changing Terrain of Race and
Ethnicity, edited by M. Krysan and A. E. Lewis. New York, New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Bryce-Laporte, Roy Simon. 1972. "Black Immigrants: The Experience of Invisibility and
Inequality." Journal of Black Studies 3:29-56.
—. 1973. "Black Immigrants." Pp. 44-61 in Through Different Eyes: Black and White
Perspectives on American Race Relations, edited by P. I. Rose, S. Rothman, and W. J.
Wilson. New York, New York: Oxford University Press.
Butcher, Kristin F. 1994. "Black Immigrants in the United States: A Comparison with
Native Blacks and Other Immigrants." Industrial and Labor Relations Review 47:265284.
Butterfield, Sheri-Ann. 2003. "Something in Between: Locating Identity among Second
Generation West Indians in New York City." Pp. 233-261 in Mighty Change, Tall
Within: Black Identity in the Hudson Valley, edited by M. B. Young Armstead. Albany,
New York: State University of New York Press.
Chiswick, Barry R. 1978. "The Effects of Americanization on the Earnings of ForeignBorn Men." Journal of Political Economy 86:897-921.
—. 1979. "The Economic Progress of Immigrants: Some Apparently Universal Patterns."
Pp. 357-399 in Contemporary Economic Problems, edited by W. Fellner. Washington,
DC: American Enterprise Institute.
Dominguez. 1975. From Neighbor to Stranger: The Dilemma of Caribbean Peoples in
the U.S. New Haven, Conneticuit: Antilles Research Program.
Du Bois, W.E.B. 1899. The Philadelphia Negro. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
—. 1903. Souls of Black Folks. New York, New York: Penguin Books.
Foner, Nancy. 1985. "Race and Color: Jamaican Migrants in London and New York
City." International Migration Review 19:708-727.
—. 2001. "Islands in the City: West Indian Migration to New York." Berkeley, Los
Angeles and London: University of California Press.
10
Goldberg, David Theo. 1993. Racist Culture: Philosophy and the Politics of Meaning.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Grosfoguel, Ramon and Chloe S. Georas. 2003. ""Coloniality of Power" And Racial
Dynamics: Notes on a Reinterpretation of Latino Caribbeans in New York City." Pp.
144-175 in Colonial Subjects: Puerto Ricans in Global Perspective. Berkeley and Los
Angeles, California: University of California Press.
Hesse, Barnor. 2007. "Racialized Modernity: An Analytics of White Mythologies."
Ethnic and Racial Studies 30:643-663.
Jackson, James S., Harold W. Neighbors, Randolph M. Nesse, Steven J. Trierweiler, and
Myriam Torres. 2004a. "Methodological Innovations in the National Survey of American
Life." International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research 13:289-298.
Jackson, James S., Myriam Torres, Cleopatra H. Caldwell, Harold W. Neighbors,
Randolph M. Nesse, Robert Joseph Taylor, Steven J. Trierweiler, and David R. Williams.
2004b. "The National Survey of American Life: A Study of Racial, Ethnic and Cultural
Influences on Mental Disorders and Mental Health." International Journal of Methods in
Psychiatric Research 13:196-207.
Jung, Moon-Kie. 2009. "The Racial Unconscious of Assimilation Theory." Du Bois
Review 6:375-395.
Kasinitz, Philip. 1992. Caribbean New York: Black Immigrants and the Politics of Race.
Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
—. 2001. "Invisible No More: West Indian Americans in the Social Scientific
Imagination." Pp. 257-275 in Islands in the City: West Indian Migration to New York,
edited by N. Foner. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press.
Kent, Mary Mederios. 2007. "Immigration and America's Black Population." Population
Bulletin 62:1-16.
Kim, Claire Jean. 1999. "The Racial Triangulation of Asian Americans." Politics &
Society 27:105-138.
Marx, Karl. 1890. Capital: A Critical Analysis of Capitalist Production. New York, New
York: Humboldt Publicatons.
Mason, Patrick. 2009. "Culture Matters: African Diaspora and Labor Market Outcomes."
Tallahassee, Florida.
McKee, James B. 1993. Sociology and the Race Problem: The Failure of a Perspective.
Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press.
11
Model, Suzanne. 1991. "Caribbean Immigrants: A Black Success Story?" International
Migration Review 25:248-276.
—. 1995. "West Indian Prosperity: Fact or Fiction?" Social Problems 42:535-553.
—. 2008a. "Documenting the Difference between West Indians and African Americans."
Pp. 12-48 in West Indian Immigrants: A Black Success Story? New York, New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.
—. 2008b. "Testing the Hypothesis of Selectivity." Pp. 71-88 in West Indian Immigrants:
A Black Success Story? New York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
—. 2008c. "Testing the White Favoritism Hypothesis." Pp. 116-142 in West Indian
Immigrants: A Black Success Story? New York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
—. 2008d. West Indian Immigrants: A Black Success Story? New York, New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.
Ngai, Mae M. 2004. Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern
America. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Ogbu, John U. 1992. "Adaptation to Minority Status and Impact on School Success."
Theory Into Practice 31:287-295.
Park, Robert Ezra. 1950. "Our Racial Frontier on the Pacific." Pp. 138-151 in Race and
Culture. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Pierre, Jemima. 2004. "Black Immigrants in the United States and The "Cultural
Narratives" Of Ethnicity." Identities 11:141-170.
Portes, Alejandro and Min Zhou. 1993. "The New Second Generation: Segmented
Assimilation and Its Variants." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science 530:74-96.
Prashad, Vijay. 2000. The Karma of Brown Folk. Minneapolis and London: University of
Minnesota Press.
Reid, Ira A. 1939. The Negro Immigrant, His Background, Characteristics and Social
Adjustment. New York, New York: Arno Press.
Rogers, Reuel. 2001. ""Black Like Who": Afro-Caribbean Immigrants, African
Americans and the Politics of Group Identity." Pp. 163-192 in Islands in the City: West
Indian Migration to New York, edited by N. Foner. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London:
University of California Press.
12
—. 2006. Afro-Caribbean Immigrants and the Politics of Incorporation: Ethnicity,
Exception or Exit. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Sanchez, George J. 1999. "Race, Nation and Culture in Recent Immigration Studies."
American Ethnic History 18:66-84.
Sowell, Thomas. 1975. Race and Economics. New York: David McKay Publishers.
—. 1978. "Three Black Histories." Pp. 7-64 in Essays and Data on American Ethnic
Groups, edited by T. Sowell. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Tuan, Mia. 1998. Forever Foreigners or Honorary Whites? The Asian Ethnic Experience
Today. New Brunswick, New Jersey and London: Rutgers University Press.
Urciuoli, Bonnie. 1996. "Racialization and Language." Pp. 15-40 in Exposing Prejudice:
Puerto Rican Exeriences of Language, Race and Class. Boulder, Colorado: Westview
Press.
Vickerman, Milton. 1998. Crosscurrents: West Indian Immigrants and Race. New York,
New York: Oxford University Press.
—. 1999. Crosscurrents: West Indian Immigrants and Race. New York, New York:
Oxford University Press.
Waters, Mary C. 1999a. Black Identities: West Indian Immigrant Dreams and American
Realities. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: Harvard University Press.
—. 1999b. "Encountering American Race Relations." Pp. 140-191 in Black Identities:
West Indian Immigrant Dreams and American Realities. Cambridge, Massachusetts and
London, England: Harvard University Press.
—. 1999c. "Segregated Neighborhods and Schools." Pp. 243-284 in Black Identities:
West Indian Immigrant Dreams and American Realities. Cambridge, Massachusetts and
London, England: Harvard University Press.
—. 1999d. "West Indians at Work." Pp. 94-139 in Black Identities: West Indian
Immigrant Dreams and American Realities. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London,
England: Harvard University Press.
Winston, James. 2002. "Explaining Afro-Caribbean Social Mobility in the United States:
Beyond the Sowell Thesis." Comparative Studies in Society and History:218-262.
13
CHAPTER 2
“CAN’T KNOCK THE HUSTLE”5
Black Ethnicity, Immigrant Selectivity and Social Inequality in the United States
“… [T]he foreign-born black men and women, more so even than other
groups of immigrants, are the hardiest and most venturesome of their
folk. They were dissatisfied at home, and it is to be expected that they
would not be altogether satisfied with limitation of opportunity here
when they have staked so much to gain enlargement of opportunity”
(Domingo 1925: 347).
Since the 1965 immigration reform, the US has witnessed rapid growth in the
Afro Caribbean population (Farley and Allen 1987, Kent 2007). Indeed, the annual rate
of black immigration from the Caribbean nearly doubled between 1967 and 2004 (Model
2008a). This trend has brought increased interest in the ‘stock’ of this growing population
and in socioeconomic disparities between African Americans and black immigrants from
the Caribbean (Butcher 1994, Daneshvary and Schwer 1994, Kalmijn 1996, Mason 2009,
Model 1991, Model 1995, Model 2008a, Sowell 1978, Woodbury 1991). That is, Afro
Caribbeans tend to outperform African Americans in terms of both labor market
participation and socioeconomic status (Mason 2009, Model 2008a). According to the
most recent studies, Afro Caribbeans have earnings that are approximately 16 percent
higher than African Americans and they are as much as 15 percent more likely to be
employed than African Americans6 (Mason 2009, Model 2008a).
One of the more prominent explanations for this disparity comes from the
literature on the general quality of the immigrant labor force in the US (Borjas 1985,
5
This is not a quote from interviewees from the study. I am quoting a folk saying often used by African
Americans.
6
These percentages reflect group averages at the margins. After adjustments for age, education, time since
migration, census year, cohort of arrival and marital status, Afro Caribbeans continue to outpace African
Americans. (see Model, Suzanne. 2008a. "Documenting the Difference between West Indians and African
Americans." Pp. 12-48 in West Indian Immigrants: A Black Success Story? New York, New York: Russell
Sage Foundation.)
14
Borjas 1987, Chiswick 1978, Chiswick 1979, Hanson 1940). Specifically, immigration
scholars find that, some time after migrating to the US all immigrants tend to outperform
their native born ‘peers’7 (Chiswick 1979). The rationale associated with this finding has
been that immigrants represent a population that is generally more able, motivated and
efficacious than both those left behind in the country of origin and the native-born they
have joined in the US. In fact, within the literature on black ethnic disparities8, the current
consensus is that immigrant selectivity – both observable and unobservable differences in
ability, motivation and self-efficacy – is responsible for better socioeconomic outcomes
among Afro Caribbeans as compared to African Americans (Butcher 1994, Chiswick
1978, Chiswick 1979, Model 2008e).
There are several limitations to the existing body of work on immigrant selectivity
and black ethnic socioeconomic disparities. First, much of the current research has
provided an analysis of all black immigrants as opposed to a more focused analysis on
black immigrants from the Caribbean. A more fundamental limitation of this body of
work is that the proposed selectivity attributes (i.e., ability, motivation and self-efficacy)
thought to explain the relative success of migrants are very rarely directly measured (for
an exception see, Kaestner and Malamud 2010). Instead, scholars have almost entirely
relied upon indirect measures on the concepts under study.
7
In this literature, the term ‘peers’ refers to within race comparisons. That is, comparing immigrants from
Europe to whites and immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean to blacks; see, Chiswick, Barry R. 1979.
"The Economic Progress of Immigrants: Some Apparently Universal Patterns." Pp. 357-399 in
Contemporary Economic Problems, edited by W. Fellner. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.
8
In general, I use the term ‘black ethnic disparities’ to refer to literature that compares US blacks of
different national origins on various indices of social, political and economic status. In this particular paper,
my working definition of the term is in reference to comparisons in labor market participation and
socioeconomic status between African Americans (i.e., the descendents of North American slavery) and
Afro Caribbeans (i.e., black immigrants from the Caribbean Islands of the North Atlantic).
15
To address these limitations I draw upon a nationally representative sample of
African Americans and Afro Caribbeans and ask three interrelated questions: (1) Are
Afro Caribbeans a more ‘selective’ population than African Americans? (2) Are those
who move a more selective population than those who do not move? And (3) Does the
more selective nature of the Afro Caribbean population account for socioeconomic
disparities between Afro Caribbeans and African Americans? I begin my analysis by
directly testing for differences in selectivity attributes between African Americans and
Afro Caribbeans. Then I explore the association between moving and levels of selectivity
attributes. Next, I empirically investigate the degree to which ‘selectivity attributes’
account for socioeconomic disparities between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans.
Specifically, I use data from a recent national multistage area probability sample in order
assess the roles of ability, motivation and self-efficacy (i.e., selectivity attributes) in the
development of black ethnic socioeconomic disparities in the US (Jackson et al. 2004a,
Jackson et al. 2004b). I evaluate black ethnic disparities in terms of employment rates,
occupational prestige scores and annual personal incomes. Although Afro Caribbeans are
a somewhat more selective population than African Americans, I find that the selectivity
attributes proposed to account for black ethnic socioeconomic disparities, at best, are only
partially responsible. More importantly, I find that when I compare African Americans
and Afro Caribbeans with similar levels of these selectivity attributes, more often than
not, the Afro Caribbean advantage increases. This suggests differential treatment of
African Americans and Afro Caribbeans for the same levels of selectivity attributes.
Finally, I conclude by speculating on the significance of this finding and this line of
16
research for debates on racial and ethnic inequality in the United States (following, Pierre
2004).
BLACK ETHNIC DISPARITIES IN THE UNITED STATES
Interest in investigating disparities between African Americans and Afro
Caribbeans dates back to the late 1970s (Chiswick 1979, Sowell 1978). Most national
studies that explore this issue have used data collected by the federal government (e.g.,
the US Census or the American Community Survey). Although the extent of disparity has
varied over the years and across studies, over the past four decades, Afro Caribbeans
have maintained better outcomes than African Americans on nearly all measures of
socioeconomic status (Mason 2009, Model 2008a).9
Scholars have generally focused their study of black ethnic socioeconomic
disparities on employment rates, occupational prestige and personal income. The most
recent studies of black ethnic disparities in employment continue to show that Afro
Caribbeans attain employment at greater rates than African Americans, by as much as 21
percent (Kent 2007, Mason 2009, Model 2008a). Afro Caribbeans have also been shown
to be as much as 50 percent less likely than African Americans to be unemployed (Kent
2007, Model 2008a). Also, African Americans are as much as 35 percent more likely to
be out of the labor force than are Afro Caribbeans (Kent 2007). Studies of occupational
9
Differences in reports on disparities between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans vary for several
reasons. The primary reason for these differences is not attributable to the use of different data, but mostly
because of differences in the social demographics used to filter respondents in each study. For instance,
while almost all studies use data from the US Census or American Community Survey, some studies only
focus on males, while others include males and females. Still others include all adults over the age of 18
while some choose to only compare those who are likely to be in the labor market, ages 25 to 64. Finally,
some compare all Afro Caribbeans to African Americans while others separate respondents by the
dominant language spoken in the sending country (i.e., English, Spanish or French). While it is important to
consider the sources of these differences, I report disparities in the marginal means in order to set a baseline
for comparisons made in this study.
17
prestige also favor Afro Caribbeans by about 5 percent (Model 2008a). Finally, studies
report that Afro Caribbeans have annual earnings that are as much as 16 percent greater
than African Americans (Mason 2009, Model 2008a).10
IMMIGRANT SELECTIVITY AND BLACK ETHNIC DISPARITIES
Scholars have provided a number of explanations for black ethnic disparities in
socioeconomic status. The most prominent explanations focus on the selectivity of
immigrants. The literature on immigrant selectivity proposes that all migrants have
greater levels of certain selectivity attributes than non-migrants. Selectivity attributes that
have been proposed include: ability (i.e., skill, intelligence, talent, mastery and
creativity), motivation (i.e., diligence, ambition and entrepreneurism) and self-efficacy
(i.e., optimism, future orientation and delayed gratification). That is, immigration
scholars propose that migrants have greater levels of these attributes than their nativeborn ‘peers’ and that these differences explain socioeconomic disparities between the two
groups. These scholars generally refer to disparate levels of selectivity attributes in terms
of the direction of selectivity bias. That is, when immigrants have greater levels (vis-à-vis
natives) of any given selectivity attribute, they are exhibiting ‘positive bias’ on that
attribute. However, despite great interest in these selectivity attributes and their
directionality, rarely have scholars measured the selectivity attributes they claim are
10
There is one exception to the overall trend in greater Afro Caribbean earnings. In 1980, at least one study
shows that African Americans had annual incomes that were 13 percent higher than Afro Caribbeans (see
Model, Suzanne. 1991. "Caribbean Immigrants: A Black Success Story?" International Migration Review
25:248-276.) However, other studies show that Afro Caribbeans continued to outpace African Americans in
1980 but by the lowest percentages on record: as low as 3 percent. (see —. 2008a. "Documenting the
Difference between West Indians and African Americans." Pp. 12-48 in West Indian Immigrants: A Black
Success Story? New York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.)
18
responsible for disparities (for an exception to this general rule see; Kaestner and
Malamud 2010). I address this limitation in this chapter.
The idea that Afro Caribbean migrants are positively self-selected (or that selfselection leads to a positive bias on selectivity attributes) vis-à-vis both their African
American ‘peers’ and native countrymen began in 1925 with Jamaican immigrant
Wilfred Domingo positing that Afro Caribbean migrants in the US are the “hardiest and
most venturesome” of West Indians (1925: 347). Although Domingo implied that this
phenomenon might be unique to black immigrants from the Caribbean, second generation
Scandinavian immigrant Marcus Hanson would later make the more general claim that,
“[c]ountries of origin were dismayed by their loss when they saw their ports thronged
with the sturdiest of their peasantry.” (Hanson 1940: 212).
Barry Chiswick is widely noted for providing the first formal test of positive selfselection within the immigrant labor supply. He argued that (Chiswick 1978: 901):
Economic theory suggests that migration in response to economic
incentives is generally more profitable for the more able and more
highly motivated. This self-selection in migration implies that for the
same schooling, age, and other demographic characteristics immigrants
to the United States have more innate ability or motivation relevant to
the labor market than native-born persons.
Like those before him, the basic idea driving Chiswick’s thinking on self-selection is that,
“[i]f distributions of ability are similar across countries and if immigrants are favorably
selected on the basis of ability, then immigrants will, on average, have a higher level of
ability than … the population in the destination.” (Chiswick 1986: 7).
Chiswick published two papers that provided early support for these claims
(Chiswick 1978, Chiswick 1979). Using an all male sample, he found that although black
19
immigrants11 did not make as much as African Americans upon arrival in the US, after
about 11 years black immigrants surpassed the earnings of African Americans (Chiswick
1979). Chiswick concluded that, “[i]f economic migrants have greater ability than the
native population, they would be expected to have higher earnings once the
disadvantages of a foreign origin becomes sufficiently small” (Chiswick 1986: 7). That
is, although immigrants would experience a ‘lag-time’ during their adjustment to the new
society, after sufficient acculturation to the US, their higher levels of “innate ability or
motivation” would allow them to outpace their native-born ‘peers.’ For Chiswick, the
shrinking earnings gap – net age, education, work experience and other important labor
market characteristics – reflects the greater ability, motivation and self-efficacy of black
immigrants vis-à-vis African Americans. This finding has been replicated for women and
other racial/ethnic groups (Carliner 1980, Long 1980). Suzanne Model (2008c) recently
replicated the Chiswick study. She finds that the time it takes for Afro Caribbeans to
catch up to and surpass African Americans in hourly wages was about 12 years in 1980,
about 9 years in 1990 and approximately 15 years in 2000 (Model 2008c). According to
Chiswick and Model, this finding provides evidence that once Afro Caribbeans are able
to acclimate to the US; their positive bias on selectivity attributes allows them to out earn
African Americans.12
11
Chiswick did not separate black immigrants according to national origin. He used data from the 1970 US
Census. It should be noted that the vast majority – at least 80 percent or more – of black immigrants in the
US in 1969 were from the Caribbean (see Kent, Mary Mederios. 2007. "Immigration and America's Black
Population." Population Bulletin 62:1-16.)
12
Model also reports lag times for labor market participation. When considering employment rate,
unemployment rate and occupational prestige, there is no lag time for labor market participation.
20
Isolating Moving as the Key Moderator in Selectivity
Some of the most compelling evidence for positive self-selection comes from the
comparison of African Americans who moved from state-to-state to Afro Caribbean
immigrants in the US (Butcher 1994). The basic idea driving this comparison is the view
that those who move from state-to-state are positively self-selected in the same way that
people who move from country-to-country are positively self-selected. That is, if
“movers” – either international migrants or state migrants – possess higher levels of
ability, motivation and self-efficacy than “non-movers” do, all movers should out
perform non-movers. In her study, Butcher (1994) not only compares African American
non-movers to Afro Caribbean immigrants but she also compares both of these groups to
African American movers. Her findings show that, “[African American] movers earn 35
percent higher wages than [African American] non-movers” (Butcher 1994: 267). More
convincingly still, she found that “[Afro Caribbean] immigrants in the highest earnings
group earn substantially less than the [African American] movers” (Butcher 1994: 267).
According to Butcher, this shows that movers have more ability, motivation and efficacy
than non-movers generally (i.e., whether African American or Afro Caribbean) and that
there is some penalty for international movers associated with the time it takes to
acculturate. Butcher indirectly observes differences in ability and motivation in terms of
earnings differentials net specific labor market characteristics. She concludes that her
findings lend “credence to the [positive] self-selection argument” (Butcher 1994: 267).
21
SUMMARIZING ARGUMENTS
From these findings, several analysts have concluded that positive self-selection is
the most viable explanation for black ethnic disparities (e.g., Butcher 1994, Model
2008e). However, none of the above studies actually measures ability, motivation or selfefficacy. That is, a review of the work on positive self-selection and black ethnic
disparities reveals that the selectivity attributes thought responsible for the relative
success of Afro Caribbeans are not actually measured. Instead, using only indirect
measures, scholars have speculated on the role that these characteristics play. Therefore,
while the empirical record is compelling, it remains less than conclusive.
In fact, some provide alternative theories for the shrinking earnings gap and/or
raise serious methodological questions (e.g., Duleep and Regets 1999). For instance,
Harriett Duleep and Mark Regets (1999) argue, for Afro Caribbeans “with the same
initial level of human capital [as African Americans,] the opportunity cost per unit of
investment for immigrants will be less than that for natives… the lower the initial skill
transferability, the lower is the opportunity cost for investment” (p. 186). Accordingly,
the fact that Afro Caribbeans often have higher rates of education and income than
African Americans may reflect different incentives to acquire additional education
between the two black ethnic groups instead of unequal levels of ability, motivation and
self-efficacy. Also, research on Mexican migration to the US has proposed that selfselection leads to either negative or intermediate selection bias in the migrant labor pool
(Borjas 1987, Borjas 1991, Chiquiar and Hanson 2005, Kaestner and Malamud 2010).
These scholars also do not directly measure the selectivity attributes for which they are
primarily concerned. Given this stasis in the literature, I advance the debate by providing
22
the first direct test of the role of three selection attributes (i.e., ability, motivation and
self-efficacy) in determining socioeconomic disparities between Afro Caribbeans and
African Americans.
HYPOTHESES
Black Ethnicity and Bias in Selectivity Attributes
1a. Afro Caribbeans will have higher levels of ability than African Americans.
1b. Afro Caribbeans will have higher levels of motivation than African Americans.
1c. Afro Caribbeans will have more efficacy than African Americans.
Moving and Selectivity Attributes
2a. African American movers have greater levels of ability, motivation and selfefficacy than do African American non-movers.
2b. Afro Caribbean movers have greater levels of ability, motivation and self-efficacy
than do Afro Caribbean non-movers.
Explaining Black Ethnic Disparities
3a. Controlling for selectivity attributes (i.e., ability, motivation, efficacy and
religiosity) will partially explain black ethnic socioeconomic disparities.
3b. Controlling for the effects of moving (i.e., state-to-state or country-to-country)
will fully explain black ethnic socioeconomic disparities.
DATA AND METHODS
To explore these hypotheses I use survey data from the National Survey of
American Life (NSAL; Jackson et al. 2004a, Jackson et al. 2004b). The NSAL is uniquely
suited for this study because it contains a range of information on racial, ethnic and
cultural factors as well as measures of socioeconomic status. Further, it provides the first
23
nationally representative study of both African Americans and Afro Caribbeans. The
survey is comprised of two parts: the first was a face-to-face household survey. After
completing the face-to-face interview, respondents were left with a self-administered
questionnaire to complete and submit by mail. The total sample includes 3,464 African
Americans, 1,599 Afro Caribbeans and 855 whites. The response rate for the face-to-face
interview was approximately 71 percent for African Americans and approximately 78
percent for Afro Caribbeans (Jackson et al. 2004b: 204). The response rate for the selfadministered questionnaire was 61 percent for African Americans and 43 percent for
Afro Caribbeans. The analytic sample for this study includes 3,009 African Americans,
and 1,406 Afro Caribbeans.13
DEPENDENT VARIABLES
There are three dependent variables: employment status, occupational prestige
and annual personal income. I measure employment status in terms of whether or not the
respondent had a job at the time of the survey. I measure occupational prestige by
assigning occupational prestige scores to US Census occupational codes (Frederick 2010,
Hauser and Warren 1997). Annual personal income is measured according to self-reports.
I use these three indicators of socioeconomic status because they are the ones most often
assessed in the literature (Model 2008e).
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES
The literature on immigrant selectivity has generally argued that immigrants do
13
I used multiple imputation to address missing data (see Allison, Paul D. 2002. Missing Data. Thousand
Oaks, London and New Delhi: Sage Publications.)
24
better than their native ‘peers’ because they possess greater levels of certain selectivity
attributes. These attributes are ability, motivation and efficacy. The literature has also
argued that self-selection or the act of moving from state-to-state or country-to-country
moderates levels of selectivity attributes (Butcher 1994). Those who move are said to be
more selective than those who do not move. In this subsection, I define these concepts
and review my measurement strategy.
Selectivity Attributes
I define ability as the capacity to do something. Arguably, ability is therefore a
construct that also captures related notions of skill, intelligence and talent. Indeed,
authors use these terms interchangeably in the literature on immigrant labor quality. In
this chapter, I measure ability using a modified version of the traditional human capital
model (Mincer 1974). The items for this measure include: age, age squared, years of
education, work experience (age – years of education – 6), years of experience squared
(to account for diminishing returns) and whether or not the respondent had additional
schooling beyond high school and different from college. The question for additional
schooling was asked after asking the respondent about high school and college. The
question was, “Have you completed any additional schooling?” The response options
were yes or no.
I define motivation as the general desire or willingness of someone to do
something. Scholars have often referred to motivation with concepts such as diligence,
ambition and entrepreneurism. The relation between motivation and diligence is less
intuitive. For instance, those that are highly motivated will be more likely to demonstrate
25
diligence or “care and conscientiousness in one’s work or duties.”14 I measure motivation
in two ways: personal enterprise (or John Henryism) and personal ambition. John
Henryism has been described as a coping mechanism that many blacks have employed
for dealing with racialized blocks to social mobility (James 1983, James et al. 1983). In
essence, the response involves expending ‘high effort’ as a means of dealing with social
adversity. According to the authors of the John Henryism Scale for Active Coping, “items
in this scale emphasize three mutually reinforcing themes: efficacious mental and
physical vigor; a commitment to hard work; and a single-minded determination to
achieve one’s goals” (James et al. 1983: 666). That is, John Henryism refers to a
willingness to exert high effort in order to get something done in adversity. The survey
presented respondents with 12 statements. The response options were: completely true,
somewhat true, somewhat false or completely false. Three example statements are: “I’ve
always felt that I could make of my life pretty much what I wanted to make of it,” “Once
I make up my mind to do something, I stay with it until the job is completely done,” and
“I don’t let my personal feelings get in the way of getting a job done.” The Cronbach
alpha for all 12 items in this scale is .82 for African Americans and .81 for Afro
Caribbeans. I measure personal ambition by creating a difference score between where
respondents locate themselves on a social mobility ladder (1 to 10) and where would the
respondent like to be ‘in a few years.’ Those that expect to be further up the ladder in a
few years have more ambition than those who think they will not move very far in the
next few years.
14
It should be noted that diligence is more closely related to motivation than it is to ability in that without
motivation or interest one is not likely to employ their abilities with “care and conscientiousness” in their
duties. Indeed, a person is more likely to express ability without diligence than they are diligence without
motivation.
26
In this chapter I operationalize self-efficacy using a measure of personal mastery
(Pearlin and Schooler 1978) and two indicators regarding future orientation. The index of
personal mastery includes seven statements. Response options were: strongly agree,
somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly agree. Three example statements are:
“There is really no way I can solve some of the problems I have,” “Sometimes I feel that
I’m being pushed around in life,” and “I have little control over the things that happen to
me.” The Cronbach alpha for all seven items of the index of personal mastery in this is
.73 for African Americans and .72 for Afro Caribbeans. I measure future orientation with
two indicators. Respondents were asked if they strongly agree, somewhat agree,
somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with the following two questions: “I feel that it is
impossible to reach the goals I would like to strive for” and “The future seems hopeless
to me and I can’t believe that things are changing for the better.” The Pearson correlation
coefficient for these two items is .47 for African Americans and .42 for Afro Caribbeans.
Self-Selection
I measure self-selection in terms of the propensity to migrate or move. A dummy
variable for propensity to migrate is constructed to denote whether or not the respondent
is a mover or non-mover (Butcher 1994). For all native-born respondents (both African
Americans and second generation Afro Caribbeans), those who currently live in a state
that is different from the state they were born in are movers and those who currently live
in their birth state are non-movers. All Afro Caribbean first generation immigrants are
considered movers.
27
CONTROL VARIABLES
I control for several variables relevant to the study of socioeconomic status. These
variables are: gender, region, marital status, parental educational attainment and whether
or not the respondent is a second-generation Afro Caribbean. First, I control for gender
because not only are men employed at greater rates and earn more than women, but
because black immigration from the Caribbean has generally favored women (Model
2008a, Watkins-Owens 2001). Region is a particularly important control variable because
the majority of Afro Caribbeans live in the Northeast (Mason 2009). Therefore, I include
a dummy variable for those respondents living in the Northeast. Married people tend to
do better in the labor market than single people, so I control for the marital status of the
respondent (Chiswick 1978). I also control for the educational attainment of the
respondents’ parents because more highly educated parents are often better able to assist
their children in successfully navigating their own social mobility. Finally, I control for
whether or not the respondent is a second-generation Afro Caribbean because research
shows that they are a distinct population group from first-generation Afro Caribbean
immigrants and African Americans (Bennett and Lutz 2009, Butterfield 2003, Butterfield
2004, Deaux et al. 2007, Gans 1992, Portes and Zhou 1993).
ANALYSIS PLAN
There are three stages to the analysis plan. First, I assess differences between Afro
Caribbeans and African Americans in selectivity attributes (e.g., ability, motivation and
self-efficacy; see table 2.2 below). I rely upon one-tailed tests of statistical significance to
examine my directional hypotheses (see hypotheses 1a through 1c). I use eta scores – a
28
standardized measure of effect size – to the assess the magnitude of difference across
selectivity attributes (Grissom and Kim 2005). Effect sizes (ES) provide a common
metric for evaluating results both within and across studies. For substantive
interpretations I rely on the standards described by Rosenthal and Rosnow (1991).15
Second, I examine the relationship between movers and selectivity attributes
separately for African Americans and Afro Caribbeans in order to asses the degree to
which movers have better outcomes on model minority attributes than non-movers.
Again, I use one-tailed tests of statistical significance and eta scores to test hypotheses 2a
and 2b. The third stage of my analysis is focused on accounting for black ethnic
disparities in socioeconomic status (employment status in Table 2.4, occupational
prestige in Table 2.5 and log annual personal income in Table 2.6). To address this
question I estimate a series of regression models. The first multivariate regression model
that I estimate is a baseline model that adjusts the black ethnic employment disparity by
social background characteristics (Table 3.3, Model 1). Next, I estimate 7 additional
nested regression models adding sequentially: mover or non-mover (for self-selection in
Model 2); education, work experience and additional training (for ability in Model 3);
self-selection, ability and the interaction for these two constructs (in Model 4); John
Henryism and ambition (for personal motivation in Model 5); self-selection, personal
motivation and the interaction for these two constructs (in Model 6); sense of mastery and
future orientation (for self-efficacy efficacy in Model 7); and self-selection, self-efficacy
and the interaction for these two constructs (in Model 8). The final Model 9 is a full
model that includes measures for self-selection and all three selectivity attributes and
15
For ES: ES < .10 are considered small or trivial, ES .11 to .20 are considered small, effects .21 to .50 are
considered medium, and effects > .50 are considered large.
29
their interactions.
Following Baron and Kenny’s (1986) criteria for testing mediation, once I add
self-selection, each selectivity attributes and the interaction terms for self-selection and
selectivity to the nested regression models I examine the change in the size and statistical
significance of the black ethnicity coefficient, marked “Afro Caribbean” (see hypotheses
3a and 3b). The “Afro Caribbean” variable denotes the degree to which Afro Caribbeans
outpace African Americans on each indicator of socioeconomic status (see tables 2.4
through 2.6). If after controlling for self-selection, selectivity attributes or the interactions
between these terms (e.g., ability or the interaction between ability and self-selection), the
coefficient for black ethnicity is reduced but remains statistically significant; I conclude
that that self-selection and/or ability provides a partial explanation for disparities between
Afro Caribbeans and African Americans. The magnitude of this partial explanation will
be denoted in terms of the percentage change in the black ethnicity coefficient before and
after controlling for the relevant variable. On the other hand if, after controlling for
relevant variables, the black ethnicity coefficient is no longer statistically significant, I
conclude that the attribute under consideration fully explains the disparity between Afro
Caribbeans and African Americans. Finally, if the coefficient for black ethnicity
increases, I conclude that differential treatment may be driving this suppression effect.
RESULTS
The findings in Table 2.1 show that – as expected – Afro Caribbeans outperform
African Americans in terms of both labor market participation and socioeconomic status.
For instance, in terms of mean levels in employment, Afro Caribbeans are more likely to
30
be employed than African Americans (with a mean difference score of .20 standard
deviations). In addition, Afro Caribbean occupational prestige scores are greater than the
scores for African Americans (with a mean difference score of .25 standard deviations).
Finally, disparities in earnings are also in favor of Afro Caribbeans. Afro Caribbeans earn
about $6,200 more per year than African Americans (with a mean difference score of .27
standard deviations). According to eta and mean difference scores, differences in
earnings are the most pronounced and differences in employment are the least.
Black Ethnicity and Selectivity Attributes
According to the literature, Afro Caribbeans should compare favorably to African
Americans on all three selectivity attributes under study. Table 2.2 presents unadjusted
means for the association between black ethnicity and selectivity attributes. Afro
Caribbeans have favorable scores on four of the seven indicators considered. African
Americans are favored on two of the seven. Preliminarily, this shows that biases in
selectivity attributes favor Afro Caribbeans. However it should also be noted that this
bias is not uniform.
In terms of ability, Afro Caribbeans have more education and are more likely to
attain some form of additional schooling than African Americans. According to the eta
scores, the educational disparity is medium and the disparity in additional training in
small. African Americans have about two and a half years of work experience. While
Afro Caribbeans are slightly favored on the most widely used measure of ability –
education – this difference is not stark – approximately one more year of education.
Moreover, the larger picture for differences in ability is that they are small and mixed. As
31
expected, both measures of motivation favor Afro Caribbeans – although the magnitude
of this favor is somewhat small. That is, according to Table 2.2, Afro Caribbeans have
scores on John Henryism and personal ambition that are only slightly greater than
African Americans (with mean score differences of .27 and .09 standard deviations,
respectively). Based on eta scores, these differences are small and somewhat small
(Rosenthal and Rosnow 1991). These differences stand in stark contrast to those
proposed in the literature. Therefore, while motivational differences that favor Afro
Caribbeans do exist, they are not likely the source of disparities in employment,
occupational prestige and earnings.
Like findings for ability and motivation, differences in self-efficacy are also
contrary to expectations. Given the discussion of efficacy in the literature, one would
expect Afro Caribbeans to have higher scores than African Americans on both personal
mastery and future orientation. However, African Americans have slightly better scores
than Afro Caribbeans on personal mastery and the two groups are even on the measure of
future orientation. Taken together, both groups are comparable in terms of their efficacy,
certainly more comparable than some have suspected.
Moving and Selectivity Attributes
In order to test the assumption that moving (from state-to-state or country-tocountry) is associated with greater levels of selectivity attributes, Table 2.3 presents
unadjusted means for the association between moving and selectivity attributes by black
ethnicity. Moving is most strongly associated with personal ability. For both African
Americans and Afro Caribbeans, those who have moved or migrated have more ability
32
than those who have not moved or migrated. Although personal motivation is not
associated with moving for African Americans, Afro Caribbean movers have scores on
John Henryism that are slightly greater than Afro Caribbean non-movers. Finally, there is
no relationship between personal efficacy and moving among either group. Thus, with the
exception of ability, there is virtually no empirical support for the connection between
moving (i.e., self-selection) and selectivity attributes among African Americans and Afro
Caribbeans. Indeed, in several cases the effects of moving go in the opposite direction
than would be expected (e.g., ambition for both African Americans and Afro Caribbeans;
and sense of mastery, future orientation and years of education for Afro Caribbeans).
Exploring the Link Between Selectivity Attributes
and Black Ethnic Socioeconomic Disparities
In Table 2.4, I report the role of selectivity attributes and self-selection in
producing unequal employment outcomes between African Americans and Afro
Caribbeans. In Model 1, I regress the likelihood of current employment on black
ethnicity, self-selection and selectivity attributes. In the baseline model, Model 1,
controls do not fully reduce the disparity in employment between African Americans and
Afro Caribbeans. The act of moving (in Model 2) did not reduce disparities any further.
Counter to expectations, differences in ability do not explain disparities in the likelihood
of employment between African American and Afro Caribbeans. Adding interaction
terms for moving and ability resulted in a slight increase or suppression in the
employment disparity coefficient (about 4 percent).
Although accounting for motivation is associated with no real change in
employment disparities, controlling for self-efficacy (in Model 7) is associated with a
33
modest increase in the Afro Caribbean advantage in employment. According to Models 5
and 6, controlling for motivation is not associated with any change in the employment
disparity. In line with findings from Table 2.3, there is no support for moving operating
as a moderator. Controlling for differences in self-efficacy in Models 7 and 8 results in a
fairly sizeable suppression effect in employment disparities. That is, when Afro
Caribbeans and African Americans with similar levels of self-efficacy are compared,
Afro Caribbeans are about 17 percent more likely to be employed. The suppression is
even greater when the model is adjusted for the interactive effects of self-selection and
self-efficacy (about 21 percent). These findings are not expected in the literature.
Table 2.5 presents findings for an OLS regression of occupational prestige on
black ethnicity, self-selection and selectivity attributes. In line with expectations, those
who move have greater occupational prestige than those who do not move. Indeed,
controlling for self-selection is associated with a 35 percent reduction in occupational
prestige disparity. Also in line with expectations, adjusting for ability in Model 3 results
in a full reduction in occupational prestige disparities. Interestingly, controlling for ability
in Model 4 explains a portion of the previous association between moving and
occupational prestige, suggesting that one of the reason why movers have higher
occupational prestige scores than non-movers is because they have more ability. Since
Afro Caribbeans have better ability scores and are more likely to move, controlling for
these differences results in a full explanation of higher levels of occupational prestige
among Afro Caribbeans.
Findings for motivation and self-efficacy are somewhat mixed relative to
expectations. That is, controlling for motivation alone in Model 5 results in a slight
34
suppression effect (about 7 percent) in black ethnic occupational disparity. However,
controlling for the effect of moving on motivation results in a decrease in the size of this
disparity (about 26 percent). When taken together with findings from Tables 2.2 and 2.3,
this suggests that Afro Caribbeans’ occupational disparities are not due to disparities in
motivation, but that part of the reason why moving is associated with a reduction in
occupational disparities is because movers are more motivated. This ‘mixed’ finding
suggests that the increase in motivation among Afro Caribbean movers is large enough
that when it is accounted for we observe a reduction in the occupational prestige
disparity. So there is something unique to motivated-movers that is not just about being
motivated. This pattern also holds for self-efficacy. While controlling for self-efficacy in
Model 7 is associated with a modest increase in the occupational prestige disparity (about
9 percent), controlling for the joint effects of higher self-efficacy and moving is
associated with a slight decrease in the occupational prestige disparity (about 23 percent).
Given findings from Tables 2.2 and 2.3, this is likely not attributable to something unique
about self-efficacy among movers and is instead more likely the result of the effect of
moving, net self-efficacy.
Table 2.6 presents findings from an OLS regression of log annual personal
income on black ethnicity, self-selection and selectivity factors. After I account for
differences in social background, disparities in personal income disappear. Therefore,
income disparities are not primarily a result of the selectivity factors that have been
pointed to in the literature.
35
DISCUSSION
In this chapter, I have attempted to review and test the expectations made in the
literature on immigrant selectivity and black ethnic socioeconomic disparities. According
to this literature, Afro Caribbean immigrants do better than African Americans because
they are positively selected (or biased) on several selectivity attributes, namely: ability,
motivation and efficacy. To date, most studies in this area have not actually tested the
various selectivity mechanisms they have speculated upon. Instead scholars have mostly
studied indirect associations between selectivity mechanisms (e.g., self-selection) and
black ethnic socioeconomic disparity. Findings in this chapter suggest that Afro
Caribbeans are not consistently ‘positively biased’ on the selectivity attributes under
study, and accounting for differences in selectivity attributes often does not explain
differences in socioeconomic status between these two black ethnic groups. Instead, on
many occasions, accounting for ‘bias’ in selectivity attributes results in increased
disparities in socioeconomic status. The most likely reason for this ‘suppression effect’ is
that African Americans and Afro Caribbeans receive different treatment for the same
selectivity attributes.
In almost every case, controlling for either selectivity attributes or self-selection
resulted in either no change or an increase in socioeconomic disparities between African
Americans and Afro Caribbeans. This pattern holds true across two different measures of
socioeconomic status (i.e., employment status and occupational prestige). The exception
to this more general pattern has to do with the role of ability in explaining black ethnic
differences in occupational prestige. That is, different levels of ability between African
Americans and Afro Caribbeans fully explain black ethnic disparities in occupational
36
prestige. Therefore, while differences in ability might help one move up the occupational
ladder, greater ability does not help in securing a job or attaining a higher income.
The other general pattern that requires comment is that in almost every other case
outside of ability, the selectivity attributes I consider result in either no change in
socioeconomic disparities or slight to modest increases in these disparities. This suggests
a larger pattern of differential treatment for the same characteristics (see Chapter 4). For
instance, controlling for self-selection and all selectivity attributes simultaneously (in
Table 2.4) results in a 17 percent increase in the employment disparity. That is, when
African Americans are compared to Afro Caribbeans with the same social background
characteristics and selectivity attributes, black ethnic disparities in employment and
occupational prestige actually increase (see Chapter 4 for an extended discussion of
differential treatment).
CONCLUSION
Findings in this chapter shed new light on the debate concerning disparities
between the immigrant and native population in the United States. Counter to expectation
(with the exception of occupational prestige) the hypothesized selectivity factors do not
account for disparities between immigrants and natives. In the case of occupational
prestige, it appears that greater levels of selectivity factors are responsible for this
disparity. When taken together this suggests that while selectivity factors do not help in
gaining employment or better pay, they do help in moving up the occupational later. As
to the importance of this chapter for larger debates on racial inequality, it appears that
encouraging racial minorities to invest more in ability, motivation and self-efficacy will
37
likely not result in the undoing of racial inequality.
38
CITED LITERATURE
Baron, Reuben M. and David A. Kenny. 1986. "The Moderator-Mediator Variable
Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic and Statistical
Considerations." Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 51:1173-1182.
Bennett, Pamela R. and Amy Lutz. 2009. "How African American Is the Net Black
Advantage? Differences in College Attendance among Immigrant Blacks, Native Blacks,
and Whites." Sociology of Education 82:70-99.
Borjas, George J. 1985. "Assimilation, Changes in Cohort Quality, and the Earnings of
Immigrants." Journal of Labor Economics 3:463-489.
—. 1987. "Self-Selection and the Earnings of Immigrants." American Economic Review
77:531-553.
—. 1991. "Immigration and Self-Selection." Pp. 29-76 in Immigration, Trade and the
Labor Market, edited by J. M. Abowd and R. B. Freeman. Chicago, Illinois: University
of Chicago Press.
Butcher, Kristin F. 1994. "Black Immigrants in the United States: A Comparison with
Native Blacks and Other Immigrants." Industrial and Labor Relations Review 47:265284.
Butterfield, Sheri-Ann. 2003. "Something in Between: Locating Identity among Second
Generation West Indians in New York City." Pp. 233-261 in Mighty Change, Tall
Within: Black Identity in the Hudson Valley, edited by M. B. Young Armstead. Albany,
New York: State University of New York Press.
—. 2004. "'We're Just Black': The Racial and Ethnic Identities of Second Generation
West Indians in New York." Pp. 288-312 in Becoming New Yorkers: Ethnographies of
the New Second Generation, edited by P. Kasinitz, J. Mollenkopf, and M. C. Waters.
New York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Carliner, Geoffrey. 1980. "Wages, Earnings, and Hours of First, Second, and Third
Generation American Males." Economic Inquiry 18:87-102.
Chiquiar, Daniel and Gordon H. Hanson. 2005. "International Migration, Self-Selection
and the Distribution of Wages: Evidence from Mexico and the United States." Journal of
Political Economy 113:239-281.
Chiswick, Barry. 1986. "Human Capital and the Labor Market Adjustment of
Immigrants: Testing Alternative Hypothesis." Research in Human Capital Development
4:1-26.
Chiswick, Barry R. 1978. "The Effects of Americanization on the Earnings of ForeignBorn Men." Journal of Political Economy 86:897-921.
—. 1979. "The Economic Progress of Immigrants: Some Apparently Universal Patterns."
Pp. 357-399 in Contemporary Economic Problems, edited by W. Fellner. Washington,
DC: American Enterprise Institute.
Daneshvary, Nasser and R. Keith Schwer. 1994. "Black Immigrants in the U.S. Labor
Market: An Earnings Analysis." Review of Black Political Economy 22:77-98.
Deaux, Kay, Nida Bikmen, Alwyn Gilkes, Ana Ventuneac, Yvanne Joseph, Yasser A.
Payne, and Claude M. Steele. 2007. "Becoming American: Stereotype Threat Effects in
Afro-Caribbean Immigrant Groups." Social Psychology Quarterly 70:384-404.
Domingo, Wilfred A. 1925. "Gift of the Black Tropics." Pp. 341-349 in The New Negro:
An Interpretation, edited by A. Locke. New York: Johnson Reprint.
Duleep, Harriet Orcutt and Mark C. Regets. 1999. "Immigrants and Human-Capital
Investment." American Economic Review 89:186-191.
Farley, Reynolds and Walter R. Allen. 1987. "Race, Ancestry and Socioeconomic Status:
Are West Indian Blacks More Successful?" in The Color Line and the Quality of Life in
America. New York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Frederick, Carl. 2010. "A Crosswalk for Using Pre-2000 Occupational Status and
Prestige Codes with Post-2000 Occupation Codes." Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Gans, Herbert. 1992. "Second-Generation Decline: Scenarios for the Economic and
Ethnic Futures of the Post-1965 American Immigrants." Ethnic and Racial Studies
15:173-192.
Grissom, Robert J. and John J. Kim. 2005. "Effect Sizes for One-Way Anova Designs."
Pp. 117-138 in Effect Sizes for Research: A Broad Practical Approach. Mahwah, New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Hanson, Marcus Lee. 1940. The Immigrant in American History. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Hauser, Robert M. and John Robert Warren. 1997. "Socioeconomic Indexes for
Occupations: A Review, Update, and Critique." Sociological Methodology 27:177-298.
Jackson, James S., Harold W. Neighbors, Randolph M. Nesse, Steven J. Trierweiler, and
Myriam Torres. 2004a. "Methodological Innovations in the National Survey of American
Life." International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research 13:289-298.
40
Jackson, James S., Myriam Torres, Cleopatra H. Caldwell, Harold W. Neighbors,
Randolph M. Nesse, Robert Joseph Taylor, Steven J. Trierweiler, and David R. Williams.
2004b. "The National Survey of American Life: A Study of Racial, Ethnic and Cultural
Influences on Mental Disorders and Mental Health." International Journal of Methods in
Psychiatric Research 13:196-207.
James, Sherman. 1983. "The Narrative of John Henry Martin." Southern Cultures 1:83106.
James, Sherman, Sue Hartnett, and William Kalsbeek. 1983. "John Henryism and Blood
Pressure Difference among Black Men." Journal of Behavioral Medicine 6:259-278.
Kaestner, Robert and Ofer Malamud. 2010. "Self-Selection and International Migration:
New Evidence from Mexico." NBER Working Paper Series.
Kalmijn, Matthijs. 1996. "The Socioeconomic Assimilation of Caribbean American
Blacks." Social Forces 74:911-930.
Kent, Mary Mederios. 2007. "Immigration and America's Black Population." Population
Bulletin 62:1-16.
Long, James E. 1980. "The Effect of Americanization on Earnings: Some Evidence for
Women." Journal of Political Economy 88:620-629.
Mason, Patrick. 2009. "Culture Matters: African Diaspora and Labor Market Outcomes."
Tallahassee, Florida.
Mincer, Jacob. 1974. Schooling Experience and Earnings. New York, New York:
National Bureau of Economic Research, Columbia University Press.
Model, Suzanne. 1991. "Caribbean Immigrants: A Black Success Story?" International
Migration Review 25:248-276.
—. 1995. "West Indian Prosperity: Fact or Fiction?" Social Problems 42:535-553.
—. 2008a. "Documenting the Difference between West Indians and African Americans."
Pp. 12-48 in West Indian Immigrants: A Black Success Story? New York, New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.
—. 2008b. "Testing the Hypothesis of Selectivity." Pp. 71-88 in West Indian Immigrants:
A Black Success Story? New York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
—. 2008c. West Indian Immigrants: A Black Success Story? New York, New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.
41
Pearlin, Leonard I. and Carmi Schooler. 1978. "The Structure of Coping." Journal of
Health and Social Behavior 19:2-21.
Pierre, Jemima. 2004. "Black Immigrants in the United States and The "Cultural
Narratives" Of Ethnicity." Identities 11:141-170.
Portes, Alejandro and Min Zhou. 1993. "The New Second Generation: Segmented
Assimilation and Its Variants." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science 530:74-96.
Rosenthal, Robert and Ralph L. Rosnow. 1991. Essentials of Behavioral Research:
Methods and Data Analysis. New York: McGraw Hill.
Sowell, Thomas. 1978. "Three Black Histories." Pp. 7-64 in Essays and Data on
American Ethnic Groups, edited by T. Sowell. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Watkins-Owens, Irma. 2001. "Early-Twentieth Century Caribbean Women: Migration
and Social Networks in New York." Pp. 25-51 in Islands in the City: West Indian
Migration to New York, edited by N. Foner. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London:
University of California Press.
Woodbury, Stephen A. 1991. "Earnings of Black Immigrants: Implications for Racial
Discrimination." Pp. 295-330 in New Approaches to Economic and Social Analyses of
Discrimination, edited by R. R. Cornwall and P. V. Wunnava. New York, Westport and
London: Praeger.
42
CHAPTER 3
A TEST OF THE AFRO CARIBBEAN ‘MODEL MINORITY MYTH’:
Black Ethnicity and Social Inequality in the United States
“West Indians in the United States are significant not only because of
their overrepresentation among prominent or successful blacks, but also
because their very different background makes them a test case of the
explanatory importance of color, as such, in analyzing socioeconomic
progress in the American economy and society, as compared to the
importance of the cultural traditions of the American Negro” (Sowell
1978: 42).
One of the distinguishing features of American sociology is the degree to which
scholars have been simultaneously concerned with – and perplexed by – the concept of
race and the causes of racial inequality (Du Bois 1899, Du Bois 1903, Park 1950b).16
Despite widespread agreement that racial stratification17 remains a distinctive feature of
American society, and more than a century of vigorous and often contentious academic
and public debate on the issue, there is little consensus concerning the causes of this
pernicious social ill. Broadly speaking, there are two well-developed perspectives on the
matter. There are those who contend that racial discrimination is the primary cause of
persistent racial inequality (e.g., Bobo 1999, Bonilla-Silva 1997, Darity 2005, Feagin
2000). On the other hand, there are those who argue that African American cultural
attitudes and behaviors are responsible for unrelenting racial disparities (e.g., Cosby and
Poussaint 2007, Lewis 1965, McWhorter 2000, Moynihan 1965, Patterson 1998,
Thernstrom and Thernstrom 1997). In this paper, I take the presence of a growing Afro
16
The other distinguishing contribution of American sociology has been its focus on empiricism which, has
been driven by the need to substantiate various racial claims; see Zuberi, Tukufu. 2001. Thicker Than
Blood: How Racial Statistics Lie. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press. And Gould,
Stephen Jay. 1996. The Mismeasure of Man. New York, New York: Norton & Company.
17
I use the term ‘racial stratification’ to refer to racial inequality that persists over generations. This relates
to, but is not the same as ‘racial inequality,’ which refers to the presence of racial disparities at any given
moment of time.
43
Caribbean immigrant population in the US as a unique opportunity to contribute to our
understanding of race and racial inequality.
Black immigrants from the Caribbean18 (or Afro Caribbeans) have long
outperformed African Americans (or the decedents of American slavery) on nearly all
measures of socioeconomic attainment (Model 2008a, Reid 1939).19 Social scientists
have taken note that Afro Caribbeans have maintained this advantage despite sharing the
same ‘racial phenotype’20 as African Americans (e.g., Sowell 1978). While many remain
more squarely focused on how Afro Caribbean success helps us to re-think what
constitutes ‘blackness’ (Bryce-Laporte 1972, Foner 2001, Kasinitz 2001, Vickerman
1999b, Waters 1999a), some have taken to speculation on the causes of black ethnic
socioeconomic disparities21 (Butcher 1994, Model 2008e, Sowell 1978, Waters 1999g).
However, few recognize the ways in which these disparities can serve as a natural
experiment whereby one can ‘hold race constant’ and observe the degree to which
variation in cultural attitudes and behaviors contributes to unequal outcomes (i.e., net
18
The Caribbean is composed of English, French and Spanish-speaking nations. Many scholars have noted
that this distinction is important when considering Afro Caribbean social mobility in the US (for an
example, see Reid, Ira A. 1939. The Negro Immigrant, His Background, Characteristics and Social
Adjustment. New York, New York: Arno Press.). Scholars have also made the argument that Caribbean
nations have more in common with one another than they do with other regions in the world and can
therefore be conceptualized in the aggregate (see Knight, Franklin W. 1990. The Caribbean: The Genesis
of a Fragmented Nationalism. New York, New York: Oxford University Press.). Given the nature of my
data, I use the term Afro Caribbean to refer to all African-descendent people living throughout the
Caribbean.
19
This historical trend has been recently accompanied by a fairly sharp increase in the Afro Caribbean
population living in the US, post-1965 immigration reforms (see Kent, Mary Mederios. 2007. "Immigration
and America's Black Population." Population Bulletin 62:1-16.
20
I use the term ‘racial phenotype’ to refer to the biophysical markers that are used in the construction of
racial categories and the assignment of racial meaning to specific subsets of human population groups.
These include: skin color, bone structure and hair type. I use ‘’ to reference the fact that these racial
markers are often more imagined than real.
21
I use the term ‘black ethnic socioeconomic disparity’ to refer to a wide range of disparate rates, levels or
outcomes between blacks across national-origin. In this chapter, I am specifically interested in disparate
outcomes on various measures of socioeconomic attainment – e.g., labor market participation and earnings.
Although this term generally includes African Americans and black immigrants from Africa and the
Caribbean, in this study I use this term only to refer to disparities between African Americans and black
immigrants from the Caribbean.
44
racial discrimination; save Sowell 1975, Sowell 1978). For those interested in race, the
relevance is that if Afro Caribbeans are able to ‘do better’ than African Americans while
sharing the same stigmatized ‘racial phenotype,’ more widespread and disparate trends in
(black-white22) racial stratification might also be a result of African American cultural
attitudes and behaviors (Sowell 1975).
When taken together, the cultural attributes used to explain Afro Caribbean
success represent various dimensions of a larger ‘racial narrative’23 concerning the
requirements for racial minority success in the United States (Glantz 1977, Glantz 1978,
Glazer and Moynihan 1970a, Light 1972, Ogbu 1992, Portes and Zhou 1993, Sowell
1975, Truab 1981). The principle claim of the model minority myth is that racial minority
groups (usually with specific reference to Asian Americans) can overcome racial
stratification mechanisms if they ‘work hard’ and ‘disinvest in racial consciousness and
contestation’ (Chou and Feagin 2008, Prashad 2000, Sue and Kitano 1973, Suzuki 1977).
Specifically, some argue that Afro Caribbeans have a work ethic that is ‘more protestant’
than African Americans and therefore they are more likely to do well in the labor market
(Bryce-Laporte 1972, Dominguez 1975, Forsythe 1983, Glazer and Moynihan 1970b,
Sowell 1975). Others assert that Afro Caribbeans have a higher value for economic
autonomy than African Americans and are therefore less likely to be unemployed or
dependent on the welfare state and when employed, more likely to be self-employed
(Bryce-Laporte 1972, Sowell 1978). Still others speculate that Afro Caribbeans are less
likely to develop an oppositional posture toward mainstream values and authority figures
22
I make note of black-white racial stratification in particular because there are various ways to evaluate
racial stratification – e.g., Hispanic-white.
23
I use the term ‘racial narrative’ to refer to a set of popular arguments concerning the causes of racial
inequality that often appear in the media.
45
and that this results in better socioeconomic outcomes throughout their lives (Foner and
Napoli 1978, Ho 1995, Ogbu 1992, Portes and Zhou 1993). Several have concluded that
the structures and functions of African American families are less traditional and
supportive than Afro Caribbean families (Paris 1981, Portes and Zhou 1993). Then there
are those who assert that Afro Caribbeans are less likely to believe that race will be a
block to their social mobility than African Americans and that this lower level of race
consciousness24 provides for greater labor market success than African Americans
(Raphael 1964, Vickerman 1999b, Waters 1994, Waters 1999c, Waters 1999d, Waters
1999g). Finally, some argue that Afro Caribbean ethnic identification allows for the
maintenance of values and views that are distinct from African Americans and associated
with social mobility in the United States – e.g., a greater value for economic autonomy
(Gans 1992, Portes and Zhou 1993, Waters 1994, Waters 1999c, Zhou 1997).
There are several limitations to this body of research. Principally, the vast
majority of these studies do not directly measure the cultural attitudes and behaviors – or
model minority attributes – that they propose account for disparate socioeconomic
outcomes between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans. That is, prior research has
speculated on the potential causes of differences in cultural attitudes and behaviors (i.e.,
differences in systems of slavery and racial composition between America and the
Caribbean) and the relationship between these causes and various socioeconomic
outcomes, without a systematic analysis of the actual role that cultural attitudes and
behaviors play (Model 2008b, Sowell 1975, Sowell 1978). Therefore, there is very little
empirical support for the connection between cultural factors and black ethnic
24
I use the term race consciousness broadly to refer to the degree to which racial politics and inequality
shape the worldview.
46
socioeconomic disparities. The limited research that provides support for a cultural
explanation for black ethnic disparities is qualitative. This has meant that much of this
work is based on a particular city and/or neighborhood (e.g.,Vickerman 1998, Waters
1999a). Finally, most studies that have argued for the existence of cultural differences
have measured exposure to Afro Caribbean culture not actual levels of cultural
identification and practice (e.g., being born in the Caribbean or having parents that were
born in the Caribbean as opposed to how strongly one identifies with being Afro
Caribbean).
To address these limitations, using a nationally representative social survey, I
answer three questions: (1) are Afro Caribbeans a model minority, (2) do model minority
attitudes and behaviors explain black ethnic socioeconomic disparities and - focusing
only on the Afro Caribbean sub-sample - (3) are model minority attributes responsible for
Afro Caribbean socioeconomic success? I begin the chapter with a review of the nature of
black ethnic socioeconomic disparities. Next, I argue that scholars and social
commentators have cast Afro Caribbeans as a model minority. I begin my analysis by
empirically testing for differences in model minority attributes between African
Americans and Afro Caribbeans. I proceed to empirically investigate the degree to which
attitudes and behaviors that are associated with being a model minority account for
socioeconomic disparities between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans. Specifically,
I explore the degree to which differences in Protestant work ethic, economic autonomy,
oppositional posturing, family structure and functioning and low race consciousness
account for black ethnic disparities in socioeconomic status. I complete my analysis by
testing for the association between Afro Caribbean ethnic identity and socioeconomic
47
status among Afro Caribbeans. Given the proposed moderating role of Afro Caribbean
ethnic identity in determining levels of model minority attributes, I explore the degree to
which model minority attributes account for the association between Afro Caribbean
ethnic identity and socioeconomic status. I find that there are only a few instances when
model minority attributes vary by black ethnicity in ways that favor Afro Caribbeans. In
addition, model minority attributes do not provide for a full account of black ethnic
disparities – they do however provide for a partial explanation. I find little support for the
link between model minority attributes and Afro Caribbean socioeconomic status. I
conclude the chapter with a discussion of how these findings might inform larger
discussions on racial inequality and stratification in the US. In short, racial inequality is
unlikely to be undone with the adoption of model minority attitudes and behaviors among
racial minority groups.
BLACK ETHNIC DISPARITIES IN THE UNITED STATES
Interest in investigating disparities between African Americans and Afro
Caribbeans dates back to the late 1970s (Chiswick 1979, Sowell 1978). Most national
studies that explore this issue have used data collected by the federal government (e.g.,
the US Census or the American Community Survey). Although the extent of disparity has
varied over the past four decades and across studies, Afro Caribbeans have maintained
better socioeconomic outcomes than African Americans.25
25
Differences in reports on disparities between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans vary for several
reasons. The primary reason for these differences is not attributable to the use of different data, but mostly
because of differences in the social demographics used to filter respondents in each study. For instance,
while almost all studies use data from the US Census or American Community Survey, some studies only
focus on males, while others include males and females. Still others include all adults over the age of 18
while some choose to only compare those who are likely to be in the labor market, e.g., ages 25 to 64.
Finally, some compare all Afro Caribbeans to African Americans while others separate respondents by the
48
The recent work of Susanne Model (2008a) shows that black ethnic disparities in both
labor market participation and socioeconomic status have consistently favored Afro
Caribbeans between 1970 and 2000. For instance, in 2000 Afro Caribbeans were about
10 percent more likely to have a job than African Americans, and took in about 13
percent more in annual earnings (Model 2008a). More recent data from the American
Community Survey reveals that Afro Caribbean weekly earnings were about 16 percent
greater than African American weekly earnings between 2001 and 2007 (Mason 2009).
According to the same study, Afro Caribbeans were about 6 percent more likely to have
had full time employment during the same period (Mason 2009). Given these recent
studies, it is not only clear that Afro Caribbeans have tended to out perform African
Americans but that this trend continues into the present.
THE MODEL MINORITY MYTH AND AFRO CARIBBEAN IMMIGRANTS
I define the model minority myth,26 as a lay theory and social discourse that
assigns model minority status to particular racialized minorities in ways that often do not
reflect the facts. The model minority myth is therefore a ‘racial trope’ that is deployed in
order to argue that if one minority group can do well, others can do just as well or better;
dominant language spoken in the sending country (i.e., English, Spanish or French). While it is important to
consider the sources of these differences, I report disparities in the marginal means in order to set a baseline
for comparisons made in this study.
26
I define a model minority as a specific ethno-racial minority group perceived to have achieved greater
success than African Americans (or the decedents of American slavery) because of their greater work ethic
and lack of concern with US race relations and racism (see Lee, Stacey J. 1996. "Asian Americans: The
Absent/Silenced/Model Minority." Pp. 1-16 in Unraveling the 'Model Minority' Stereotype: Listening to
Asian American Youth. New York and London: Teachers College, Columbia University. See also, Prashad,
Vijay. 2000. The Karma of Brown Folk. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press. See also,
Suzuki, Bob H. 1977. "Education and the Socialization of Asian Americans: A Revisionist Analysis of the
'Model Minority' Thesis." Amerasia Journal 4:23-52.)
49
and to the extent that other groups do not succeed, this is due to their lack of effort and
too much time spent worrying about the prospect of racial discrimination (Prashad 2000).
Ultimately, the model minority racial trope works to maintain white supremacy by
attributing racial inequality and stratification to the cultural attitudes and behaviors of
racial minority groups instead of social structures (e.g., law, social customs and wealth
disparities) that work in favor of white supremacy and racial inequality in the US
(Bonilla-Silva 1997, Kim 1999, Kim 2004, Pierre 2004).
DEVELOPMENT OF THE NARRATIVE
The Afro Caribbean model minority narrative began shortly after the modern civil
rights movement (Glazer and Moynihan 1963, Pierre 2004, Sowell 1975).27 Although
Nathan Glazer and Daniel Moynihan foreshadow him by at least a decade (Glazer and
Moynihan 1963),28 Thomas Sowell is heralded as chief among those who have made the
argument that Afro Caribbeans ‘do better’ than African Americans because of differences
in cultural attitudes and behaviors (Sowell 1975, Sowell 1978, Sowell 1981a, Sowell
1981b, Sowell 1983, Sowell 1984). Sowell begins this argumentation in 1975 in his
widely cited monograph, Race and Economics. Early in the book he states the position of
much of his research in the following decade (Sowell 1975: 97):
… [Afro Caribbeans] are a group of great importance, not only in terms
of their past achievements and their current roles, but perhaps even
more as a means of gauging the socioeconomic effect of being black, as
27
In a forthcoming paper, I trace the historical development of Afro Caribbeans being framed as a model
minority. Although this process began in the early 1940s it to not take hold in the national discourse until
shortly after the civil rights movement.
28
In their widely cited book Beyond the Melting Pot Nathan Glazer and Daniel Moynihan (1963) observe
that, “The West Indians’ most striking difference from the Southern Negroes was their greater applicability
to business, education, buying homes and in general advancing themselves… The ethos of the West Indian,
in contrast to that of the Southern Negro, emphasized saving, hard work, investment, education” (p. 35).
50
such, as compared to the effect of the many cultural and institutional
factors historically associated with the evolution of the American
Negro. West Indians in the United States have long had a distinctive
life style, set of values, and educational, economic, and cultural
achievements very different from those of American Negroes.
Later he would add (Sowell 1975:130-1),
… West Indian Negros emphasized such traits as work, thrift and
education – more generally achievements involving planning and
working for the future, implying the emotional control for self-denial in
the present and emphasizing the logical and mundane over the
emotional, the imaginative, and the heroic. The opposite characteristics
can be seen among the … Negros, where advancement can be achieved
in emotional and imaginative areas, such as oratory, lyric literature, and
music, and which have produced many dramatic ‘leaders’ and heroes.
In these passages, Sowell asserts that black ethnic socioeconomic disparities
between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans are due to differences in cultural
attitudes and behaviors.29 He does so by explaining black ethnic disparities in terms of
Afro Caribbean cultural forms like having a ‘distinctive life style, set of values and
cultural achievements.’ He also asserts that Afro Caribbeans exercise more forethought
and exhibit a greater ability to delay gratification than do African Americans. In order to
drive his point home, he speculates that Afro Caribbeans are less racially ‘dramatic’ than
African Americans. In essence, Sowell argues that the reason why Afro Caribbeans do
better than African Americans is because they work harder and suffer from lower levels
of what has recently been referred to as ‘racial paranoia’ (Jackson 2008, Metzl 2009). It
is also important to note that these views would later appear in the writing of other
academics (Ogbu and Simons 1998, Ogbu 1992, Portes and Zhou 1993, Zhou 1997) and
29
It is important to note that although many characterize Thomas Sowell as a conservative social scientist
today, the arguments that he made in the mid to late 1970s were relatively liberal for this period. That is,
Sowell was employing the black ethnic comparative as part of an effort to undermine notions of biological
or genetic race. In effect, he was arguing that it was culture, not biology, which made the ‘races’ different.
51
in the pages of local and national periodicals throughout the close of the twentieth
century.30
SPECIFIC DIMENSIONS OF THE MODEL MINORITY MYTH
I parse the model minority myth into several specific dimensions. At the most
general level of abstraction, the model minority myth posits that racial minorities succeed
in the United States when they ‘work hard’ and ‘divest in racial consciousness and
contestation.’ Yet, proclamations about the value of hard work are associated with related
claims, like: economic autonomy (or a preference to not be dependent on the welfare state
for resources and a propensity for self-employment), lower tendencies to exhibit
oppositional posturing (or a willingness to abide by mainstream rules and authority
figures) and certain aspects of traditional family structure and functioning (e.g., having
married parents that are very supportive of child development). Like ‘work ethic,’ the
idea of ‘race consciousness’ is also multidimensional. That is, Afro Caribbean ethnic
identification results in adopting a different racial consciousness through which to view
the world that is rooted in the history of race and slavery from the Caribbean (as opposed
to the US). Indeed, it is ethnic identification that also facilitates the development of the
Afro Caribbean Protestant work ethic, value for economic autonomy, disinvestment in
oppositional posturing and the value of a more traditional family structure and
functioning.
30
For an especially insightful review and critique of this trend in the social science literature and in national
periodicals, see Pierre, Jemima. 2004. "Black Immigrants in the United States and The "Cultural
Narratives" Of Ethnicity." Identities 11:141-170.
52
Protestant Work Ethic
Max Weber asserts that the rise and eventual success of capitalism was at least
partially attributable to the development of a Protestant ethic in Western economies
(1930). This ethic assigned a moral value to ‘hard work’ and re-conceptualized working
as a calling that provides greater meaning in the lives of individuals (Weber 1930: 54-5).
That is, people who work hard derive greater satisfaction from their employment and
from contributing their labor to the development of society.
Several scholars have identified Afro Caribbeans as having greater levels of the
Protestant work ethic than African Americans (Bryce-Laporte 1972, Bryce-Laporte 1973,
Dominguez 1975, Forsythe 1983, Glantz 1978, Glazer and Moynihan 1970b, Sowell
1975). For instance, Nathan Glazer and Patrick Moynihan commented that, “[t]he ethos
of the West Indians, in contrast to that of the Southern Negro, emphasized saving, hard
work, investment, education” (italics added; 1970b: 35). Later, Roy Simon Bryce-Laporte
(1973: 58) commented that, given their history and context of migration, “the average
black immigrant becomes an ardent practitioner of what Americans call the Protestant
Ethic.” Similarly, Dennis Forsythe (1983: 65) remarked that, “[Afro Caribbeans]… have
historically emerged with a highly secularized Protestant ethic.” For these scholars, a
major reason why Afro Caribbeans do better than African Americans is that they value
and practice a work ethic that is more in line with American capitalism (i.e., the
Protestant work ethic).
Evidence in support of the idea that Afro Caribbeans value work or work harder
than African Americans is sparse and regionally specific. The earliest indirect support for
the idea that Afro Caribbeans work harder comes from the assumption that if they were
53
doing better than African Americans, they simply must be working harder (Dominguez
1975, Reid 1939). Outside of this assertion, however, there is very little empirical
evidence on the matter. Some of the early ethnographic research shows that (white) apple
orchard owners thought Afro Caribbeans worked harder than African Americans.31
According to Nancy Foner and Richard Napoli (1978: 492), these employers held the
view that:
… black-American migrant farm laborers were generally not very
productive, that they were frequently apathetic on the job, and that they
spent a good part of their wages on liquor and gambling. By contrast,
the Jamaican migrant workers we studied worked very hard, were
extremely productive and saved most of their earnings.
Another source of evidence comes from in-depth interviews with white employers
and Afro Caribbean workers in New York.32 Based on her ethnographic observations and
interviews, Waters (1999g: 121) reported that, “… whites saw the West Indians as more
ambitious [and] more hard-working… than the African Americans.” Afro Caribbeans
have also reported that they value hard work more than African Americans (Vickerman
1999a, Waters 1999g). However, beyond these perceptions, there is no systematic
evidence for the association between Afro Caribbean ethnic identity and greater levels of
the Protestant work ethic.
31
It is important to note that these farmers also thought that Afro Caribbeans worked harder than
Americans in general.
32
Others have alluded to the observation of a Protestant work ethic but do not provide data beyond reports
from ethnographic field notes and references to ‘common wisdom.’
54
Economic Autonomy
Thomas Sowell is the principle advocate of the idea that Afro Caribbeans value
economic autonomy more than African Americans and that this is one of the cultural
attitudes responsible for their greater success (Bryce-Laporte 1972, Johnson 1930, Light
1972, Sowell 1975, Sowell 1981a, Sowell 1984). According to Sowell, the reason Afro
Caribbeans have a greater appreciation for economic autonomy than African Americans
is that Caribbean countries often lack a social welfare system and were allowed more
self-sufficiency during slavery. Speaking to this historical context, Sowell (1975: 98-9)
states:
… even under slavery, West Indian Negroes had direct personal
responsibility for an important part of their own well-being, and also
acquired experience in economic activity on their own, since they
cultivated their individual plots without supervision and were usually
allowed to sell any surplus in the market. American plantations, by
contrast, were not forced to rely on such methods nearly as much,
because their food needs could be supplied or supplemented through
the market…
James Weldon Johnson also once commented that Afro Caribbeans “…are
characteristically sober-minded and have something of a genius for business, differing
almost totally in these from the average rural Negro from the South” (1930: 153).
Economic autonomy is closely related to the Protestant work ethic but is specifically
identified by less dependence on the social welfare state, higher rates of labor market
participation and when employed, a higher likelihood of self-employment. For Sowell,
Johnson and others, a unique disposition for self-employment and aversion to the welfare
system are primary causes for greater Afro Caribbean success.
Despite these broad claims, evidence of greater Afro Caribbean economic
autonomy in the contemporary period remains limited. For example, without providing a
55
source, Mary Waters (1999g: 98) remarks in passing that “… West Indians are less likely
to be on welfare … [than African Americans].” According to the white and Afro
Caribbean informants that Waters interviewed, African Americans prefer welfare
dependence to working – a trait they do not observe among Afro Caribbeans. According
to Waters, white managers believe that African Americans prefer welfare to working.
That is, “[white managers] claimed that [African Americans] preferred welfare to
applying for entry-level jobs…” (Waters 1999g: 118). Several Afro Caribbean workers
shared this perception of African Americans. According to one, “[African Americans]
find that it's better to go in line and wait for a welfare check… that’s one of the things
that I am totally against…” (Waters 1999g: 113).
There is more evidence for greater rates of self-employment among black
immigrants (Bogan and Darity 2007, Borjas 1986, Mason 2009).33 However, all
immigrant populations are more likely than their native-born ‘racial peers’ to be selfemployed – including white European immigrants (Bogan and Darity 2007, Borjas 1986).
That said, according to at least one report, Afro Caribbeans were over represented among
the black business owners in New York as early as 1920 (Walker 1998). While they
represented 25 percent of the black population, they owned 50 percent of black
businesses (Walker 1998). According to historical trend data from the US Census, black
immigrants have been more likely to be self-employed than African Americans in every
decennial year between 1910 and 2000, except 1970 (Bogan and Darity 2007).34 Another
33
I use the term black immigrants purposefully. Studies that report on the self-employment of immigrants
divide immigrants by race but not by national origin. However, during the periods reviewed, Afro
Caribbeans represent the vast majority of black immigrants (see Kent, Mary Mederios. 2007. "Immigration
and America's Black Population." Population Bulletin 62:1-16.)
34
In 1970, rates were about the same between black immigrants and natives (see Bogan, Vicki and William
Darity. 2007. "Culture and Entrepreneurship? African American and Immigrant Self-Employment in the
United States." Ithaca, New York.)
56
study reports that Afro Caribbeans were 62 percent more likely to be self-employed than
African Americans between 2001 and 2007 (Mason 2009).
Oppositional Posturing
The concept of oppositional posturing has its roots in the literature on black-white
racial disparities in education (Harris 2006, Harris and Robinson 2007, Ogbu 2003, Ogbu
1978).35 However, it has also been applied in explaining disparities between black natives
and immigrants (Ogbu and Simons 1998, Portes and Zhou 1993). Oppositional posturing
refers to the idea that African American students have lower levels of academic
achievement – and by inference, less labor market success – because they have developed
a set of attitudes and behaviors that run counter to educational and social mobility (Ogbu
2003, Ogbu 1978). That is, in a racist society, African Americans expect few returns for
adopting mainstream attitudes and behaviors and are therefore more likely to disinvest in
these attitudes and behaviors and actively ‘oppose’ mainstream authority figures. This
oppositional posturing is then associated with lower levels of success in school and the
labor market (Foner and Napoli 1978, Ogbu 2003, Ogbu 1978, Portes and Zhou 1993,
Zhou 1997).
35
Although generally referred to as ‘oppositional culture’ or ‘adversarial stance,’ I use the term
‘oppositional posture’ in order to undo the implied link between ‘oppositional’ attitudes and behaviors and
devaluation. That is, most writers assume that being defiant or appearing to be disinterested means that
students in fact do not value educational or labor market success. However, developing oppositional
attitudes and behaviors may not reflect underlying devaluations but could instead result from feeling
rejected by people and institutions that one values. Indeed, scholarship in this area shows that despite
claims of an ‘oppositional culture,’ African Americans actually report valuing education more than whites
(see Downey, Douglas B., James W. Ainsworth, and Zhenchao Qian. 2009. "Rethinking the AttitudeAchievement Paradox among Blacks." Sociology of Education 82:1-19.) The term oppositional posturing
concedes that defiant attitudes and behaviors may exist even without implying underlying devaluations.
57
John Ogbu and colleagues hypothesize that those who voluntarily migrate to a society
with known high levels of racial discrimination are less likely to develop an oppositional
posture (Ogbu 1987, Ogbu and Simons 1998, Ogbu 1992). Also, Afro Caribbeans come
from nation-states where they are the majority and when they come to the U.S. they are
more likely to identify with and acquiesce to the politics of the majority (Foner and
Napoli 1978, Ho 1995). That is, Afro Caribbeans may “tend to acquiesce in their
relationship with school personnel and white authorities in other societal institutions” in
ways that African Americans do not (Ogbu 1992: 291). In comparing Afro Caribbeans
and African Americans, Alejandro Portes and Min Zhou describe this behavior in the
following way (1993: 81):
An adversarial stance toward the white mainstream is common among
inner-city minority youths who, while attacking the newcomers ways,
instill in them a consciousness of American-style discrimination. A
common message is the devaluation of education as a vehicle for
advancement of all black youths, a message that directly contradicts the
immigrant parents' expectations.
Although several have asserted that oppositional posturing among African Americans
contributes to racial disparities in education (McWhorter 2000, Ogbu 1987, Ogbu 2003,
Ogbu and Simons 1998, Portes and Zhou 1993, Zhou 1997), studies that empirically test
this idea have produced findings that do not support this speculation (Bennett and Lutz
2009, Harris 2006, Harris and Robinson 2007). Moreover, there is no systematic evidence
for the idea that African Americans are any more ‘oppositional’ than Afro Caribbeans.
58
Family Structure and Functioning
There is a long tradition of locating the cause of black-white racial disparities in
the ‘maladaptive’ family structure and function of African American families (e.g.,
Cosby and Poussaint 2007, Moynihan 1965, Wilson 1987). That is, in addition to
speculation on negative outcomes associated with non-traditional family structures (e.g.,
homes headed by single mothers), there have also been those that argue that African
American families are not as supportive as Afro Caribbean families (Paris 1981). Several
have speculated that Afro Caribbeans do better than African Americans because Afro
Caribbeans are more likely raised in two parent families and have families that are more
generally supportive. According to Sowell (1975: 133):
One of the more remarkable contrasts between ethnic groups is that
between the family patterns of American Negroes and those of West
Indian Negroes living in the United States. The high incidence of
broken homes, and the greater influence of the black woman… in the
family have been major features of studies of American Negroes… By
contrast, the family life of Negroes who emigrated from the West
Indies is both highly stable and highly patriarchal.
Much of the evidence supports the claim that the structure and functioning of
Afro Caribbean families is indeed more traditional than African American families.
However, we know less about the extent to which differences in family structure
contribute to socioeconomic disparities. For instance, Afro Caribbeans are as much as 50
percent more likely to be married than African American families (Butcher 1994, Kent
2007, Model 2008a). Afro Caribbeans also report that their families are more supporting
and “close-knit” than African American families (Waters 1999c, Waters 1999d).36
36
Waters makes an assertion about the structure of Afro Caribbean families without data or citations. She
states, “[Afro Caribbeans] are more likely to be employed, less likely to be on public assistance, and more
likely to have husband-wife two-earner households” (p. 99). She later asserts that Afro Caribbeans have
more “close-knit families,” but this claim is followed by a quote from a respondent that does not support
59
Although early studies reported that African American families were about 30 percent
more likely to be headed by a single mother (Farley and Allen 1987), more recent studies
show that African American households are just 2 percent more likely than Afro
Caribbean households to be headed by a single mother (Model 2008a). Conversely, there
is some evidence that Afro Caribbean families suffer from the effects of serial migration;
that is, single mothers often migrate first with the children and find it difficult to juggle
work and parenting responsibilities (Waters 1999d). Although there is support for the
claim that Afro Caribbean families are more traditional than African American families,
no studies report on differences in support nor have any examined the degree to which
familial differences contribute to black ethnic disparities.
Race Consciousness
According to some researchers, Afro Caribbeans are less likely to believe that
race will be a block to their social mobility (Glazer and Moynihan 1970b, Sowell 1975,
Vickerman 1999b, Waters 1999b, Waters 1999g).37 Scholars argue that this lower race
consciousness leads to greater Afro Caribbean success because it removes the perception
of a ‘racial ceiling’ and results in less antagonistic relations with white employers
(Vickerman 1999c, Waters 1999b). Lower Afro Caribbean race consciousness comes
primarily from being the racial majority in their country of origin. That is, Afro
Caribbeans are less likely to be concerned with a ‘racial ceiling’ – in part – because
her claim (p. 292). (see Waters, Mary C. 1999a. Black Identities: West Indian Immigrant Dreams and
American Realities. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: Harvard University Press.).
37
Much of the literature that provides cultural explanations for black ethnic inequality frames “the race
question” in cultural terms. That is, race is thought of as an ideology that is at best loosely connected to
inequality; race is an ideological artifact of cultural norms not social forces that structure societies and
cultures (see Fields, Barbara. 1990. "Slavery, Race and Ideology in the United States of America." New
Left Review 181:95-118.).
60
historically, “[t]he absence of a white working class meant that ‘free persons of color,’
and later the whole free black population could not be restricted to the most menial
occupations or the more skilled and more responsible positions would have gone
unfilled” (Foner 1985, Sowell 1978: 46, Vickerman 1998). Therefore, many Afro
Caribbeans have a “… long-standing belief that opportunities exist in the United States
and that their own black skin has not, and will not, prevent them from taking advantage
of those opportunities” (Waters 1999b: 150). Many Afro Caribbeans also report that race
is not a major issue in the Caribbean and therefore they are less concerned with race
relations than African Americans (Vickerman 1999a, Waters 1999b, Waters 1999g).
Research that compares the race consciousness of African Americans and Afro
Caribbeans is mixed. Ethnographic work reveals that these two groups think about race
differently (Rogers 2001, Waters 1999b). Other work indicates that African Americans
have higher levels of race consciousness (Vickerman 1999b, Waters 1999b). Finally,
some report comparable levels of race consciousness (Benson 2006, Rogers 2001). Those
who support the latter argue that Afro Caribbeans simply do not associate their blackness
with limitations in the way that African Americans do (Rogers 2001). While these
ethnographic studies offer a comparison between Afro Caribbeans and African
Americans on various dimensions of race consciousness (i.e., racial identity and attitudes)
they generally only investigate Afro Caribbean views; comparing these to ‘the literature’
on race consciousness among African Americans.38 The one study that explicitly
38
Mary Waters comes close to breaking with this trend but ultimately her study is centered on Afro
Caribbeans and therefore she asks Afro Caribbeans to comment on Afro Caribbean and African American
race consciousness and asks African Americans to comment on Afro Caribbean race consciousness. She
does not ask the question that allows for a comparison between Afro Caribbean and African American race
consciousness – i.e., African Americans about African American race consciousness.
61
compares these two groups in terms of racial consciousness finds no difference (Benson
2006).
While some argue that a raceless identity promotes black/Afro Caribbean
achievement (Fordham and Ogbu 1986, Fordham 1988, Fordham 1996)39, others contend
that a higher level of race consciousness is associated with greater success among African
Americans (Anderson 1988, Arroyo and Zigler 1995, Bowman and Howard 1985,
Edwards and Polite 1992, Hemmings 1998, Weinberg 1977). A recent study did not find
support for the idea that low race consciousness supports social mobility for African
Americans (Harris and Marsh 2010).
Afro Caribbean Ethnic Identification
Arguably, investments in a Caribbean ethnic identity on the part of Afro
Caribbeans allows for the maintenance of cultural attitudes and behaviors that are distinct
from African Americans and associated with social mobility in the United States (Portes
and Zhou 1993, Waters 1999c, Waters 1999d, Waters 1999e, Zhou 1997). According to
proponents of this view, ethnic identification provides access to certain “moral and
material resources” that are associated with social mobility (Portes and Zhou 1993: 86).
Indeed, some scholars have argued that participation in ethnic organizations and social
networks protects Afro Caribbeans from the cultural pathology and downward social
mobility associated with African Americans (Portes and Zhou 1993). Importantly, it is
not the state of being Afro Caribbean by way of national origin, but the process and depth
of ethnic identification, which triggers the ‘buffering effect’ for Afro Caribbeans (Nagel
39
I use the term ‘black/Afro Caribbean’ here because these studies have argued that racelessness results in
greater mobility for all blacks and some have specifically argued that it results in greater mobility among
Afro Caribbeans.
62
1994, Yancey et al. 1976). Theoretically, investments in strong Afro Caribbean ethnic
identity results in a greater Protestant work ethic, a preference for economic autonomy,
lower levels of oppositional posturing, more supporting family structures and a lower if
not different racial consciousness. That is, Afro Caribbean ethnic identification moderates
certain cultural attitudes and behaviors in ways that promote social mobility. However,
there is no systematic evidence to support these claims.
SUMMARIZING ARGUMENTS
Much of the literature on disparities between African Americans and Afro
Caribbeans has attributed unequal outcomes to differences in cultural attitudes and
behaviors. When taken together, these arguments fit neatly within the more general
model minority narrative. That is, racial and ethnic minority groups (i.e., Afro
Caribbeans) who ‘work hard’ and ‘disinvest in racial contestation’ will not experience the
restricted social mobility that is often experienced by African Americans. Conversely,
racial and ethnic minority groups (i.e., African Americans) that do not work hard and
instead choose to ‘see race’ and racial discrimination at every turn will suffer the
consequences of maladaptive cultural attitudes and behaviors. The goal of this study is to
provide a systematic and generalizable investigation into the degree to which black ethnic
socioeconomic disparities are a result of inequality in the ‘model minority attributes’ that
scholars have referenced in the literature.
63
HYPOTHESES
Black Ethnicity and Model Minority Attributes
1a. Afro Caribbeans have a greater Protestant work ethic than African Americans.
1b. Afro Caribbeans have higher levels of economic autonomy than African
Americans.
1c. Afro Caribbeans express lower levels of oppositional posturing than African
Americans.
1d. Afro Caribbeans have families that are more traditional in their structure and
supportive in their function than African Americans.
1e. Afro Caribbeans have lower levels of race consciousness than African Americans.
Explaining Black Ethnic Socioeconomic Disparities
2. The indirect effects of Protestant work ethic, economic autonomy, oppositional
posturing, familial structure and functioning and race consciousness will account
for disparities in socioeconomic status between Afro Caribbeans and African
Americans.
Linking Model Minority Attributes to Afro Caribbean Socioeconomic Status
3a. Afro Caribbeans with high ethnic identification will be more likely to be
employed, have higher levels of occupational prestige, and have higher personal
incomes than Afro Caribbeans with low ethnic identification.
3b. Afro Caribbeans with high ethnic identification will have a greater work ethic,
more economic autonomy, less oppositional posturing, better familial structure
and functioning and less race consciousness than Afro Caribbeans with low ethnic
identification.
3c. The indirect effects of Protestant work ethic, economic autonomy, oppositional
posturing, familial structure and functioning, and race consciousness will account
for the link between ethnic identification and socioeconomic status among Afro
Caribbeans.
DATA AND METHODS
To explore these hypotheses I use survey data from the National Survey of
American Life (NSAL; Jackson et al. 2004a, Jackson et al. 2004b). The NSAL is uniquely
64
suited for this study because it contains a range of information on racial, ethnic and
cultural factors as well as measures of socioeconomic status. Further, it provides the first
nationally representative study of both African Americans and Afro Caribbeans. The
survey is comprised of two parts: the first was a face-to-face household survey. After
completing the face-to-face interview, respondents were left with a self-administered
questionnaire to complete and submit by mail. The total sample includes 3,464 African
Americans, 1,599 Afro Caribbeans and 855 whites. The response rate for the face-to-face
interview was approximately 71 percent for African Americans and approximately 78
percent for Afro Caribbeans (Jackson et al. 2004b: 204). The response rate for the selfadministered questionnaire was 61 percent for African Americans and 43 percent for
Afro Caribbeans. The analytic sample for this study includes 3,009 African Americans,
and 1,406 Afro Caribbeans.40
There are three sets of variables in this study. First, there are three dependent
variables: employment status, occupational prestige and annual personal income. Second,
there are six sets of independent variables for model minority attributes: Protestant work
ethic, economic autonomy, oppositional posturing, family structure and functioning, race
consciousness and Afro Caribbean ethnic identification. Finally, there are control
variables. All measures are imperfect approximations of the true concepts under study
but they are either equal to or better than what has been previously available.
40
I used multiple imputation to address missing data (see Allison, Paul D. 2002. Missing Data. Thousand
Oaks, London and New Delhi: Sage Publications.)
65
DEPENDENT VARIABLES
There are three dependent variables: employment status, occupational prestige
and annual personal income. I measure employment status in terms of whether or not the
respondent had a job at the time of the survey. I assessed occupational prestige by
attaching occupational prestige scores to US Census job codes (Frederick 2010, Hauser
and Warren 1997). I measure annual personal income with the personal reports of
respondents. I chose these particular measures of socioeconomic status because they are
the indicators that are most frequently used in the literature (e.g., Model 2008e).
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES
Protestant Work Ethic
There are three dimensions of the Protestant work ethic: willingness to work,
satisfaction derived from working and enjoying the job. First, a single item measured the
respondents’ willingness to work. Respondents answered yes or no to the statement, “At
times I refuse to hold a job, even when I am expected to.” This item was reverse-coded to
assess ‘willingness to work.’ As the Protestant work ethic is not only about being willing
to work but also about deriving a sense of purpose and meaning from the work one does
(Weber 1930), I include measures of job satisfaction and enjoyment: “How satisfied are
(were) you in doing this work?” and “How much do (did) you enjoy doing the work you
do (did)?” Both questions provided 5-point Likert scale response sets that allowed for
either positive or negative responses. Arguably, if other job characteristics are held
constant (e.g., employment status and/or occupational prestige) those who hold a
Protestant work ethic will not only be more willing to work, but more likely to be
66
satisfied with and or enjoy their employment. The Cronbach alpha for these three items is
.62 for African Americans and .60 for Afro Caribbeans.
Economic Autonomy
I measure economic autonomy in terms of participation in the welfare state and
the tendency to be entrepreneurial. There are two indicators for participation in the
welfare state, “Did your family ever receive public assistance when you were growing
up?” and “Have you ever received public assistance since turning 18.” I measure
entrepreneurialism in terms of whether or not respondents are currently, or have ever
been, self-employed. If the respondent has never been self-employed they are coded zero
for non-entrepreneurial. If the respondent is currently, or has ever been self-employed
they are code one for entrepreneurial. Those who are entrepreneurial and have never
taken welfare payments are more economically autonomous than those who have taken
welfare payments or never been self-employed.
Oppositional Posturing
There is a single item indicator for oppositional posture. The preamble for
oppositional posture reads: “Earlier in the interview you mentioned a period of time of
six months or longer in your childhood or adolescence when you often did things that got
you in trouble with adults. Which of the following things did you do during that time?”
The three items for this scale are: “Did you often argue with or ‘talk back’ to adults?”
“Did you frequently disobey rules at home, school, or work?” and “Did you annoy people
67
on purpose by doing or saying things just to bother them?” The Cronbach alpha for this
measure is .90 for both African Americans and Afro Caribbeans.41
Family Structure and Functioning
There are three measures of family structure and functioning: marital status,
frequency of familial contact and familial support. There are two indicators of family
formation or marital status: “Have you ever been married?” and “Are you currently
married, living with a partner, separated, divorced, [or] widowed?” I observe these
separately. I measure frequency of familial contact with responses to the question: “How
often do you see, write or talk on the telephone with family or relatives who do not live
with you? Would you say nearly everyday, at least once a week, a few times a month, at
least once a month, a few times a year, hardly ever or never? I use an 8-item index to
assess familial support. Some example questions from the index include: “How often do
people in your family - including children, grandparents, aunts, uncles, in-laws and so on
- help you out?” “How often do you help out people in your family – including children,
grandparents, aunts, uncles, in-laws and so on?” and “Other than your (spouse/partner),
how often do your family members make you feel loved and cared for?” (see appendix
for complete list). The Cronbach alpha for the full 8-item measure is .65 for African
Americans and .60 for Afro Caribbeans.
Racial Consciousness
This construct has four sets of indicators: a measure of minority blame for racial
inequality and measures of linked fate, racial salience and racial centrality. I observe
41
I note that oppositional posturing concerns opposing all authority figures – not just whites.
68
minority blame for racial inequality with responses to the question, “If racial minorities
don’t do well in life they have no one to blame but themselves.” The measure of linked
fate is a single indicator composed from two questions: “Do you think what happens
generally to Black people in this country will have something to do with what happens in
your life?” and the follow-up question, “Will it affect you a lot, some, or not very much?”
Results from these two questions were combined to create four response options: none,
not very much, some and a lot. One item measures racial salience or the frequency with
which one thinks about being black. Respondents answered the question, “How often do
you think about being black?” The response options were: never, rarely, several times a
week, once a day, several times a day and all the time. I measure racial centrality using
the shortened racial centrality subscale of the Multidimensional Measure of Racial
Identity (Sellers et al. 1997). The three items that compose this subscale are: “Being a
Black person is a large part of how I think of myself” “What happens in my life is largely
the result of what happens to other Black people in this country” and “Being Black is not
an important part of who I am as a person.”42 The Cronbach alpha for this subscale is .35
for Afro Caribbeans.43
Afro Caribbean Ethnic Identity
This construct is assed with three indicators: closeness to Afro Caribbeans,
consumption of Afro Caribbean media, and an index of Afro Caribbean ethnic
42
I understand that the second question in this subscale is very similar to the questions used to measure
linked fate and I retain all three measures in the racial centrality subscale because both constructs and
measures were developed in separate literatures.
43
I am aware that these Cronbach alphas are low. I retain the index given tests of construct validity in
previous work on the Multidimensional Measure of Racial Identity (see Cokley, Kevin O. and Katherine
Helm. 2001. "Testing the Construct Validity of Scores on the Multidimensional Inventory of Black
Identity." Measurement & Evaluation in Counseling & Development 34:80-95.).
69
identification. I only assess Afro Caribbean ethnic identity among the Afro Caribbean
sub-sample. First, I asses closeness to Afro Caribbeans with the question, “Now I am
going to ask you some questions about how close you feel in your ideas and feelings
about things to different groups of people… How about Black people from the
Caribbean, like people from Jamaica, Bermuda or Haiti?” I measure Afro Caribbean
media consumption with two questions, “In an average week, how often do you do the
following things… Listen to Caribbean radio?” and “… Read Caribbean newspapers?”
The Cronbach alpha for these two items is .76. Finally I use an eight-item index of ethnic
identification. Three example items for the index include (see appendix for complete list):
“I associate with Caribbeans,” “My contact with Caribbeans has been…” and “I like to
identify myself as Caribbean.” The response options for all eight questions were: not at
all, very little, moderately, very often and always. The Cronbach alpha for all eight items
is .90.
CONTROL VARIABLES
I control for several variables relevant to the study of socioeconomic status. These
variables are: gender, region, parental educational attainment, human capital
characteristics and whether or not the respondent is a second-generation Afro Caribbean.
First, I control for gender because not only are men employed at greater rates and earn
more than women, but also because black immigration from the Caribbean has generally
favored women (Model 2008a, Watkins-Owens 2001). Region is a particularly important
control variable because the majority of Afro Caribbeans live in the Northeast where
wages are often higher than other parts of the country (Mason 2009). Therefore, I include
70
a dummy variable for those respondents living in the Northeast. I also control for the
educational attainment of the respondents’ parents because more highly educated parents
are often better able to assist their children in successfully navigating their own social
mobility. I control for characteristics associated with the classic ‘human capital model’
including indicators for age, age squared, work experience, work experience squared and
educational attainment (Mincer 1974). Finally, I control for whether or not the respondent
is a second-generation Afro Caribbean because research shows that they are a distinct
population group from first-generation Afro Caribbean immigrants and African
Americans (Bennett and Lutz 2009, Butterfield 2003, Butterfield 2004, Deaux et al.
2007, Gans 1992, Portes and Zhou 1993). Although all multivariate tables are adjusted
for these control variables, I do not show the coefficients. These findings will be made
available upon request.
ANALYSIS PLAN
There are three stages to the analysis plan. First, I assess differences between Afro
Caribbeans and African Americans in model minority attributes (e.g., Protestant work
ethic, economic autonomy, family structure and functioning and race consciousness; see
table 3.2 below). I rely upon one-tailed tests of statistical significance to examine my
directional hypotheses (see hypotheses 1a through 1e). I use eta scores – a standardized
measure of effect size – to the assess the magnitude of difference across model minority
attributes (Grissom and Kim 2005). Effect sizes (ES) provide a common metric for
evaluating results both within and across studies. For substantive interpretations I rely on
71
the standards described by Rosenthal and Rosnow (1991).44
The second stage of my analysis is focused on accounting for black ethnic
disparities in socioeconomic status (employment status in Table 3.3, occupational
prestige in Table 3.4 and log annual personal income in Table 3.5). To address this
question I estimate a series of regression models. The first multivariate regression model
that I estimate is a baseline model that adjusts the black ethnic employment disparity by
social background characteristics (Table 3.3, Model 1). Next, I estimate 5 additional
nested regression models adding sequentially: willingness to work, satisfied with work
and work enjoyment (for Protestant work ethic in Model 2); received welfare before
turning 18, received welfare since 18 and entrepreneurialism (for economic autonomy in
Model 3); oppositional posturing (in Model 4); currently employed, ever married,
familial contact and familial support (for family structure and functioning in Model 5);
and minority blame for racial inequality, linked fate, racial salience and racial centrality
(for race consciousness in Model 6). The final Model 7 is a full model that includes
measures for all model minority constructs.
Following Baron and Kenny's (1986) criteria for testing mediation, once I add
each model minority attribute to the nested regression model I examine the change in the
size and statistical significance of the black ethnicity coefficient, marked “Afro
Caribbean” (see hypotheses 2). This variable denotes the degree to which Afro
Caribbeans outpace African Americans on each indicator of socioeconomic status (see
tables 3.3 through 3.5). If after controlling for a model minority attribute (e.g., Protestant
work ethnic), the coefficient for black ethnicity is reduced but remains statistically
44
For ES: ES < .10 are considered small or trivial, ES .11 to .20 are considered small, effects .21 to .50 are
considered medium, and effects > .50 are considered large.
72
significant; I conclude that that model minority attribute provides a partial explanation for
disparities between Afro Caribbeans and African Americans. The magnitude of this
partial explanation will be denoted in terms of the percentage change in the black
ethnicity coefficient before and after controlling for the relevant variable. On the other
hand if, after controlling for a model minority attribute, the black ethnicity coefficient is
no longer statistically significant, I conclude that the attribute under consideration fully
explains the disparity between Afro Caribbeans and African Americans.
The final stage of my analysis focuses on exploring the link between model
minority attributes and Afro Caribbean socioeconomic status (see tables 3.6 through 3.10
below). This portion of the investigation proceeds in three parts and focuses solely on the
Afro Caribbean sub-sample. First, I assess the relationship between Afro Caribbean
ethnic identity and socioeconomic status (see hypothesis 3a). Next, I examine the
association between Afro Caribbean ethnic identification and model minority attributes.
Again, I rely upon one-tailed tests of statistical significance to explore my directional
hypothesis that Afro Caribbeans with high ethnic identification will have higher levels of
model minority attributes (see hypothesis 3b). The final analysis estimates a series of
multivariate regression models in order to assess the degree to which the association
between Afro Caribbean ethnic identity and socioeconomic status is accounted for by the
model minority attributes proposed in the literature (see hypothesis 3c). I use the same
strategy described above.
73
RESULTS
Table 3.1 reports the unadjusted means for association between the three
indicators of socioeconomic status and black ethnicity (i.e., between African Americans
and Afro Caribbeans). In line with expectations, Afro Caribbeans outpace African
Americans in all three cases. For instance, Afro Caribbeans are more likely to have a job
than African Americans. After attaining a job, Afro Caribbeans have occupational
prestige scores that are higher than African Americans. In terms of personal income, Afro
Caribbeans earn more annually than African Americans. According to the associated eta
scores associated with these findings, the most pronounced disparity in socioeconomic
status is the disparity in annual personal income.
Black Ethnicity and Model Minority Attributes
Relative to expectations in hypotheses 1a through 1e, findings in Table 3.2
provide little support for the expectations found in the literature on black ethnic
socioeconomic disparity. There are only a few instances when model minority attributes
vary by black ethnicity in ways that favor Afro Caribbeans. First, findings for Protestant
work ethic run counter to expectations. One cannot make a clear distinction between
African Americans and Afro Caribbeans in terms of their Protestant work ethic. That is,
there are no (statistical) differences in willingness to work and work enjoyment between
African Americans and Afro Caribbeans. However, counter to expectations, African
Americans are slightly more satisfied with their work than Afro Caribbeans. Findings for
economic autonomy are in line with expectations. Afro Caribbeans are more
economically autonomous than African Americans. That is, African Americans are much
74
more likely than Afro Caribbeans to have received welfare during their childhood.
African Americans are also much more likely to have been on welfare during adulthood.
Yet, it is important to note that many Caribbean countries do not provide welfare and that
this likely shapes their experience with state support during childhood. In addition, some
immigrants – especially those who are undocumented – do not qualify for state payments.
Therefore, more Afro Caribbeans may have chosen to take state benefits if they were
available. Afro Caribbeans are also more likely to be entrepreneurial than African
Americans. Findings for oppositional posturing are not in line with expectations found in
the literature. There are no differences between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans.
With the exception of Afro Caribbeans being more likely than African Americans to be
currently married, findings for black ethnic differences in family formation and
functioning are generally not in line with expectations. There are no (statistical)
differences between being married previously and relative amounts of familial support.
Finally, Table 3.2 presents findings for black ethnic differences in race consciousness
that generally do not support predictions. With the exception of race being less salient
among Afro Caribbeans, there are no black ethnic differences in minority blame or linked
fate. Unexpectedly, Afro Caribbeans have higher scores on racial centrality than African
Americans. In general, these differences are not in the order of magnitude inferred by the
literature.
Explaining Black Ethnic Socioeconomic Disparities
Tables 3.3 through 3.5 present findings from a series of nested multivariate
regression models that regress employment status, occupational prestige and log annual
75
personal income on black ethnicity and model minority attributes. Counter to
expectations presented in the second hypothesis, these tables reveal that – model minority
attributes do not provide for a full account of black ethnic disparities – they do however
provide for a partial explanation. Specifically, findings from these tables reveal that
accounting for model minority attributes separately (e.g., either Protestant work ethic or
race consciousness) provides for a partial explanation that averages about 5 percent and
ranges between no change and a 14 percent reduction. Accounting for all model minority
attributes simultaneously in Model 7 of Tables 3.3 (predicting the likelihood of current
employment) and 3.5 (predicting log annual personal income), provides for a partial
reduction of about 20 percent in each black ethnic disparity. Importantly, Table 3.4
reveals that black ethnic disparities in occupational prestige are fully explained by
differences in social background characteristics (see control variables in the preceding
section).45
Table 3.3 presents findings from a series of LOGIT regression models that regress
the likelihood of current employment on black ethnicity and model minority attributes.
The table reveals that accounting for any potential differences46 in Protestant work ethic
results in about a 5 percent reduction in the black ethnic disparity in employment (down
from .887 in Model 1 to .844 in Model 2). Those who have a willingness to work and
enjoy their work are more likely to be employed than others. Accounting for the Afro
Caribbean advantage in economic autonomy results in a 14 percent reduction in the
employment disparity (from .887 in Model 1 to .764 in Model 3). Those who have
45
The full model accounts for 31 percent of variation in occupational prestige for blacks generally.
I use the phrase ‘potential differences’ because even though findings from Table 3.2 reveal that there are
no differences in Protestant work ethic between these two black ethnic groups, there may be mean
differences after adjusting the means for social background characteristics. In addition, this phrase leaves
open the possibility of different associations between Protestant work ethic and the likelihood of current
employment between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans.
46
76
received welfare payments since turning 18 are less likely to be currently employed while
those who are entrepreneurial are more likely to be employed. As there are no black
ethnic differences in oppositional posturing, accounting for this attribute in Model 4
provides for no change in the employment disparity. Accounting for differences in family
structure and functioning in Model 5 results in a 4 percent reduction in the employment
disparity (down from .887 to .852). This reduction appears to be driven by the Afro
Caribbean advantage in being currently married, which is associated with a greater
likelihood of employment. Accounting for black ethnic differences in race consciousness
in Model 6 results in a 3 percent reduction in the employment disparity (down from .887
to .860). Paradoxically, even though African Americans have greater levels of racial
salience and those with greater racial salience are more likely to be employed, accounting
for the difference in racial salience results in a reduction in the disparity. Given findings
in Table 3.2, this finding is unexpected. Finally, accounting for differences in all model
minority attributes simultaneously in Model 7, results in a 20 percent reduction in the
black ethnic disparity in employment. This reduction is less than what would be predicted
if the explanatory power of model minority attributes was ‘perfectly additive’ and
suggests some conceptual overlap between these factors. The full model accounts for 19
percent of variation in the overall black employment rate.
Table 3.5 presents findings from a series of OLS regression models that regress
the log of annual personal income on black ethnicity and model minority attributes.
Similar to the case of employment disparities in Table 3.3, accounting for potential
differences in Protestant work ethic results in a 5 percent reduction in the disparity in
annual earnings (down from .298 in Model 1 to .282 in Model 2). Those who report a
77
willingness to work have higher earnings than those who do not. Accounting for the fact
that Afro Caribbeans are more economically autonomous results in a 12 percent reduction
in the earnings disparity (down from .298 in Model 1 to .263 in Model 3). This reduction
is driven by the fact that Afro Caribbeans are less likely to take welfare payments after
turning 18 and because those who have taken such payments earn less than those who
have not. As is the case above, controlling for oppositional posturing results in no change
in the disparity. Black ethnic differences in family structure and functioning account for 7
percent of the Afro Caribbean earnings advantage (down from .298 to .276). Again, this
reduction is primarily driven by the greater likelihood of Afro Caribbean marriage.
Controlling for black ethnic differences in race consciousness accounts for 4 percent of
the earnings disparity between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans. This reduction is
mostly attributable to linked fate and racial salience. Again, as above, the role of racial
salience is counter-intuitive. The full model accounts for about 13 percent of variation in
annual personal income for blacks generally.
Linking Model Minority Attributes to Afro Caribbean Socioeconomic Status
I now turn to a focus on ethnic identity, model minority attributes and
socioeconomic status among Afro Caribbeans. Taken in the aggregate, findings presented
in the following tables provide little support for the link between model minority
attributes and Afro Caribbean socioeconomic status. This is not to say that there are no
connections to be made. Instead, a review of Tables 3.6 through 3.10 provide some, but
not much, support for hypotheses 3a through 3c. I begin with findings presented in Table
3.6, which reveal essentially no association between ethnic identity and socioeconomic
78
status among Afro Caribbeans. That is, Afro Caribbeans that feel closer to other Afro
Caribbeans, that take in high levels of Afro Caribbean media and who have high scores
on the index of ethnic identification are generally no more likely to be employed, have no
greater occupational prestige, and earnings that are no higher than Afro Caribbeans who
have a low Afro Caribbean ethnic identity. The one exception to this general pattern is
that Afro Caribbeans that have a high sense of closeness to other Afro Caribbeans earn
more than those who have low closeness. However, this difference is not stark.
Findings from Table 3.7 present unadjusted means for the association between
Afro Caribbean ethnic identity and model minority attributes. More often than not, high
Afro Caribbean ethnic identity is not associated with greater levels47 of model minority
attributes. For instance, there is no association between any of the three measures of Afro
Caribbean ethnic identity and the Protestant work ethic or race consciousness. There is
minimal support for the expectation that high Afro Caribbean ethnic identity is associated
with lower levels of oppositional posturing. Those who have high levels of ethnic
identification (see column 3, row 7 of Table 3.7) have scores on oppositional posturing
that are lower than those with low ethnic identification. The association between Afro
Caribbean ethnic identity and family structure and functioning is more consistent. Those
Afro Caribbeans that feel closer to other Afro Caribbeans and consume more Afro
Caribbean media have more familial contact and familial support than those who do not
feel as close to other Afro Caribbeans or consume as much media. However, given the
above guidelines for interpreting eta scores, although these associations are more
constant the magnitude of the association is generally small (Rosenthal and Rosnow
47
I use the phrase ‘greater levels’ as a way to summarize these findings even though in some cases having a
high ethnic identity is expected to be associated with lower levels of a given model minority attribute (e.g.,
high Afro Caribbean ethnic identity is expected to be associated with lower scores on race consciousness).
79
1991). The association between ethnic identity and Afro Caribbean economic autonomy
is the most consistent and in some cases not small. In general, Afro Caribbeans with high
ethnic identity are less likely to have taken welfare payments.
Table 3.8 presents findings from LOGIT models that regress the likelihood of
current employment on Afro Caribbean ethnic identity and model minority attributes.
These findings reveal that when ethnic identity is associated with a greater likelihood of
employment it is not because of the association between ethnic identity and model
minority attributes. In fact, greater model minority attributes provides only a partial
explanation for the link between ethnic identity and employment among Afro Caribbeans
(a 19 percent reduction at best; see the coefficient for ethnic identification in Models 3
and 7). Although closeness to Afro Caribbeans and consumption of Afro Caribbean
media are not associated with employment, Afro Caribbeans that have higher scores on
the index of ethnic identification are more likely to be employed – net social background
characteristics (see row 3 of Model 1). Although having a greater willingness to work is
associated with a higher likelihood of employment, it appears that this does not explain
the association between ethnic identification and employment.48 Model 3 reveals that
about 19 percent of the association between ethnic identification and employment is due
to economic autonomy. Counter to expectations, Afro Caribbeans with greater
oppositional posturing are more likely to be employed. However, controlling for
oppositional posturing results in a 5 percent increase in the association between ethnic
identification and employment. Better family structure and functioning is responsible for
about 13 percent of the association between ethnic identification and employment. This is
driven by the fact that married Afro Caribbeans are more likely to be employed. The
48
In fact, it is associated with a 2 percent increase or ‘suppression effect.’
80
association between ethnic identification and employment is not connected to race
consciousness. The full model accounts for just 3 percent of variation in the employment
rate for Afro Caribbeans.
Table 3.9 presents findings from OLS models that regress occupational prestige
on Afro Caribbean ethnic identity and model minority attributes. As reported in Table
3.6, there continues to be no association between Afro Caribbean ethnic identity and
occupational prestige, net social background characteristics. However, there is some
support for the association between economic autonomy, family structure and
functioning, race consciousness and occupational prestige. Those who have taken welfare
payments have lower occupational prestige; married couples have higher occupational
prestige; those for whom race is more salient have higher occupational prestige and those
for whom race is more central have lower occupational prestige. Paradoxically, racial
salience and centrality work in different directions. The full model accounts for about 5
percent of variation in occupational prestige among Afro Caribbeans.
Finally, Table 3.10 presents findings from OLS models that regress the log of
annual personal income on Afro Caribbean ethnic identity and model minority attributes.
The association between closeness to other Afro Caribbeans and income is positive and is
fully explained by model minority attributes in the aggregate. That is, it appears that
those who feel closer to Afro Caribbeans have better levels of model minority attributes
and therefore have greater annual income. With the exception of family structure and
functioning, when taken separately, each model minority attribute provides a partial
reduction in the association (averaging a 4 percent) between Afro Caribbean closeness
and earnings. In Model 2, the Protestant work ethic accounts for about 4 percent of the
81
association between Afro Caribbean closeness and personal income. Economic autonomy
accounts for about 8 percent of this association. Again, taking welfare payments during
childhood has negative implications for income. Oppositional posturing is responsible for
about 4 percent of the link between closeness to other Afro Caribbeans and earnings.
Although married Afro Caribbeans have higher incomes than those who are not currently
married, generally, family structure and functioning does not account for the connection
between closeness and income. Though it is not clear which measure of race
consciousness is responsible, overall controlling for race consciousness is associated with
a 4 percent decrease in the relationship between Afro Caribbean closeness and annual
personal earnings. The full model accounts for just 3 percent of variation in annual
personal income among Afro Caribbeans.
DISCUSSION
In this chapter I attempted to test the idea that Afro Caribbeans ‘do better’ than
African Americans because they exhibit cultural attitudes and behaviors that are more
conducive to attaining social mobility in the United States. In so doing, I posed three
specific questions: (1) are Afro Caribbeans a model minority, (2) do model minority
attitudes and behaviors explain black ethnic socioeconomic disparities and (3) are model
minority attributes responsible for Afro Caribbean socioeconomic success generally? I
find that there are only a few instances when model minority attributes vary by black
ethnicity in ways that favor Afro Caribbeans. In addition, model minority attributes only
provide a partial account for black ethnic socioeconomic disparities. I find little support
for the link between model minority attributes and Afro Caribbean socioeconomic status.
82
There are two principle limitations to the findings in this chapter: the data under study is
cross-sectional and is therefore not well suited for making conclusions on causality and –
although the measures offered generally exceed prior measurement – there remain some
important concerns. Next, I discuss the findings in this chapter, consider alternative
explanations for the black ethnic disparities under study and comment on the implications
these findings hold for theorization on racial inequality and stratification in the US.
ARE AFRO CARIBBEANS A MODEL MINORITY?
Given the above findings, it is not accurate to describe Afro Caribbeans as a
‘model minority.’ That is, although Afro Caribbeans have favorable outcomes on several
model minority attributes, it is more often the case that there is either no difference
between Afro Caribbeans and African Americans or African Americans actually have
more favorable levels on these attributes. That is, of the 15 indicators considered, Afro
Caribbeans have favorable outcomes on 5, a figure that represents just 33 percent of all
instances. Moreover, the magnitude of favor rarely obtained an effect size that was more
than small (Rosenthal and Rosnow 1991). In 7 cases – almost half – there were no
differences between these two black ethnic groups. Most unexpected by the literature,
there were 3 instances where African Americans outpaced Afro Caribbeans. In one case,
this ‘African American advantage’ was not small.
According to findings presented in this chapter, Afro Caribbeans do not have a
greater Protestant work ethic than African Americans. This was unexpected by many in
the literature on black ethnic disparities (Dominguez 1975, Forsythe 1983, Glantz 1978,
Glazer and Moynihan 1970b, Sowell 1975). Although this is the first known case of a
83
direct empirical test of black ethnic differences in Protestant work ethic, the most likely
explanation of this finding is that the measure is less than ideal. First, it relies on a single
item dichotomous indicator of ‘willingness to work’ where the distribution is largely
skewed in the positive direction for both black ethnic groups. Also, job satisfaction and
enjoying work are not ideal indicators of the meaning of work referenced by Max Weber
in his description of the Protestant ethic. That said, these measures provide an important
contribution to the empirical record. They provide nationally generalizable insight into
disparities in ‘willingness to work’ and related factors between African Americans and
Afro Caribbeans. Therefore, in lieu of future research, it is difficult to conclude that Afro
Caribbeans have any greater value for the protestant work ethic than African Americans.
In the main, findings for black ethnic differences in economic autonomy favor
Afro Caribbeans and approach a medium effect size. Many predict this finding in the
literature (Johnson 1930, Light 1972, Sowell 1975, Sowell 1981a, Sowell 1984).
However, the magnitude of support for greater Afro Caribbean economic autonomy is
undercut by the limited role of the social welfare state in many Caribbean counties and
restrictions on access to social welfare for many immigrants living in the US. That is, for
those who were born in the Caribbean, it is unlikely that they had access to social welfare
payments before turning 18. Then, after migrating to the US and reaching adulthood, they
may not have qualified for welfare payments. It is important to note that differences in
relationships to the social welfare state provide for the more medium effect sizes for
black ethnic differences in economic autonomy. In some ways, these results leave open
the question, if more Afro Caribbeans had access to the social welfare state, would more
84
seek support? That said, Afro Caribbeans still outpace African Americans in
entrepreneurialism. However this difference is certainly small.
I find no support for the idea that Afro Caribbeans display any less oppositional
posturing than African Americans. Although this outcome was not expected by the
literature reviewed for this chapter (Ogbu and Simons 1998, Portes and Zhou 1993), it is
muted by the less than ideal nature of the measure. Certainly, a more nuanced assessment
of oppositional posturing or even oppositional culture would provide more clear insight
(e.g., Harris 2006, Harris and Robinson 2007). With this limitation in mind, this measure
allows for the only nationally representative direct assessment of black ethnic differences
in oppositional posturing.
Black ethnic differences in family structure and functioning are mixed but slightly
favor African Americans. This runs against the expectations of some in the literature
(Paris 1981, Sowell 1975, Waters 1999c, Waters 1999d) and provides further empirical
support for the prior findings of others (Butcher 1994, Kent 2007, Model 2008a).
Unexpectedly, African Americans have families that function better or are more “close
knit” than Afro Caribbean families (Waters 1999c, Waters 1999d). That is, African
Americans keep in closer contact with family members and derive more support from
their families than Afro Caribbeans. However, Afro Caribbeans are more likely to have
traditional familial structures. That is, they are more likely to be married than African
Americans (Butcher 1994, Kent 2007, Model 2008a). Importantly, none of the effect
sizes for these differences are large or even medium. Nonetheless they reveal that while
Afro Caribbeans are more likely to be married, it is inaccurate to argue that Afro
85
Caribbeans have families that function any better than African Americans. An assessment
that is not in line with model minority status of Afro Caribbeans.
Again, findings for black ethnic differences in race consciousness are mixed.
There are no differences between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans in terms of the
view that if racial minorities are to blame for racial inequality or in terms of linked fate.
Although race is a less salient factor for Afro Caribbeans than it is for African
Americans, race is more central to Afro Caribbeans than it is for African Americans. This
finding is quite paradoxical and warrants further investigation. However, in lieu of further
research, it is important to remember the low Cronbach alpha for racial centrality and that
racial salience is only measured with a single item. In addition, the effect sizes involved
suggest that these differences are small. This is not represented by the general thrust of
the literature reviewed in this study (Glazer and Moynihan 1970b, Sowell 1975,
Vickerman 1999b, Waters 1999b, Waters 1999g).
DO MODEL MINORITY ATTRIBUTES EXPLAIN
BLACK ETHNIC SOCIOECONOMIC DISPARITIES?
Black ethnic differences in model minority attributes provide for a partial
explanation of socioeconomic disparities between African Americans and Afro
Caribbeans. However, this partial explanation is not of the magnitude that has often been
portrayed in the literature on black ethnic disparities. When considered separately, model
minority attributes provide for a 5 percent reduction in black ethnic disparities on
average. When taken in the aggregate, these attributes account for about 20 percent of the
86
black ethnic disparity in employment and annual wages. Social background
characteristics are responsible for the entire disparity in occupational prestige.49
Protestant Work Ethic
The above findings provide support for the notion that black ethnic differences in
the Protestant work ethnic are partially responsible for socioeconomic disparities between
African Americans and Afro Caribbeans (Dominguez 1975, Forsythe 1983, Glantz 1978,
Glazer and Moynihan 1970b, Sowell 1975). Specifically, differences in the Protestant
work ethic explain about 5 percent of the disparity in both employment and personal
income. In particular, those who have a greater willingness to work are more likely to be
employed and have higher personal incomes than those who have refused to work at
times when they have had the opportunity. Workplace enjoyment also plays a role in
accounting for employment disparities. Those who enjoy their work are more likely to be
employed. However, another interpretation of this finding is that those who are employed
are simply happy to be employed and therefore report more workplace enjoyment.
Although differences in the Protestant work ethic provide a partial accounting of black
ethnic disparities in employment and personal income, the magnitude of this explanation
is certainly less than has been depicted in the literature.
Economic Autonomy
I find support for the notion that black ethnic differences in economic autonomy
account for a portion of socioeconomic disparities between African Americans and Afro
49
I also note that the factors considered in this chapter account for no more than 20 percent of the variation
in socioeconomic status for blacks generally.
87
Caribbeans. Specifically, economic autonomy is responsible for 14 and 12 percent of the
disparity in employment and personal income, respectively. The fact that economic
autonomy explains the largest portion of these disparities is muted by limitations that are
inherent to the measure (as discussed above). That said, those who have received welfare
after adulthood are less likely to be employed and have lower personal incomes than
those who have not taken state assistance as an adult. Conclusions regarding the role of
state assistance in adulthood are restricted by the potential that those who have taken
assistance since becoming an adult may be currently on state assistance. It should be
noted that acceptance of welfare payments during childhood does not help explain black
ethnic disparities. Entrepreneurialism also plays a role in employment disparities. The
fact that Afro Caribbeans are more likely to be self-employed is partially responsible for
the greater employment rate among Afro Caribbeans. Given cautions associated with the
measurement of economic autonomy, the partial explanation provided by economic
autonomy is not well reflected in the literature.
Oppositional Posturing
Oppositional posturing provides almost no account for disparities in employment
or personal income. This finding does not support previous speculation on the link
between oppositional posturing and black ethnic socioeconomic disparities (Ogbu and
Simons 1998, Portes and Zhou 1993). This is most likely a result of limitations associated
with the measure. Future research should employ a more nuanced and multidimensional
measure of oppositional posturing or oppositional culture that also assesses this construct
in the current moment (Harris 2006, Harris and Robinson 2007). In lieu of further
88
research, it appears that oppositional posturing during childhood does not determine adult
socioeconomic performance. Since there are no difference in oppositional posturing
between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans, it is not a useful explanation for black
ethnic disparities.
Family Structure and Functioning
Differences between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans in family structure
and functioning are partially responsible for black ethnic disparities in socioeconomic
status. Accounting for differences in this model minority attribute between the two black
ethnic groups results in a 4 and 7 percent reduction in the employment and personal
income disparity, respectively. In both cases this reduction is driven by the fact that Afro
Caribbeans are more likely to marry. This suggests that family structure is more
important in accounting for black ethnic disparities than is family functioning. Again,
although I find support for the idea that differences in African American and Afro
Caribbean families are partially responsible for black ethnic disparities, this explanation
is not as viable as has been portrayed in the literature (Sowell 1975).
Race Consciousness
Differences in the race consciousness of African Americans and Afro Caribbeans
provides for a partial account of black ethnic disparities. These differences explain 3 and
4 percent of disparities in employment and personal income, respectively. Interestingly,
these reductions are associated with different indicators of race consciousness. In the
context of employment, the reduction is driven by differences in racial salience. In the
89
context of personal income, the reduction is driven by differences in linked fate with
racial salience contributing. The role of racial salience is inline with expectations that
race is less salient for Afro Caribbeans and therefore adjusting for it in the model
predicting employment reduces the disparity. However, given the literature, it is
somewhat perplexing that greater levels of racial salience are associated with a greater
likelihood of employment. Given this association, African Americans should gain a slight
advantage in employment on account of their greater racial salience. This advantage
appears not to be obtained (if it were, the coefficient for the black ethnic disparity in
employment would increase after controlling for salience). Although there appears to be
no difference between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans in linked fate, controlling
for linked fate is driving the reduction in the disparity in income. This reduction is also
supported by differences in racial salience that work in the same way as they did for
employment.
ARE MODEL MINORITY ATTRIBUTES
RESPONSIBLE FOR AFRO CARIBBEAN SOCIOECONOMIC SUCCESS?
There is little support for the link between model minority attributes and Afro
Caribbean socioeconomic status. First, Afro Caribbeans with stronger ethnic identities
generally do not have higher levels of socioeconomic status than Afro Caribbeans with
lower ethnic identity. There is limited support for the idea that greater Afro Caribbean
ethnic identity is associated with better levels of model minority attributes. Although
there is no link between ethnic identity and protestant work ethic or race consciousness,
Afro Caribbeans with greater ethnic identities are more economically autonomous and
have better functioning families. Connections between model minority attributes and
90
ethnic identity do not appear to be a central factor in Afro Caribbean socioeconomic
success. The above findings show that these factors account for no more than 5 percent of
the overall variation in Afro Caribbean employment rates, occupational prestige and
annual personal income. Moreover, the limited link between Afro Caribbean ethnic
identity and socioeconomic status is not fully accounted for by model minority factors.
The one exception to this pattern is that model minority factors explain the association
between closeness to other Afro Caribbeans and greater personal income.
ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS
Given that the hypotheses tested in this chapter provide only partial explanations
for black ethnic disparities or relative Afro Caribbean success and that multivariate
models generally account for less than 20 percent of the variation in the outcomes
considered, I consider some alternatives explanations. As I have focused my
consideration of the immigrant selectivity hypothesis (in Chapter 2) and the role of race
and white interest (in Chapter 3), I do not review those alternatives here. I focus my
alternative explanation on the limited link between Afro Caribbean ethnic identification
and socioeconomic status. That is, when the link is observed in the multivariate context,
it is generally not accounted for by model minority attributes. If model minority attributes
do not account for this link, what does? Vilna Bashi (2007) proposes that Afro
Caribbeans benefit from a network of “hubs and spokes” and that this network is
determined by and promotes Caribbean ethnic identity. Therefore, one alternative
explanation for this finding is that Afro Caribbeans with greater ethnic identity also have
better labor market networks than African Americans.
91
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
Findings presented in this chapter are limited and therefore further investigation is
required (more general limitations to the dissertation are discussed in the conclusion to
the dissertation). First, my findings are from a cross-sectional social survey. Since I only
have findings for associations I cannot prove causality (e.g., I cannot conclude that Afro
Caribbean ethnic identity causes Afro Caribbeans to have better functioning families). In
addition, some of the measures employed in this chapter are less than ideal. I have
reviewed the potential for measurement error above.
Given these limitations, future research should employ better measures and a
longitudinal survey. That is, findings from this study could be strengthened or overturned
with better data. In addition, given limited support for the idea that Afro Caribbeans are a
model minority and the limited explanatory power of model minority attributes in black
ethnic disparities and Afro Caribbean success, the question must be raised: why have
scholars and social commentators so often cast Afro Caribbeans as a model minority?
Where, when and how did the model minority trope begin to be applied to the Afro
Caribbean body politic? These and related questions should be addressed in future
research.
CONCLUSION
Conclusions reached in this chapter can contribute to the existing debate on race,
ethnicity and social inequality in the United States. Specifically, Thomas Sowell (1975,
1978) has proposed that the black ethnic comparative provides the opportunity for unique
92
insight into the relative roles of racial discrimination and cultural pathology in the
manufacture of black-white racial inequality. In this chapter, I am able to ‘hold race
constant’ while observing the role of cultural attitudes and behaviors in black ethnic
disparities. I find that cultural factors account for no more than 20 percent of this
disparity. Therefore, it is not likely that cultural attitudes and behaviors account for the
lion share of racial inequality. Further, my findings suggest that encouraging blacks (and
other racial minority groups) to adopt such attitudes and behaviors will not likely result in
the extinction of racial inequality in the United States. As cultural factors are not a major
cause of black ethnic disparities, future research should consider the role of US race
relations.
93
CITED LITERATURE
Allison, Paul D. 2002. Missing Data. Thousand Oaks, London and New Delhi: Sage
Publications.
Anderson, James D. 1988. The Education of Blacks in the South, 1860-1935. Chapel Hill,
North Carolina: University of North Carolina Chapel Hill.
Arroyo, Carmen G. and Edward Zigler. 1995. "Racial Idenity, Academic Achievement
and the Psychological Well-Being of Economically Disadvantaged Adolescents." Journal
of Personality & Social Psychology 69:903-914.
Baron, Reuben M. and David A. Kenny. 1986. "The Moderator-Mediator Variable
Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic and Statistical
Considerations." Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 51:1173-1182.
Bashi, Vilna. 2007. Survival of the Knitted: Immigrant Social Networks in a Stratified
World. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Bennett, Pamela R. and Amy Lutz. 2009. "How African American Is the Net Black
Advantage? Differences in College Attendance among Immigrant Blacks, Native Blacks,
and Whites." Sociology of Education 82:70-99.
Benson, Janel F. 2006. "Exploring the Racial Identities of Black Immigrants in the
United States." Sociological Forum 21:219-247.
Bobo, Lawrence D. 1999. "Prejudice as Group Position: Microfoundations of a
Sociological Approach to Racism and Race Relations." Journal of Social Issues 55:445472.
Bogan, Vicki and William Darity. 2007. "Culture and Entrepreneurship? African
American and Immigrant Self-Employment in the United States." Ithaca, New York.
Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 1997. "Rethinking Racism: Toward a Structural Interpretation."
American Sociological Review 62:465-480.
Borjas, George J. 1986. "The Self-Employment Experience of Immigrants." The Journal
of Human Resources 21:485-506.
Bowman, Phillip J. and Cleopatra Howard. 1985. "Race-Related Socialization,
Motivation and Academic Achievement: A Study of Black Youths in Three-Generation
Families." Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry 24:134-141.
Bryce-Laporte, Roy Simon. 1972. "Black Immigrants: The Experience of Invisibility and
Inequality." Journal of Black Studies 3:29-56.
94
—. 1973. "Black Immigrants." Pp. 44-61 in Through Different Eyes: Black and White
Perspectives on American Race Relations, edited by P. I. Rose, S. Rothman, and W. J.
Wilson. New York, New York: Oxford University Press.
Butcher, Kristin F. 1994. "Black Immigrants in the United States: A Comparison with
Native Blacks and Other Immigrants." Industrial and Labor Relations Review 47:265284.
Butterfield, Sheri-Ann. 2003. "Something in Between: Locating Identity among Second
Generation West Indians in New York City." Pp. 233-261 in Mighty Change, Tall
Within: Black Identity in the Hudson Valley, edited by M. B. Young Armstead. Albany,
New York: State University of New York Press.
—. 2004. "'We're Just Black': The Racial and Ethnic Identities of Second Generation
West Indians in New York." Pp. 288-312 in Becoming New Yorkers: Ethnographies of
the New Second Generation, edited by P. Kasinitz, J. Mollenkopf, and M. C. Waters.
New York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Chiswick, Barry R. 1979. "The Economic Progress of Immigrants: Some Apparently
Universal Patterns." Pp. 357-399 in Contemporary Economic Problems, edited by W.
Fellner. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.
Chou, Rosalind S. and Joe R. Feagin. 2008. The Myth of the Model Minority:Asian
Americans Facing Racism. Boulder, Colorado: Paradigm Publishers.
Cokley, Kevin O. and Katherine Helm. 2001. "Testing the Construct Validity of Scores
on the Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity." Measurement & Evaluation in
Counseling & Development 34:80-95.
Cosby, Bill and Alvin F. Poussaint. 2007. Come on People: On the Path from Victims to
Victors. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers.
Darity, William. 2005. "Stratification Economics: The Role of Intergroup Inquality."
Journal of Economics and Finance 29:144-153.
Deaux, Kay, Nida Bikmen, Alwyn Gilkes, Ana Ventuneac, Yvanne Joseph, Yasser A.
Payne, and Claude M. Steele. 2007. "Becoming American: Stereotype Threat Effects in
Afro-Caribbean Immigrant Groups." Social Psychology Quarterly 70:384-404.
Dominguez. 1975. From Neighbor to Stranger: The Dilemma of Caribbean Peoples in
the U.S. New Haven, Conneticuit: Antilles Research Program.
Downey, Douglas B., James W. Ainsworth, and Zhenchao Qian. 2009. "Rethinking the
Attitude-Achievement Paradox among Blacks." Sociology of Education 82:1-19.
95
Du Bois, W.E.B. 1899. The Philadelphia Negro. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
—. 1903. Souls of Black Folks. New York, New York: Penguin Books.
Edwards, Audrey and Craig K. Polite. 1992. Children of the Dream. New York, New
York: Doubleday.
Farley, Reynolds and Walter R. Allen. 1987. "Race, Ancestry and Socioeconomic Status:
Are West Indian Blacks More Successful?" in The Color Line and the Quality of Life in
America. New York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Feagin, Joe R. 2000. Racist America: Roots, Current Realities and Future Reparations.
London, England: Routledge.
Fields, Barbara. 1990. "Slavery, Race and Ideology in the United States of America."
New Left Review 181:95-118.
Foner, Nancy. 1985. "Race and Color: Jamaican Migrants in London and New York
City." International Migration Review 19:708-727.
—. 2001. "Islands in the City: West Indian Migration to New York." Berkeley, Los
Angeles and London: University of California Press.
Foner, Nancy and Richard Napoli. 1978. "Jamaican and Black-American Migrant Farm
Workers: A Comparative Analysis." Social Problems 25:491-503.
Fordham, S. and John U. Ogbu. 1986. "Black Students' School Success: Coping with the
'Burden of Acting White'." Urban Review 19:176-206.
Fordham, Signithia. 1988. "Racelessness as a Factor in Black Success: Pragmatic
Strategy or Pyrrhic Victory." Harvard Educational Review 58:54-84.
—. 1996. Blacked Out: Dilemmas of Race, Identity and Success at Capital High.
Chicago, Illiniois: University of Chicago.
Forsythe, Dennis. 1983. "Black Immigrants and the American Ethos: Theories and
Observations." Pp. 55-82 in Caribbean Immigration to the United States, edited by R. S.
Bryce-Laporte and D. M. Mortimer. Washington, DC: Research Institute on Immigration
and Ethnic Studies, Smithsonian Institution.
Frederick, Carl. 2010. "A Crosswalk for Using Pre-2000 Occupational Status and
Prestige Codes with Post-2000 Occupation Codes." Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
96
Gans, Herbert. 1992. "Second-Generation Decline: Scenarios for the Economic and
Ethnic Futures of the Post-1965 American Immigrants." Ethnic and Racial Studies
15:173-192.
Glantz, Oscar. 1977. "Locus of Control and Aspiration to Traditionally Open and
Traditionally Closed Occupations." Journal of Negro Education 46:278-290.
—. 1978. "Native Sons and Immigrants: Some Beliefs and Values of American-Born and
West Indian Blacks at Brooklyn College." Ethnicity 5:189-202.
Glazer, Nathan and Daniel P. Moynihan. 1963. Beyond the Melting Pot: The Negroes,
Puerto Ricans, Jews, Italians and Irish of New York City. Cambridge and London: The
M.I.T. Press.
—. 1970a. Beyond the Melting Pot: The Negroes, Puerto Ricans, Jews, Italians and Irish
of New York City. Cambridge and London: The M.I.T. Press.
—. 1970b. "The Negroes." Pp. 24-85 in Beyond the Melting Pot: The Negroes, Puerto
Ricans, Jews, Italians and Irish of New York City. Cambridge and London: The M.I.T.
Press.
Gould, Stephen Jay. 1996. The Mismeasure of Man. New York, New York: Norton &
Company.
Grissom, Robert J. and John J. Kim. 2005. "Effect Sizes for One-Way Anova Designs."
Pp. 117-138 in Effect Sizes for Research: A Broad Practical Approach. Mahwah, New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Harris, Angel L. 2006. "I (Don't) Hate School: Revisiting Oppositional Culture Theory of
Blacks' Resistance to Schooling." Social Forces 85:797-828.
Harris, Angel L. and Kris Marsh. 2010. "Is Raceless Identity an Effective Strategy for
Academic Success among Blacks?" Social Science Quarterly 91:1242-1263.
Harris, Angel L. and Keith Robinson. 2007. "Schooling Behaviorsor Prior Skills? A
Cautionary Tale of Omitted Variable Bias within Oppositional Culture Theory."
Sociology of Education 80:139-157.
Hauser, Robert M. and John Robert Warren. 1997. "Socioeconomic Indexes for
Occupations: A Review, Update, and Critique." Sociological Methodology 27:177-298.
Hemmings, Annette. 1998. "The Self-Transformations of African-American Achievers."
Youth & Society 29:330-368.
Ho, Christine G.T. 1995. "The Twin Processess of Racialization and Ethnification among
Afro-Trinidadian Immigrants in Los Angeles." Caribbean Quarterly 41:99-122.
97
Jackson, James S., Harold W. Neighbors, Randolph M. Nesse, Steven J. Trierweiler, and
Myriam Torres. 2004a. "Methodological Innovations in the National Survey of American
Life." International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research 13:289-298.
Jackson, James S., Myriam Torres, Cleopatra H. Caldwell, Harold W. Neighbors,
Randolph M. Nesse, Robert Joseph Taylor, Steven J. Trierweiler, and David R. Williams.
2004b. "The National Survey of American Life: A Study of Racial, Ethnic and Cultural
Influences on Mental Disorders and Mental Health." International Journal of Methods in
Psychiatric Research 13:196-207.
Jackson, John L. 2008. Racial Paranoia: The Unintended Consequences of Political
Correctness: Basic Civitas Books.
Johnson, James Weldon. 1930. Black Manhattan. New York, New York: A. A. Knopf
Publishers.
Kasinitz, Philip. 2001. "Invisible No More: West Indian Americans in the Social
Scientific Imagination." Pp. 257-275 in Islands in the City: West Indian Migration to
New York, edited by N. Foner. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of
California Press.
Kent, Mary Mederios. 2007. "Immigration and America's Black Population." Population
Bulletin 62:1-16.
Kim, Claire Jean. 1999. "The Racial Triangulation of Asian Americans." Politics &
Society 27:105-138.
—. 2004. "Imagining Race and Nation in Multiculturalist America." Ethnic and Racial
Studies 27:987-1005.
Knight, Franklin W. 1990. The Caribbean: The Genesis of a Fragmented Nationalism.
New York, New York: Oxford University Press.
Lee, Stacey J. 1996. "Asian Americans: The Absent/Silenced/Model Minority." Pp. 1-16
in Unraveling the 'Model Minority' Stereotype: Listening to Asian American Youth. New
York and London: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Lewis, Oscar. 1965. La Vida: A Puerto Rican Family in the Culture of Poverty - San
Juan and New York. New York, New York: Vintage Books.
Light, Ivan. 1972. Ethnic Enterprise in America: Business and Welfare among Chinese,
Japanese and Blacks. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
Mason, Patrick. 2009. "Culture Matters: African Diaspora and Labor Market Outcomes."
Tallahassee, Florida.
98
McWhorter, John. 2000. Loosing the Race: Self-Sabotage in Black America. New York,
New York: The Free Press.
Metzl, Jonathan M. 2009. The Protest Psychosis: How Schizophrenia Became a Black
Disease. Boston: Beacon.
Mincer, Jacob. 1974. Schooling Experience and Earnings. New York, New York:
National Bureau of Economic Research, Columbia University Press.
Model, Suzanne. 2008a. "Documenting the Difference between West Indians and African
Americans." Pp. 12-48 in West Indian Immigrants: A Black Success Story? New York,
New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
—. 2008b. "Testing the Cultural Hypotheses." Pp. 89-115 in West Indian Immigrants: A
Black Success Story? New York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
—. 2008c. West Indian Immigrants: A Black Success Story? New York, New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.
Moynihan, Daniel Patrick. 1965. The Negro Family: The Case for Naitonal Action.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor (Office of Policy and Planning Research).
Nagel, Joane. 1994. "Constructing Ethnicity: Creating and Recreating Ethnic Identity and
Culture." Social Problems 41:152-177.
Ogbu, John. 1987. "Variability in Minority Performance: The Problem in Search of
Explanation." Anthropology and Education Quarterly 18:312-334.
—. 2003. Black American Students in an Affluent Suburb: A Study of Academic
Disengagement. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ogbu, John and H.D. Simons. 1998. "Voluntary and Involuntary Minorities: A CulturalEcological Theory of School Performance with Some Implications for Education."
Anthropology and Education Quarterly 29:155-188.
Ogbu, John U. 1978. Minority Education and Caste: The American System in CrossCultural Perspective. New York: Academic Press.
—. 1992. "Adaptation to Minority Status and Impact on School Success." Theory Into
Practice 31:287-295.
Paris, D. Elliott. 1981. "The Contributions of the Caribbean Immigrant to the United
States Society." Journal of Caribbean Studies 2:10.
99
Park, Robert Ezra. 1950. "Racial Assimilation in Secondary Groups." in Race and
Culture. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Patterson, Orlando. 1998. The Ordeal of Integration: Progress and Resentment in
America's "Racial" Crisis. Washington, DC: Counterpoint.
Pierre, Jemima. 2004. "Black Immigrants in the United States and The "Cultural
Narratives" Of Ethnicity." Identities 11:141-170.
Portes, Alejandro and Min Zhou. 1993. "The New Second Generation: Segmented
Assimilation and Its Variants." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science 530:74-96.
Prashad, Vijay. 2000. The Karma of Brown Folk. Minneapolis and London: University of
Minnesota Press.
Raphael, Lennox. 1964. "West Indians and Afro-Americans." Freedomways 4:438-445.
Reid, Ira A. 1939. The Negro Immigrant, His Background, Characteristics and Social
Adjustment. New York, New York: Arno Press.
Rogers, Reuel. 2001. ""Black Like Who": Afro-Caribbean Immigrants, African
Americans and the Politics of Group Identity." Pp. 163-192 in Islands in the City: West
Indian Migration to New York, edited by N. Foner. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London:
University of California Press.
Rosenthal, Robert and Ralph L. Rosnow. 1991. Essentials of Behavioral Research:
Methods and Data Analysis. New York: McGraw Hill.
Sellers, Robert M., Stephanie A.J. Rowley, Tabbye M. Chavous, J. Nicole Shelton, and
Mia A. Smith. 1997. "Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity: A Preliminary
Investigation of Reliability and Construct Validity." Journal of Personality & Social
Psychology 73:805-815.
Sowell, Thomas. 1975. Race and Economics. New York: David McKay Publishers.
—. 1978. "Three Black Histories." Pp. 7-64 in Essays and Data on American Ethnic
Groups, edited by T. Sowell. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
—. 1981a. "The Blacks." Pp. 183-224 in Ethnic America: A History. New York, New
York: Basic Books.
—. 1981b. "Webber and Bakke, and the Presuppositions of Affirmative Action." Pp. 3797 in Discrimination, Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity, edited by W. E. Block
and M. A. Walker. New Jersey, New York: The Fraser Institute.
100
—. 1983. The Economics and Politics of Race. New York, New York: William Morrow
and Co.
—. 1984. "The Special Case of Blacks." Pp. 73-90 in Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality?
New York, New York: William Morrow and Company.
Sue, S. and H.H.L. Kitano. 1973. "Stereotypes as a Measure of Success." Social Issues
29:83-98.
Suzuki, Bob H. 1977. "Education and the Socialization of Asian Americans: A
Revisionist Analysis of the 'Model Minority' Thesis." Amerasia Journal 4:23-52.
Thernstrom, Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom. 1997. America in Black and White: One
Nation, Indivisible. New York, New York: Simon & Schuster.
Truab, James. 1981. "You Can Get It If You Really Want." Harpers 264:27-31.
Vickerman, Milton. 1998. Crosscurrents: West Indian Immigrants and Race. New York,
New York: Oxford University Press.
—. 1999a. "Attitudes toward African Americans." Pp. 137-164 in Crosscurrents: West
Indian Immigrants and Race. New York, New York: Oxford University Press.
—. 1999b. Crosscurrents: West Indian Immigrants and Race. New York, New York:
Oxford University Press.
—. 1999c. "Race in Jamaica." Pp. 23-57 in Crosscurrents: West Indian Immigrants and
Race. New York, New York: Oxford University Press.
Walker, J.E. 1998. The History of Black Business in America: Capitalism, Race,
Entrepreneurship. New York, New York: Twayne Publishers.
Waters, Mary C. 1994. "Ethnic and Racial Identities of Second-Generation Black
Immigrants in New York City." International Migration Review 28:795-820.
—. 1996. "Ethnic and Racial Identities of Second-Generation Black Immigrants in New
York City." Pp. 171-196 in The New Second Generation, edited by A. Portes. New York:
Russel Sage Foundation.
—. 1999a. Black Identities: West Indian Immigrant Dreams and American Realities.
Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: Harvard University Press.
—. 1999b. "Encountering American Race Relations." Pp. 140-191 in Black Identities:
West Indian Immigrant Dreams and American Realities. Cambridge, Massachusetts and
London, England: Harvard University Press.
101
—. 1999c. "Identities of the Second Generation." Pp. 285-326 in Black Identities: West
Indian Immigrant Dreams and American Realities. Cambridge, Massachusetts and
London, England: Harvard University Press.
—. 1999d. "Intergenerational Dynamics." Pp. 192-242 in Black Identities: West Indian
Immigrant Dreams and American Realities. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London,
England: Harvard University Press.
—. 1999e. "Racial and Ethnic Identity Choices." Pp. 44-93 in Black Identities: West
Indian Immigrant Dreams and American Realities. Cambridge, Massachusetts and
London, England: Harvard University Press.
—. 1999f. "West Indians at Work." Pp. 94-139 in Black Identities: West Indian
Immigrant Dreams and American Realities. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London,
England: Harvard University Press.
Watkins-Owens, Irma. 2001. "Early-Twentieth Century Caribbean Women: Migration
and Social Networks in New York." Pp. 25-51 in Islands in the City: West Indian
Migration to New York, edited by N. Foner. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London:
University of California Press.
Weber, Max. 1930. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York, New
York: Allen and Unwin; Rutledge Classics.
Weinberg, Meyer. 1977. A Chance to Learn: A History of Race and Education in the
United States. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Cambridge University Press.
Wilson, William J. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass and
Public Policy. Chicago, Illinois, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Yancey, William L., Eugene P. Ericksen, and Richard N. Juliani. 1976. "Emergent
Ethnicity: A Review and Reformulation." American Sociological Review 41:391-403.
Zhou, Min. 1997. "Segmented Assimilation: Issues, Controversies, and Recent Research
on the New Second Generation." International Migration Review 31:975-1008.
Zuberi, Tukufu. 2001. Thicker Than Blood: How Racial Statistics Lie. Minneapolis,
Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.
102
CHAPTER 4
EXPLORING THE ROLE OF ‘WHITE INTEREST’
IN BLACK ETHNIC DISPARITIES
“The white landlord, the white shopkeeper, the white ‘boss’ will also
tell [Afro Caribbeans] of their moral superiority over the [African
American] and the distinctiveness of their accent – leaving them to
believe that they are the recipients of exceptional favors, when in fact
they are being exploited no less than [African Americans]” (BryceLaporte 1973: 57).
In recent decades the proportion of blacks living in the US that are Caribbeanborn has increased sharply (i.e., Afro Caribbeans; Kent 2007, Model 2008a). This social
demographic trend has called attention to black ethnic socioeconomic disparities50
between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans that consistently favor Afro Caribbeans
(Butcher 1994, Chiswick 1979, Model 2008e, Sowell 1978). For instance, according to
the most recent studies, Afro Caribbeans have earnings that are approximately 16 percent
higher than African Americans and are as much as 15 percent more likely to be employed
than African Americans (Mason 2009, Model 2008a).51
Prior research has typically explained differences in the socioeconomic status of
African Americans and Afro Caribbeans by focusing on endogenous factors like group
level differences in attitudes and behaviors and human capital characteristics (e.g.,
50
I use the term ‘black ethnic socioeconomic disparity’ to refer to disparate rates, levels or outcomes
between blacks across national-origin. In this paper, I am specifically interested in disparate outcomes on
various measures of socioeconomic attainment – e.g., labor market participation and earnings. Although
this term generally includes African Americans and black immigrants from Africa, the Caribbean and
South America, in this study I use this term to refer to disparities between African Americans and black
immigrants from the Caribbean only. Although I am interested in other disparities between black ethnic
groups, in this paper I use the term ‘black ethnic disparity’ and ‘black ethnic socioeconomic disparity’
synonymously.
51
These percentages reflect group averages at the margins. After adjustments for age, education, time since
migration, census year, cohort of arrival and marital status, Afro Caribbeans continue to outpace African
Americans. See Model, Suzanne. 2008a. "Documenting the Difference between West Indians and African
Americans." Pp. 12-48 in West Indian Immigrants: A Black Success Story? New York, New York: Russell
Sage Foundation.
103
Chiswick 1979, Model 2008e, Sowell 1975). Unfortunately, these explanations only
partially explain socioeconomic differences between the groups (see Chapters 2 and 3).
In general, scholars have paid insufficient attention to the role that exogenous factors
might play in the production of black ethnic socioeconomic disparities. To date, there are
two interrelated arguments that posit race as an important exogenous factor underlying
socioeconomic disparities between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans. First, some
argue that Afro Caribbeans do better than African Americans because they benefit from
white favoritism. The white favoritism hypothesis argues that whites engage in a kind of
‘statistical discrimination’ (Phelps 1972) and prefer to hire and promote Afro Caribbeans
in the because they perceive Afro Caribbeans to be better workers than African
Americans (Dominguez 1975, Foner 1985, Sowell 1978, Waters 1999g). On the other
hand, the white comfort hypothesis argues that whites are more likely to hire and promote
Afro Caribbeans because they do not ‘represent’ or ‘bring up’ the history of racial
injustice in America in the same way as African Americans (Bryce-Laporte 1972,
Grosfoguel and Georas 2003, Waters 1999b).
There are three major limitations to the work on race and black ethnic
socioeconomic disparities. First, much of the research in this area is ethnographic and
focused on the Northeastern region of the U.S (Foner 1985, Kasinitz 1992, Rogers 2001,
Vickerman 1999b, Waters 1999a). Second, the literature has not adequately considered
the potential role of ‘differential treatment’ as a key exogenous factor in the production of
black ethnic socioeconomic disparities (Bryce-Laporte 1973). Finally, the literature does
not adequately capture the more multilayered and complex ways that race influences
black ethnic disparity (Bryce-Laporte 1973, Kim 1999, Pierre 2004). Specifically, most
104
have not considered the ways in which black ethnic disparities and popular explanations
for these disparities work to maintain racial inequality and white supremacy.
The primary focus of this chapter is to extend thinking on the role that race plays
in the production and maintenance of socioeconomic disparities between African
Americans and Afro Caribbeans in the US. In this chapter I pose three questions: (1) to
what extent are black ethnic disparities due to factors associated with white favoritism
(i.e., differences in human capital and work ethic), (2) to what extent are these disparities
a result of factors associated with white comfort (i.e., differences in racial attitudes and
behaviors) and (3) to what extent are these disparities associated with the differential
treatment of African Americans and Afro Caribbeans in the US labor market? In order to
address the existing limitations, I use data from the first national survey that includes
oversamples of both African Americans and Afro Caribbeans (Jackson et al. 2004a,
Jackson et al. 2004b). I find little support for the white favoritism and comfort
hypotheses. I find that about half of black ethnic disparities in socioeconomic status are
attributable to differential treatment, or differential rewards for the same levels of human
capital, work ethic and race consciousness. I conclude by offering an alternative
explanation that focuses on the role that race plays in the process of differential treatment
and the production of black ethnic disparities in the United States.
EXPLANATIONS FOR BLACK ETHNIC DISPARITIES
So far, scholars have mainly provided explanations for relative Afro Caribbean
success that focus on endogenous factors like better ‘cultural attitudes and behaviors’
(Ogbu 1992, Portes and Zhou 1993, Sowell 1978) or greater ‘human capital
105
characteristics’ (Butcher 1994, Chiswick 1979, Model 2008e).52 Thomas Sowell is the
primary source for nativity arguments that point to group level differences in cultural
attitudes and behaviors as the main cause of socioeconomic disparities between African
Americans and Afro Caribbeans (Sowell 1975, Sowell 1978). He argues that it is the
social and historical context of the Caribbean that yields a greater work ethic and a
deeper appreciation for educational attainment among Afro Caribbeans. Specifically,
Sowell asserts that differences between the two slavery economies and the historical and
contemporary racial compositions of the US and Caribbean result in different cultural
attitudes and behaviors. With respect to the former, Sowell asserts that Afro Caribbeans
were more likely to experience independence during slavery because Caribbean owners
were more likely than US owners to allow slaves to maintain private crops and even trade
surpluses with other slaves. This longer history of economic autonomy provides for
greater incentives to work hard and invest in things that will increase productivity, like
education. As for racial composition, Sowell posits that being in the racial majority in the
country of origin shapes how Afro Caribbeans think about race and social mobility today.
That is, being in the racial majority removes the appearance that race serves as a block to
social mobility because blacks necessarily occupy many high ranking positions in
Caribbean societies (Foner 1985, Sowell 1978, Vickerman 1998). Reductions in the
observed correlation between race and social mobility result in greater aspirations among
Afro Caribbeans. These aspirations encourage hard work and investments in education.
Barry Chiswick is the primary source for selectivity arguments that point to group
level differences in ability, motivation and self-efficacy between migrants and nonmigrants as the main cause of socioeconomic disparities between African Americans and
52
Please refer to Chapters 2 and 3 for am extensive review of this literature.
106
Afro Caribbeans (Butcher 1994, Chiswick 1986, Chiswick 1979, Model 1995, Model
2008e). The main contention of this line of research has been that those who move from
state-to-state or country-to-country represent a unique population that has greater levels
of ability and motivation than non-migrants and therefore are not representative of the
populations at the point of origin or destination. As such, comparisons between African
Americans and Afro Caribbeans in the US are not comparisons between African
American and Afro Caribbean cultural forms writ large, but instead are comparisons
between Afro Caribbean movers and African American non-movers (Butcher 1994).
Although these two schools of thought often present themselves as very different
from one another, they both evidence the same working assumption: Afro Caribbeans do
better because they work harder and have more human capital than African Americans.
That is, all are deeply inspired by the basic assumptions present in much of the literature
on migration and labor economics and neither approach gives serious attention to the idea
that socioeconomic disparities might be the result of exogenous factors, like ‘white
interest.’ Moreover, despite the prominence of cultural and human capital arguments,
recent work suggests these explanations are much less viable than previously thought (see
Chapters 2 and 3). Given these recent developments, I turn to consider the role of the
concept and politic of race and racialization in the production of black ethnic disparities.
107
WHITE INTEREST AND BLACK ETHNIC DISPARITIES53
One can parse perspectives that implicate race in the production and maintenance
of black ethnic disparity into two different but related themes.54 Some have argued that
since Afro Caribbeans work harder, white employers favor them in the labor market
(Dominguez 1975, Foner 1985, Kasinitz et al. 2003, Sowell 1978, Waters 1999g). Others
contend that white employers are more likely to hire and promote Afro Caribbeans
because they are less likely to ‘bring up’ race and racism than are African Americans
(Bryce-Laporte 1972, Grosfoguel and Georas 2003, Waters 1999b). Both perspectives
privilege the role that whites play in producing black ethnic disparities. In particular, they
consider the degree to which perceived differences between African Americans and Afro
Caribbeans contribute to greater Afro Caribbean success. Given their focus on the
interests and perceptions of whites, these perspectives are more exogenous than nativity
and selectivity theories (Butcher 1994, Chiswick 1979, Sowell 1975).
White Favoritism
The premise of the white favoritism thesis is that whites hold Afro Caribbeans in
higher esteem than African Americans because they are perceived to be more efficient
and reliable workers than African Americans (Foner 1985, Model 2008d, Waters 1999g).
53
In this section, I rely heavily on the book Black Identities by Mary Waters. The reason for my heavy
reliance on this book is two-fold. Primarily, Mary Waters conducted the only ethnography that includes
whites, African Americans and Afro Caribbeans operating in the same context. The majority of
ethnographies that discuss relations between whites, Afro Caribbeans and African Americans rely only on
interviews with Afro Caribbeans. While this provides insights into Afro Caribbean perceptions of race
relations between Afro Caribbeans and whites, it leaves white perceptions out of the analysis. The second
reason why I rely on Black Identities is because it is widely noted as one of the definitive texts in the study
of black ethnicity in the US.
54
Scholars that have featured race in their explanations generally reference the literature on identity
politics. This tradition contrasts with those who have focused on nativity and selectivity and the literatures
of migration and immigration and labor economics.
108
Given the basis of this greater esteem, when compared to African Americans, whites
prefer to hire and promote Afro Caribbeans (Waters 1999g). Indeed prior research reveals
that white managers perceive Afro Caribbeans “as more ambitious, more hard-working,
and less troublesome than… African Americans” (Waters 1999g: 121). Despite not
having “concrete statistics,” white managers often report that they prefer to hire Afro
Caribbeans because of “their reliability [and] their willingness to do the job” (Waters
1999g: 116). Conversely, many white employers feel as though African Americans have
betrayed the “moral values embodied in the Protestant work ethic” (Kinder and Sears
1981: 414). According to some white employers, African Americans prefer welfare to
working and “that people who come from the islands are more appreciative of their
jobs… [and] consider themselves fortunate” to be employed (Waters 1999b: 172).55
Afro Caribbeans and African Americans also report being aware of white
favoritism (Foner 1985, Vickerman 1999b, Waters 1999g). Afro Caribbeans concur with
whites; that they are “more ambitious, harder workers, and greater achievers” (Foner
1985: 717). According to a study of workers in Northeastern Apple Orchards, 40 percent
of Afro Caribbean workers reported that whites treat Afro Caribbeans better than African
Americans (Foner 1985: 717). Milton Vickerman reported that according to one of the
Afro Caribbean men that he interviewed, “Initially… the whites in the neighborhood…
expressed hostility at the idea of a black family moving in” but this changed “when they
discovered that the family was [Afro Caribbean]” (1999b: 114). That is, “[p]revious
hostility melted away and was replaced by a very welcoming attitude” (Vickerman
55
Interestingly, one study shows that Afro Caribbean performance on academic tests increases when the
person proctoring the exam is white (see Deaux, Kay, Nida Bikmen, Alwyn Gilkes, Ana Ventuneac,
Yvanne Joseph, Yasser A. Payne, and Claude M. Steele. 2007. "Becoming American: Stereotype Threat
Effects in Afro-Caribbean Immigrant Groups." Social Psychology Quarterly 70:384-404.) This suggests
that Afro Caribbeans may exert greater effort to perform well in the labor market when working for white
employers. This greater effort may be what white employers observe in the workplace.
109
1999b: 114). The white preference for Afro Caribbeans does not go unnoticed by African
Americans (Waters 1999g: 130-2). According to one African American worker, her
previous employer, “…said if it was up to him, he wouldn’t hire any [African
Americans], and he’d hire [Afro Caribbeans]” (Waters 1999g: 131). To summarize,
support for the white favoritism thesis rests on the perception that Afro Caribbeans are
better workers than African Americans. Both white employers and Afro Caribbeans hold
this perception. African Americans differ in their perceptions.
White Comfort
Scholars have also argued that whites have developed a ‘racialized comfort’56
with Afro Caribbeans and therefore tend to hire and promote them at greater rates than
African Americans (Waters 1999b, Waters 1999g). Describing the role that white comfort
plays in the disparate hiring and promotion of Afro Caribbeans vis-à-vis African
Americans, Mary Waters offers the following (1999b: 172):
[Afro Caribbeans] provide a black face for whites to look into without
seeing the sorry history of American race relations mirrored back. This
puts whites at ease, and a cycle of expectations in created. [Afro
Caribbeans] don’t expect strained relations with whites and whites
don’t expect strained relations with [Afro Caribbeans].
More specifically, Waters notes that whites read Afro Caribbeans as “not being angry and
blaming whites for historical wrongs” (174-5) and accepting of “the fact that even though
you are white, it is not because you are white that you are dictating to them, but because
you are the person in authority” (italics in the original; 1999b: 172). Conversely, whites
describe African Americans in terms of having a “chip on their shoulder” (174) and being
56
I use the term ‘racialized comfort’ here to reference the fact that the comfort that whites feel toward Afro
Caribbeans is rooted in their perception of the ‘racial consciousness’ of Afro Caribbeans. That is, white
comfort with Afro Caribbeans is driven by racial factors.
110
“angry” and threatening (Foner 1985: 717, Waters 1999b: 174, 177). Moreover, many
whites “thought [African Americans] unfairly saw racism where none exists” (Waters
1999b: 178). Referencing the racial tensions that exist between whites and African
Americans, one white manager explained that, “… it’s more and more that the blacks are
creating it, and I think it’s a shame… if they would stop blaming us, you know, for
everything, then it would be a little easier” (Waters 1999b: 179-80). Given these
perceptions, Waters concludes that, “[Afro Caribbeans] who do not see encounters with
supervisors or customers as having racial overtones will no doubt be preferred by
supervisors [and] employers… over [African Americans] who do” (Waters 1999b: 184).
According to some Afro Caribbeans, “[m]erit, diligence, politeness, and respect
rather than race thinking… [are] the keys to attaining upward mobility in America”
(Vickerman 1999b: 114). Afro Caribbeans also echo the white perception that African
Americans are too concerned with race and therefore do not move forward as quickly as
Afro Caribbeans. One Afro Caribbean interviewee reported that he, “…can’t help them
[African Americans] because they’re so wrapped up in racism, and they act it out so
often, they interpret it as such so often that sometimes they are not even approachable…”
(Waters 1999b: 171). Another Afro Caribbean immigrant speculates that, “You see, they
believe that the white man took something from them, which he did, and they’re always
thinking about how to beat the system to get it back” (Rogers 2001: 178). In addition,
some African Americans report that Afro Caribbeans are racially docile and simply do
not understand the nature of race and racism in the US (Waters 1999g). A social survey
of middle schools in Dade County, Miami found that African Americans report scores
that are 8 percent higher on racial pride and 33 percent higher for the cultural mistrust of
111
whites then Afro Caribbeans (Biafora et al. 1993).57
To sum, the white comfort thesis rests on the assumption that – on average – the
racial attitudes and behaviors of Afro Caribbeans are less explicit and conflict bound than
those of African Americans. Given its particular focus on racial factors in hiring and
promoting, the white comfort thesis privileges race more than the white favoritism thesis.
That is, not only does it feature the white interest, it privileges the white racial interest.
However, it consigns the role of white interest in the manufacture of black ethnic
disparities to the affective or emotive dimensions of intergroup relations (in much the
same way as: Sears and Henry 2005). By focusing on the ways in which whites feel, it
fails to consider the ways in which this particular form of ‘racialized comfort’ might be
implicated in the maintenance of racial inequality in general and interest in the position of
whites at the top of the US racial hierarchy in particular (Bobo 2006, Bryce-Laporte
1973). That is, white comfort might best be understood as an affective outcome that
results from blacks (in this case Afro Caribbeans) complying with the racial status quo. It
therefore promotes the idea that the current racial hierarchy is just and that if African
Americans seek social mobility they can do so by reducing their investments in racial
contestation.
Differential Treatment
Although the literature on white favoritism and comfort does well to point toward
exogenous factors in the promotion of black ethnic disparities, one exogenous factor that
57
Also, several studies report that Afro Caribbean ‘see’ more race and racism the longer they are in the
United States. (See Vickerman, Milton. 1999b. Crosscurrents: West Indian Immigrants and Race. New
York, New York: Oxford University Press. See also, Waters, Mary C. 1999a. Black Identities: West Indian
Immigrant Dreams and American Realities. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: Harvard
University Press.)
112
has gone largely unconsidered is the possibility that employers treat Afro Caribbeans and
African Americans differently and in ways that promote Afro Caribbean success (BryceLaporte 1973, Foner 1985). That is, white favoritism and white comfort assume that
white employers hire and promote Afro Caribbeans at greater rates because they are – in
fact – better workers that do not complain about American race relations. These
explanations assume that behavioral accounts of white employers are in fact accurate and
without perceptual bias or error. However, there are reasons to suspect that white
employers are more lax when Afro Caribbeans do not work hard or do complain about
race while remaining hypersensitive and vigilant when African Americans display the
same attitudes and behaviors (Benson 2006, Vickerman 1999b, Waters 1999a). For
instance, Waters notes that white employers often grant Afro Caribbeans “slack” (Waters
1999g: 121) when their work performance is not up to par – a relief from expectations
that is not granted to African Americans. With respect to work ethic, she observes
(Waters 1999g: 121),
… where [African Americans] are blamed for their lack of a work ethic
and for not showing up to work on Mondays, the immigrants are often
granted cultural or ethnic explanations for why they behave in a
particular way. One manager explained that when new immigrants
were late ‘on island time’ or did not show up for work when it rained,
he understood that they just did not understand the ‘American way of
work,’ and then cut them some slack.
There are also reasons to suspect that Afro Caribbean racial attitudes are very
similar to the racial attitudes of African Americans but that they do not pay the same
penalty that African Americans pay for holding theses attitudes. For instance, in
reflecting on her interviews with white employers, Waters notes that (1999b: 175),
… a significant number of the white managers describe [Afro
Caribbeans] as being very outspoken, very aware of race, and very
113
likely to be blunt about what they want. Yet this did not seem to
dampen relations between whites and [Afro Caribbeans] in the same
way that it dampened relations between African Americans and
whites.58
Others also find support for the notion that Afro Caribbean racial attitudes are not very
different from African Americans (Benson 2006, Biafora et al. 1993, Vickerman 1999b).
For instance, findings from a multi-city social survey reveal that Afro Caribbeans report
levels of linked fate59 that are comparable to African Americans (Benson 2006).
According to the same study, there are also no meaningful differences in perceived
discrimination between the two groups (Benson 2006, Ho 1995). Milton Vickerman
(1999b) reports that many of the Afro Caribbeans he interviewed try not to ‘see race’ but
that most become vocal critics of American racial politics and a good portion are not shy
about sharing their racial discontents in public.
Further support for the differential treatment of Afro Caribbeans and African
Americans comes from Afro Caribbeans who invest in making their ‘Caribbeanness’
known as part of an effort to maintain an advantage in the labor market (Foner 1985,
Jackson 2010, Vickerman 1999b, Waters 1999g). Afro Caribbeans often work to make
their different ethnic heritage known in order to procure favorable treatment by whites
(Foner 1985, Model 2008d). Not only are Afro Caribbeans aware of their advantage,
some even appear to be aware of a larger set of racial politics at play. According to one
Afro Caribbean worker (Waters 1999g: 121),
58
Additional support for this inconsistency is found on pages 184-5 when Waters uses quotes from two
different interviews with white employers who report that Afro Caribbeans are often “angry” and “push
being black.” Waters also states that, “Whites held contradictory opinions of West Indians. They see them
as more friendly, more approachable on an individual level, and more cooperative, and, at the same time,
more aware of race, more likely to be angry and blunt about workplace race relations, and more demanding
and arrogant” (186).
59
This is a racial linked fate and therefore is in reference to blacks generally, not African Americans or
Afro Caribbeans in particular.
114
My ex-boss he was white and he would rather have a staff like this with
a lot of [Afro Caribbeans] because of the problems [he had] when he
would hire [African Americans]. He would say, ‘it’s a waste.’ On a
Monday morning when he looking (sic) for his job to be done, they’re
not here. And he always say (sic) he liked [Afro Caribbean] people.
And I think I benefit from that. I think this is why I’m in this position
right now through him, you know? And probably because I’m black,
maybe wouldn’t appreciate me that much. If you’re working for a place
and there’s openings for a job, them big firms, they like to take [Afro
Caribbeans] faster than a [African American].
What is unique about this quote is that; in addition to the respondent appearing aware of
the fact that her employer sees her as a hard worker vis-à-vis African Americans, she is
also aware that this employer preference might be associated with a larger racial
agenda.60 It is difficult to speculate on exactly what this respondent thinks this agenda is,
but it is clear that she believes she is benefiting in a way that is unique to being
simultaneously black and Caribbean. Findings from Chapter 3 also suggest that
investments in Afro Caribbean identity are associated with greater socioeconomic success
– net of social background factors and select cultural attitudes and behaviors. That is,
Afro Caribbeans who have greater investments in a Caribbean identity do better than
those who do not, and this association is not a result of any link between human capital,
cultural factors and socioeconomic attainment. Pointing toward the idea of differential
treatment, Bryce-Laporte – one of the seminal scholars on race and black ethnicity – once
remarked (1973: 57),
The white landlord, the white shopkeeper, the white ‘boss’ will also tell
[Afro Caribbeans] of their moral superiority over the [African
American] and the distinctiveness of their accent – leaving them to
believe that they are the recipients of exceptional favors, when in fact
they are being exploited no less than [African Americans].
60
I.e., she alludes to this when she says: “And probably because I’m black, maybe wouldn’t appreciate me
that much.”
115
Therefore, the motivation for differential treatment of African Americans and
Afro Caribbeans may be rooted in a societal interest to maintain current trends in blackwhite inequality in the US (Bashi and McDaniel 1997, Bryce-Laporte 1973). By allowing
for the minimal advance of Afro Caribbeans vis-à-vis African Americans, whites can
then point to greater Afro Caribbean success as proof that race and racism is not the cause
of African American disadvantage. Instead, as other blacks have managed to ‘do better,’
African Americans should shift their focus from race and racism and toward working
harder and complaining less, like their Afro Caribbean peers. This narrative does not
acknowledge much larger and persistent gaps between Afro Caribbeans and whites and
has the effect of muting claims of racial discrimination in ways that promote the current
racial status quo – i.e., whites at the top.
In sum, scholars have framed Afro Caribbeans as exceptional. Specifically, Afro
Caribbeans are often thought to be exceptionally good workers who are exceptionally
‘racially polite’ vis-à-vis African Americans. However, a close read of this depiction
results in contradictory evidence. Importantly, this imagined exceptionalism might lead to
the differential treatment of Afro Caribbeans and African Americans. This differential
treatment might then be an important source of black ethnic socioeconomic disparities in
the US.
HYPOTHESES
Although proponents of white favoritism and comfort might propose large
differences in work ethic and race consciousness between African Americans and Afro
Caribbeans, I present expectations that draw on work which suggests that these attitudes
116
and behaviors are likely not that different (Bryce-Laporte 1973, Pierre 2004).61
Moreover, I expect that the same attitudes and behaviors garner different socioeconomic
outcomes when expressed by African Americans and Afro Caribbeans.
White Favoritism and Black Ethnicity
1a. Whites have more favorable feelings toward Afro Caribbeans than African
Americans.
1b. There is no difference in work ethic between African Americans and Afro
Caribbeans.
White Comfort and Black Ethnicity
2a. African Americans hold racial attitudes that are no more critical than the racial
attitudes of Afro Caribbeans.
2b. African Americans are no more likely to perceive racial discrimination than Afro
Caribbeans.
2c. African Americans and Afro Caribbeans respond to discrimination in the same
way.
White Favoritism, White Comfort and Black Ethnic Disparities
3a. Controlling for factors associated with white favoritism will partially explain
black ethnic socioeconomic disparities.
3b. Controlling for factors associated with white comfort will partially explain black
ethnic socioeconomic disparities.
Differential Treatment and Black Ethnic Disparities
4a. The association between human capital, work ethic and socioeconomic status will
be stronger for Afro Caribbeans than for African Americans (i.e., different
treatment for shared characteristics).
4b. The association between racial attitudes and socioeconomic status will be weaker
for Afro Caribbeans than for African Americans. (i.e., different treatment for
shared characteristics).
61
Also see findings from Chapters 2 and 3.
117
4c. At the group level, different returns to the same levels of human capital, work
ethic and racial attitudes explains more of the variance in socioeconomic disparity
between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans than group level endowments
for these attributes.
DATA AND METHODS
To explore these hypotheses I use survey data from the National Survey of
American Life (NSAL; Jackson et al. 2004a, Jackson et al. 2004b). The NSAL is uniquely
suited for this study because it contains a range of information on racial, ethnic and
cultural factors as well as measures of socioeconomic status. Further, it provides the first
nationally representative study of both African Americans and Afro Caribbeans. The
survey is comprised of two parts: the first was a face-to-face household survey. After
completing the face-to-face interview, interviewers left respondents with a selfadministered questionnaire to complete and submit by mail. The total sample includes
3,464 African Americans, 1,599 Afro Caribbeans and 855 whites. The response rate for
the face-to-face interview was approximately 71 percent for African Americans,
approximately 78 percent for Afro Caribbeans and approximately 70 percent for whites
(Jackson et al. 2004b: 204). The response rate for the self-administered questionnaire was
61 percent for African Americans, 43 percent for Afro Caribbeans and 68 percent for
whites. The analytic sample for this study includes 3,009 African Americans, 1,406 Afro
Caribbeans and 759 whites.62
There are three sets of variables in this study. First, there are three dependent
variables: employment status, occupational prestige and annual personal income. Second,
there are several independent variables used to assess the relative roles of white
62
I used multiple imputation to address missing data (see Allison, Paul D. 2002. Missing Data. Thousand
Oaks, London and New Delhi: Sage Publications.)
118
favoritism, white comfort and differential treatment in black ethnic socioeconomic
disparity. Finally, there are control variables. All measures are imperfect approximations
of the true concepts under study but they are either equal to or better than what has been
previously available.
DEPENDENT VARIABLES
There are three dependent variables: employment status, occupational prestige
and annual personal income. I measure employment status in terms of whether or not the
respondent had a job at the time of the survey. I assessed occupational prestige by
attaching occupational prestige scores to US Census job codes (Frederick 2010, Hauser
and Warren 1997). I measure annual personal income with the personal reports of
respondents. I concentrate on these three measures of socioeconomic status because they
are the most consistently assessed constructs in the literature on black ethnic disparities
(e.g., Model 2008e).
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES
White Favoritism
There are two parts to the white favoritism hypothesis. The first part states that
whites prefer Afro Caribbeans to African Americans. The second proposes that this
preference exists because Afro Caribbeans are actually better workers than African
Americans. The nature of the data does not allow for a direct test of white favoritism.
Therefore, I first test for differences in how close whites feel to Afro Caribbeans and
African Americans. I then focus on the black portion of the sample and test for
119
differences in the human capital characteristics and orientations to work between African
Americans and Afro Caribbeans. To assess white attitudes, the survey asked white
respondents about how close they feel in their “ideas and feelings” to “whites,” “black
people in this country” and “black people from the Caribbean, like people from Jamaica,
Bermuda or Haiti.” Interviewers asked the question regarding “black people in this
country” before the question regarding “black people from the Caribbean.” Therefore,
given the discourse on race and blackness in the US, I assume that when responding to
the first question regarding “black people in this country” respondents were referencing
African Americans. My measure of the degree of closeness whites feel toward African
Americans and Afro Caribbeans is relative to their closeness to whites.
In addition to white attitudes toward African Americans and Afro Caribbeans, I
also compare levels of human capital and the Protestant work ethic between these two
black ethnic groups. I measure human capital in terms of years of education, work
experience (age – schooling – 6), work experience squared and whether or not the
respondent has received additional training beyond their formal education – i.e., “Have
you completed any additional schooling?” (Mincer 1974). There are two dimensions of
the Protestant work ethic: willingness to work and satisfaction derived from working.
First, a single item measured the respondents’ willingness to work. Respondents
answered yes or no to the statement, “At times I refuse to hold a job, even when I am
expected to.” This item was reverse-coded to assess ‘willingness to work.’ As the
Protestant work ethic is not only about being willing to work but also about deriving a
sense of purpose and meaning from the work one does, I include measures of job
satisfaction: “How satisfied are (were) you in doing this work?” and “How much do (did)
120
you enjoy doing the work you do (did)?” Both questions provided 5-point Likert scale
response sets that allowed for either positive or negative responses. Arguably, if other job
characteristics are held constant (e.g., employment status and/or occupational prestige)
those who hold a Protestant work ethic will not only be more willing to work, but more
likely to be satisfied with and or enjoy their employment. The Cronbach alpha for these
three items is .62 for African Americans and .60 for Afro Caribbeans.
White Comfort
There are no direct measures of white comfort. Instead, I will use measures that
tap the kinds of racial attitudes and behaviors – present among African Americans and
Afro Caribbeans – that should be associated with varying degrees of racialized comfort
among whites. There are four kinds of racial attitudes and behaviors that should matter in
discussions of white comfort: attitudes toward whites, perceived race relations, black
racial politics, perceived discrimination and responses to perceived discrimination. To
assess black ethnic attitudes toward whites, I use two measures: how close does the
respondent feel in their “ideas and feelings” toward whites (with response options: very
close, fairly close, not too close, and not close at all) and “I would not mind if a suitably
qualified White person was appointed as my boss” (with response options: strongly
agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree and strongly agree). I use three indicators of
perceived race relations: “Whites and racial minorities can never be really comfortable
with each other, even if they are close friends,” “White people in this country do not
respect Black people,” and “White people in this country do not think of Black people as
important contributors to this country.” I consider the role of views on racial politics by
121
using three indicators: “I would not mind giving special preferences in hiring and job
promotions to Blacks,” “The government should give reparations (compensation,
payback) to African Americans for historical injustices and slavery” and two questions
that reference ‘linked fate.’ The measure of linked fate is a single indicator composed
from two questions: “Do you think what happens generally to Black people in this
country will have something to do with what happens in your life?” and the follow-up
question, “Will it affect you a lot, some, or not very much?” I combined results from
these two questions to create four response options: none, not very much, some and a lot.
There are two measures of perceived discrimination: everyday and major life.
Everyday discrimination concerns daily hassles and irritations. The index for everyday
discrimination includes 10 questions. Three example questions are: (“In your day-to-day
life how often have any of the following things happened to you?): “…you are treated
with less courtesy than other people?” “…you are treated with less respect than other
people?” and “…you receive poor service compared with other people at restaurants or
stores?” The Cronbach alpha for the complete index is .88 for African Americans and .89
for Afro Caribbeans. Major life discrimination is a measure of experiences of unfair
treatment at moments in time when social mobility may be in jeopardy. There are nine
measures of major life discrimination. Three examples include: “For unfair reasons, have
you ever not been hired for a job?” “Have you ever been unfairly denied a promotion?”
and “At any time in your life, have you ever been unfairly fired?” The Cronbach alpha
for the complete index is .64 for African Americans and .61 for Afro Caribbeans.
122
CONTROL VARIABLES
I control for several variables relevant to the study of socioeconomic status. These
variables are: age, gender, region, parental educational attainment and whether or not the
respondent is a second-generation Afro Caribbean. First, I control for gender because not
only are men employed at greater rates and earn more than women, but also because
black immigration from the Caribbean has generally favored women (Model 2008a,
Watkins-Owens 2001). Region is a particularly important control variable because the
majority of Afro Caribbeans live in the Northeast where wages are often higher than
other parts of the country (Mason 2009). Therefore, I include a dummy variable for those
respondents living in the Northeast. I also control for the educational attainment of the
respondents’ parents because more highly educated parents are often better able to assist
their children in successfully navigating their own social mobility. Finally, I control for
whether or not the respondent is a second-generation Afro Caribbean because research
shows that they are a distinct population group from first-generation Afro Caribbean
immigrants and African Americans (Bennett and Lutz 2009, Butterfield 2003, Butterfield
2004, Deaux et al. 2007, Gans 1992, Portes and Zhou 1993).
ANALYSIS PLAN
My analysis proceeds in three stages. First, I examine mean level differences
between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans in terms of Protestant work ethic,
human capital, racial attitudes and perceived discrimination (see hypotheses 1a through
2c). Next, I assess whether these mean differences are responsible for black ethnic
disparities in employment, occupational prestige and personal income (see hypotheses 3a
123
and 3b). Finally, I explore whether or not there are differential returns for the same
attitudes and behaviors among African Americans and Afro Caribbeans (see hypotheses
4a through 4c).
White Favoritism and Comfort
In order to test the hypotheses associated with white favoritism, I examine mean
score differences in whites’ closeness to African Americans compared to Afro
Caribbeans. Based on the white favoritism thesis I would expect whites to report feeling
closer to Afro Caribbeans than African Americans. Next, I continue my investigation of
the white favoritism thesis by examining mean score differences between African
Americans and Afro Caribbeans in terms of Protestant work ethic and human capital
characteristics. Based on the hypothesis we would expect Afro Caribbeans to have
greater mean scores on both Protestant work ethic and human capital characteristics.
I test the white comfort hypothesis by exploring mean score differences between
African Americans and Afro Caribbeans in attitudes toward whites, perceptions of race
relations, views on racial politics, and perceived discrimination. The expectation is that if
the white comfort hypothesis is correct then Afro Caribbeans will have more favorable
attitudes toward whites, more positive perceptions of race relations and views on racial
politics that provide for less support of affirmative action, less support for reparations and
lower levels of linked fate than African Americans. Additionally, I use eta scores to
ascertain the magnitude of the differences between African Americans and Afro
Caribbeans (Grissom and Kim 2005, Rosenthal and Rosnow 1991). For substantive
124
interpretations I rely on the standards described by Rosenthal and Rosnow (1991).63
I also estimate a series multivariate regression models in order to determine the
degree to which controlling for differences in these attitudes and behaviors reduces black
ethnic disparities in employment, occupational prestige and personal income. If after
controlling for these intervening factors (e.g., Protestant work ethic or attitudes toward
whites), the association between black ethnicity and socioeconomic status (e.g.,
occupational prestige) decreases or becomes non-significant I will conclude that there is
some indirect support for the idea that these attributes account for black ethnic disparities
(Baron and Kenny 1986).
Differential Treatment
To evaluate the degree to which differential treatment is responsible for disparate
socioeconomic outcomes between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans, I draw upon
multivariate decompositions to illustrate the degree to which African Americans and Afro
Caribbeans receive different rewards for the same skills, attitudes and behaviors.
Decomposition allows the analyst to parse group level disparities on some outcome (in
this case: employment, occupational prestige and personal income) into two factors:
endowment effects and treatment effects (Blinder 1973, Jann 2008, Oaxaca 1973).
Endowment effects represent the portion of the disparity attributed to mean level
differences on the independent variables between two groups. Treatment effects represent
the portion of the disparity that is a result of differential rewards for having the same
group means on the independent variables. That is, this component measures the expected
63
For ES: ES < .10 are considered small or trivial, ES .11 to .20 are considered small, effects .21 to .50 are
considered medium, and effects > .50 are considered large.
125
change in lower group’s mean outcome on the dependent variable, if it had the same
coefficients as the group with a higher mean on the dependent variable. If differential
treatment is useful for explaining socioeconomic disparities between African Americans
and Afro Caribbeans then a large portion of socioeconomic disparities between these two
groups should be attributable to the ‘treatment effect.’
RESULTS
Table 4.1 presents unadjusted means for the association between black ethnicity
and socioeconomic status. The findings in this table are in line with expectations. Afro
Caribbeans have better outcomes on all three measures of socioeconomic status. Afro
Caribbeans are more likely employed than African Americans. Similarly, Afro
Caribbeans have occupational prestige scores that are greater than African Americans.
The largest disparity is in personal income. Afro Caribbeans earn more income annually
than African Americans.
Black Ethnicity and White Favoritism
Table 4.2 presents unadjusted means for measures associated with the white
favoritism hypothesis. First, counter to expectations, whites report feeling closer to
African Americans than they do toward Afro Caribbeans. This is likely related to the fact
that the African American population is larger than the Afro Caribbean population.
However, in accordance with expectations, there are no meaningful differences between
African Americans and Afro Caribbeans in terms of their Protestant work ethic – i.e.,
refusal to work and job satisfaction. Afro Caribbeans appear to have a slight edge on
126
African Americans in terms of their human capital characteristics. Afro Caribbeans report
more education and training than African Americans but African Americans have greater
levels of work experience than Afro Caribbeans. The only difference that exceeds
triviality is years of education. In all, with the exception of two human capital
characteristics, findings from this table are not consistent with expectations associated
with the white favoritism hypothesis. That is, according to the white favoritism thesis,
one would expect large differences in Protestant work ethic and skill. Instead, results
from Table 4.2 reveal no differences in Protestant work ethic and mostly small
differences in human capital that are not consistently in favor of Afro Caribbeans.
Black Ethnicity and White Comfort
Tables 4.3 and 4.4 report unadjusted means for attitudes and opinions that are
likely to be associated with levels of racialized white comfort. Table 4.3 reveals mixed
support for the white comfort hypothesis. While there are no differences in the closeness
that African Americans and Afro Caribbeans feel towards whites, Afro Caribbeans are
‘more okay’ with having a white boss. Findings for perceived race relations run counter
to the white comfort hypothesis. That is, there are no differences between African
Americans and Afro Caribbeans in terms of their perceived level of comfort between
whites and minorities and the amount of respect whites have toward blacks, but African
Americans are more likely to think that whites do not think that blacks add to the US. In
general, there are no differences in the racial politics of African Americans and Afro
Caribbeans. However, African Americans are more likely to support reparations for US
slavery. Findings for perceived discrimination are in line with the white comfort
127
hypothesis. African Americans report more major life discrimination and more everyday
discrimination than Afro Caribbeans. Table 4.4 reports very little support for the idea that
the two black ethnic groups respond differently to perceptions of discrimination.
However, of the six measures, African Americans are more likely to talk to someone
about discrimination than are Afro Caribbeans. In all, of the 10 measures of white
comfort, just half are in favor of Afro Caribbeans. In addition, the magnitudes of the
differences are mostly small and certainly not as large as one might expect from reading
the literature. Moreover, there are three instances (i.e., closeness to whites, minority
comfort with whites and white respect for blacks) in which African American attitudes
should produce more white comfort than Afro Caribbeans.
White Favoritism, White Comfort and Black Ethnic Disparities
Tables 4.5 through 4.7 present findings from multivariate regressions of
socioeconomic status on race related factors. Table 4.5 reveals race related factors do not
fully explain disparities in current employment. Of the two race-related factors
considered, factors associated with the white comfort hypothesis appear to have greater
importance. Specifically, controlling for support for reparations and the sense of linked
fate appear to drive the 6 percent reduction in black ethnic employment disparity
presented in Model 3. Adding behaviors associated with white comfort did not provide
for any greater explanatory value. Interestingly, controlling for differences in factors
associated with the white favoritism hypothesis was associated with a slight increase in
the black ethnic employment disparity. This goes in the opposite direction of the white
favoritism premise – i.e., Afro Caribbeans do better because they are better workers.
128
Indeed, it appears that Afro Caribbeans receive greater rewards for holding the same
levels of human capital and work ethic as African Americans. In tables 4.6 and 4.7,
differences in social background characteristics fully explain the black ethnic disparity in
occupational prestige and log annual personal income.
These findings provide less than convincing support for the two major racerelated perspectives on black ethnic disparities. Not only are group level differences on
key attributes associated with white favoritism and comfort often not as stark as has been
proposed in the literature, but it is often the case that there are either no differences or
that the differences that exist actually favor African Americans. Additionally, results
from multivariate models provide no support for the idea that the existing group level
differences account for a meaningful portion of black ethnic disparities. As mentioned in
the above review of the literature, scholars should begin to move in a different direction.
Specifically, the potential for differential treatment requires exploration.
Differential Treatment and Black Ethnic Disparities
Tables 4.8, 4.9 and 4.10 present findings from multivariate decompositions of
socioeconomic status by black ethnicity.64 In general, findings from these tables provide
strong support for the idea that a large portion of black ethnic disparity results from
differential returns to the same characteristics. Table 4.8 presents estimates for a LOGIT
multivariate decomposition of current employment on a set of control variables and
measures for the two race related factors discussed previously.65 According to the table,
64
Regression models are run separately for all outcomes by black ethnicity in the Appendix, Tables A2-A4.
This table does not show estimates for individual or grouped variables because the Stata commands that
allow for non-linear decompositions does not report estimates for individual or grouped variables. (See
Bauer, Thomas K. and Mathias Sinning. 2006. "An Extension of the Blinder-Oaxaca Decomposition to
65
129
black ethnic disparities in the likelihood of employment are mostly the result of
differential treatment for the same group level attitudes and behaviors. Approximately 47
percent of the group disparity in employment results from differential returns to group
level characteristics.
Table 4.9 and 4.10 present estimates from multivariate decompositions of
occupational prestige and log annual personal income on four variable groups: controls,
human capital, Protestant work ethic and racial attitudes. Control variables include:
gender, age and region. Human capital variables include: education, additional training
and work experience. Protestant work ethic includes: willingness to work, job satisfaction
and job enjoyment. Racial attitudes includes: closeness to whites, being okay with having
a qualified white boss, thinking minorities and whites are comfortable, support for
affirmative action, support for reparations, linked fate and major life and everyday
discrimination. According to Table 4.9, about 68 percent of the disparity in occupational
prestige is a result of group level differences in controls, human capital, Protestant work
ethic and racial attitudes. Approximately 34 percent of the disparity in occupational
prestige is due to differential returns for the same levels of controls, human capital,
Protestant work ethic and racial attitudes. Table 4.10 reveals that approximately 75
percent of the disparity of log annual personal income is due to differences in-group level
characteristics. Approximately, 54 percent of the disparity in annual personal income is
due to differential returns for the same group levels of the controls, human capital,
Protestant work ethic and racial attitudes. These findings suggest that differential
Non-Linear Models." Pp. 1-12 in Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung: Discussion
Papers. Essen, Germany.
, Sinning, Mathias, Markus Hahn, and Thomas K. Bauer. 2008. "The Blinder–Oaxaca Decomposition for
Nonlinear Regression Models." The Stata Journal 8:480-492.)
130
treatment provides for a more full explanation of black ethnic disparities than results
associated with white favoritism and comfort. However, these results do not uncover the
reasons for differential treatment. I will provide a potential explanation (or ‘motive’) for
differential treatment later in the discussion.
DISCUSSION
In this chapter, I test for the viability of the white favoritism and white comfort
hypotheses in the development of black ethnic disparities. I also speculated on the role of
differential treatment. In general, I found little support for white favoritism and comfort. I
found strong support for differential treatment. Given the indirect nature of the empirical
tests in this chapter, we need more research in order to better assess the competing roles
of white favoritism, comfort and differential treatment in accounting for black ethnic
disparities. In particular, future studies should explore these relationships in the
experimental context. That is, given the dynamic nature of the hypotheses reviewed,
experimental data that allows for the manipulation of black ethnicity is required. Cross
sectional observational studies are limited because they only allow for indirect tests of the
basic causal assumptions.
White Favoritism, White Comfort and Black Ethnic Disparities
According to the findings presented in this chapter, white favoritism and white
comfort do not account for black ethnic disparities. That is, comparing African
Americans and Afro Caribbeans with the same levels of factors associated with white
favoritism and comfort does not produce socioeconomic disparity between these two
131
black ethnic groups. First, African Americans and Afro Caribbeans are not that different
on these factors. Although Afro Caribbeans do outpace African Americans on several
factors related to these hypotheses, the magnitude of difference is most often small.
Moreover, there are instances when African Americans have levels that should be
associated with greater white favoritism and white comfort. These findings reveal that
reports by white employers and Afro Caribbean workers are more perception than reality.
However, these findings are limited because they only provide an indirect
assessment of white favoritism and comfort. That is, since I do not have data on whites,
African Americans and Afro Caribbeans working in the same setting it was impossible to
assess the actual role of white favoritism and comfort in the development of black ethnic
disparities. Instead, I presented data on factors that should be associated with white
favoritism and comfort. An assessment of the links between work ethic, human capital
and racial attitudes and behaviors among African Americans and Afro Caribbeans
provides only an indirect test of the white favoritism and comfort hypotheses. That said,
the indirect tests presented in this chapter are not what one would expect if white
favoritism and comfort were at play.
Differential Treatment and Black Ethnic Disparities
The findings in the chapter provide strong support for the idea that African
Americans and Afro Caribbeans procure differential rewards for the same characteristics
in the labor market. That is, in contrast to the expectations of many, having a black racial
phenotype does not result in uniform treatment. The fact that around half of the
socioeconomic disparities between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans are
132
associated with the ‘treatment effect’ should shift attention to the study of exogenous
factors in the development of black ethnic disparities.
Findings in support of differential treatment are limited primarily because of the
nature of the data under investigation and omitted variable bias. The nature of the data
certainly restricts my ability to make causal statements. At best, when using cross
sectional data, researchers can speak to associations. However, the associations presented
in the chapter are in line with differential treatment. In addition, since multivariate
decompositions leave no portion of the group disparity unexplained, not accounting for
related variables can result in biased outcomes (Blank and Dabady 2004). For instance,
not including a variable for a characteristic that is very important in determining the
disparity (e.g., health) can result in a larger portion of the disparity being associated with
the treatment effect. That said, the variables presented in this chapter represent an honest
attempt at including variables presented in the literature in the most parsimonious
fashion. The results certainly do not run against the idea that African Americans and Afro
Caribbeans are treated differently in the US labor market.
Rethinking Differential Treatment: Notes on the Differential Racialization Thesis
The ideas proposed here take the above findings in support of differential
treatment as their departure point; however, they depart from the arguments of prior
research about white favoritism and white comfort and offer a new approach that rests on
different assumptions about the nature of differential treatment. In this way, they go well
beyond the empirical data presented in this chapter. I begin by examining the role of nonphenotypical attributes in the process of racialization. Based on this assessment, I assert
133
that U.S. society assigns distinct racial meanings to the black body because of perceived
foreignness – differential racialization (Kim 1999, Kim 2004, Tuan 1998). After
outlining this perspective, I return to the data presented above and posit that this process
of differential racialization plays a crucial role in understanding the differential treatment
of African Americans and Afro Caribbeans in hiring, promotion and socioeconomic
success in the United States. Importantly, I note that differential racialization provides an
explanation or motive for findings in support of differential treatment.
Recent attempts to explain how US society assigns racial meanings to human
population groups have speculated on the role of non-phenotyipical attributes in the
process of racialization (Kim 1999, Kim 2004, Ngai 2004, Tuan 1998). For instance, in
the book Impossible Subjects, historian Mae Ngai makes the argument that “the national
origins quota system [of U.S. immigration law] created categories of difference that
turned on both national origins and race, reclassifying Americans as racialized subjects
simultaneously along both lines” (Ngai 2004: 36). That is, she asserts that a group’s
social location within the racial hierarchy of the United States is not only determined by
‘racial phenotype’ but is also influenced by their perceived national origin. Sociologist
Mia Tuan (1998) makes a similar claim in her book, Forever Foreigner or Honorary
Whites?, arguing that the racial meaning often assigned to the Asian body in the U.S. is
that of perpetual foreignness. In her book, she illustrates how despite having a long
multigenerational history in the US and achieving social mobility, many in the US
perceive Japanese Americans and Chinese Americans as foreigners.
Claire Jean Kim (1999, 2004) provides a useful conceptual framework that
explicitly incorporates foreignness into processes of racialization. She argues that
134
racialization and racial inequality happen simultaneously along two key dimensions. That
is, in addition to the traditional dimension of inferior-superior ‘racial stock’ (e.g., racial
phenotype), she adds the axis foreigner-insider to better understand the racialization of
Asians in the United States as well as the triangulated nature of racial order. She posits
that racialization is a process of ‘triangulating’ human population groups relative to one
another and according to their perceived racial stock (or relative racial superiority) and
perceived nativity (or relative foreignness). According to the racial triangulation thesis,
Asians are situated in the US racial hierarchy vis-à-vis whites and blacks – not just
whites. Accordingly, blacks are insiders in U.S. society but remain an inferior racial
group to Asians. Asians are outsiders but remain a superior group to blacks. Whites are
not only considered superior to Asians, they also benefit from the perception of being
more ‘inside’ or native than are Asians. On the other hand, blacks benefit from being
considered more native than Asians are, but Asians are depicted as racially superior to
blacks. This triangulated mode of interaction between the three groups positions Asians
as better than Blacks but never as well as Whites.
Kim’s racial triangulation thesis is instructive in detailing how racialized groups
develop differing interests that are, in part, defined by the unique ways that these groups
are subjected to White supremacy. Herein is where racial triangulation is useful for an
analysis of the predicament of Afro Caribbeans and African Americans in the U.S., and
more broadly my differential racialization thesis. That is, an important extension of
Kim’s work is a consideration of how US society racializes Afro Caribbeans and African
Americans differentially and the consequences of this differential racialization for their
social and economic success in the United States.
135
In particular, Kim’s framework provides two insights that are essential for my
thinking on ‘differential racialization.’ The first is that – by offering the secondary axis of
foreigner-insider – she allows for the idea that non-phenotypical features – like perceived
foreignness – are important to consider when thinking about (a) how racial meanings are
assigned to human population groups and (b) how groups are then positioned within the
US racial hierarchy. The second major insight that Kim offers is that human population
groups are racialized relative to one another and not just vis-à-vis whites. The notion that
human population groups are racialized relative to multiple groups instead of just whites
opens the door for considering the possibility that Afro Caribbeans are racialized relative
to African Americans and Whites. Indeed, Sociologist Bryce-Laporte made a similar
point, four decades ago, in his examination of relations between Afro Caribbeans and
Blacks (1973: 57):
The white landlord, the white shopkeeper, the white ‘boss’ will also tell
[Afro Caribbeans] of their moral superiority over the [African
American] and the distinctiveness of their accent – leaving them to
believe that they are the recipients of exceptional favors, when in fact
they are being exploited no less than [African Americans].
Thus, the idea that perceived foreignness can be an important factor in the process of
racialization provides the opportunity for assigning different racial meanings to the ‘black
body’ based on their perceived position along the insider-foreigner axis.
Given these theoretical tenets, I argue that people identify and treat blacks
differently according to the perception of foreignness. Blacks are identified as either
‘native’66 or foreign through the use of non-phenotypical racial markers like languageaccent and self-identification (Jackson 2010). Thus, I posit that the black body is not only
66
I use the term ‘native’ synonymously with the term African American to refer to blacks that are the
decedents of American slavery. Even though second generation Afro Caribbean immigrants are indeed
native to the US, they are often marked as foreign because their parents were born abroad.
136
marked racially because of its ‘blackness’ but also in terms of its language and
proclaimed ethnic identity. Moreover, the perception of foreignness is associated with
imagining fixed characteristics (e.g., motivation, ability) in such a way that Afro
Caribbeans are viewed as ‘forever foreign’ and primordially different from African
Americans (e.g., Ngai 2004, Tuan 1998). This perceived difference allows for disparate
treatment in the workplace – and elsewhere. That is, the perception of fixed differences
allows observers to respond differently to the same attitudes and behaviors when
expressed by African Americans and Afro Caribbeans.
Ultimately, the process of ‘differential racialization’ exists to maintain racial
inequality in the US and does so by promoting the idea that blacks can undo racial
inequality by working hard and disinvesting in racial ideology and contestation. Indeed,
scholars conducting research on the black ethnic comparative have often pointed our
attention to the fact that Afro Caribbeans outperform African Americans in order to argue
that the real driver of ‘racial inequality’ (in this case white/African-American inequality)
are the pathological attitudes and behaviors of African Americans (for a review of this
research, see Chapter 3). This assertion looks past the fact that socioeconomic disparities
between Afro Caribbeans and whites far exceed disparities between Afro Caribbeans and
African Americans. Moreover, because this assertion works to naturalize or deproblematize racial inequality (by blaming it on the victims) it – in effect – supports the
current racial status quo, thereby securing white supremacy and racial stratification in the
United States.
137
FUTURE RESEARCH
There are plenty of opportunities for future research to both reassess findings
presented in the chapter and begin to investigate the viability of the differential
racialization thesis. For instance, future research should explore the degree to which
differential treatment is observed in controlled laboratory experiments. Ideally, the
researcher should be able to randomly vary whether or not the black body is read as
African American or Afro Caribbean. Participants would then be asked to evaluate the
confederates on some task. The researcher would then assess the degree to which
perceived foreignness moderates participant evaluations concerning task completion.
Given the population concentrations of Afro Caribbeans, such experiments should be
conducted in the Northeast, the Southeast and then places where the black immigrant
population has traditionally been sparse (e.g., the West).
Although these experiments will provide a more accurate assessment of
differential treatment, they will not provide support for the differential racialization
thesis. In order to ascertain the thinking behind differential treatment – arguably,
differential racialization – investigators will need to incorporate in-depth interviews into
their assessments. Among other things, such in-depth interviews should not only probe
for ‘model minority-like’ descriptors of Afro Caribbeans and referents to cultural
pathology among African Americans, but should also investigate the degree to which
these attributes are perceived to be fixed or mutable. That is, if findings from such studies
reveal that these characteristics are perceived to be fixed (even in the face of
countervailing evidence) it is more likely that these disparate conceptions of the black
138
body are racialized. In addition, future research should investigate the origins of the
model minority myth as applied to Afro Caribbeans.
CONCLUSION
The findings presented in the chapter have important implications for thinking
about the causes of black ethnic socioeconomic disparity and for how scholars
conceptualize race in the United States. As to the former, findings in the chapter (and in
Chapters 2 and 3) show that endogenous factors are not the primary factor driving black
ethnic disparities. Instead, they reveal that exogenous factors are the primary reason for
disparate socioeconomic outcomes between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans.
Given my explanation for this differential treatment, it is important that scholars begin to
re-think how race and racialization work in the United States.
The notion that exogenous factors are the primary cause of black ethnic disparities
goes against intuition. As scholars have generally conceptualized race in terms of ‘racial
phenotype’ the idea that Afro Caribbeans and African Americans are treated differently
because of race has remained counter-intuitive – to say the least. Now that there is
evidence for differential treatment scholars working on the black ethnic comparative
should begin to further explore causes for black ethnic disparities that lay outside of the
black body politic. That is, differential racialization may not be the ‘motive’ for
differential treatment, but it appears that differential treatment is a viable explanation for
black ethnic disparities and therefore the phenomenon of differential treatment and its
causes should be further investigated.
139
As noted previously, scholars are increasingly beginning to consider the way and
degree to which non-phenotypical attributes are being incorporated into the process of
racialization. Although many will no doubt continue to be uncomfortable with this
argument, the evidence in support of this kind of thinking continues to grow. Surely,
given myriad constructions of race in places other than the US and increasing trends in
immigration and globalization, it is not impossible that the US ‘racialized social system’
will borrow ideas from other societies (Bonilla-Silva 1997, Bonilla-Silva 2004). It is time
US scholars begin to re-think race.
140
CITED LITERATURE
Allison, Paul D. 2002. Missing Data. Thousand Oaks, London and New Delhi: Sage
Publications.
Baron, Reuben M. and David A. Kenny. 1986. "The Moderator-Mediator Variable
Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic and Statistical
Considerations." Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 51:1173-1182.
Bashi, Vilna and Antonio McDaniel. 1997. "A Theory of Immigration and Racial
Stratification." Journal of Black Studies 27:668-682.
Bauer, Thomas K. and Mathias Sinning. 2006. "An Extension of the Blinder-Oaxaca
Decomposition to Non-Linear Models." Pp. 1-12 in Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für
Wirtschaftsforschung: Discussion Papers. Essen, Germany.
Bennett, Pamela R. and Amy Lutz. 2009. "How African American Is the Net Black
Advantage? Differences in College Attendance among Immigrant Blacks, Native Blacks,
and Whites." Sociology of Education 82:70-99.
Benson, Janel F. 2006. "Exploring the Racial Identities of Black Immigrants in the
United States." Sociological Forum 21:219-247.
Biafora, Frank A. Jr., Dorothy L. Taylor, George J. Warheit, Rick S. Zimmerman, and
William A. Vega. 1993. "Cultural Mistrust and Racial Awareness among Ethnically
Diverse Black Adolescent Boys." Journal of Black Psychology 19:266-281.
Blinder, Alan S. 1973. "Wage Discrimination: Reduced Form and Structural Estimates."
The Journal of Human Resources 8:436-455.
Bobo, Lawrence D. 2006. Prejudice in Politics: Group Position, Public Opinion and the
Wisconsin Treaty Rights Dispute. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press.
Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 1997. "Rethinking Racism: Toward a Structural Interpretation."
American Sociological Review 62:465-480.
—. 2004. ""We Are All Americans" The Latin Americanization of Race Relations in the
United States." Pp. 149-183 in The Changing Terrain of Race and Ethnicity, edited by M.
Krysan and A. E. Lewis. New York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Bryce-Laporte, Roy Simon. 1972. "Black Immigrants: The Experience of Invisibility and
Inequality." Journal of Black Studies 3:29-56.
141
—. 1973. "Black Immigrants." Pp. 44-61 in Through Different Eyes: Black and White
Perspectives on American Race Relations, edited by P. I. Rose, S. Rothman, and W. J.
Wilson. New York, New York: Oxford University Press.
Butcher, Kristin F. 1994. "Black Immigrants in the United States: A Comparison with
Native Blacks and Other Immigrants." Industrial and Labor Relations Review 47:265284.
Butterfield, Sheri-Ann. 2003. "Something in Between: Locating Identity among Second
Generation West Indians in New York City." Pp. 233-261 in Mighty Change, Tall
Within: Black Identity in the Hudson Valley, edited by M. B. Young Armstead. Albany,
New York: State University of New York Press.
—. 2004. "'We're Just Black': The Racial and Ethnic Identities of Second Generation
West Indians in New York." Pp. 288-312 in Becoming New Yorkers: Ethnographies of
the New Second Generation, edited by P. Kasinitz, J. Mollenkopf, and M. C. Waters.
New York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Chiswick, Barry. 1986. "Human Capital and the Labor Market Adjustment of
Immigrants: Testing Alternative Hypothesis." Research in Human Capital Development
4:1-26.
Chiswick, Barry R. 1979. "The Economic Progress of Immigrants: Some Apparently
Universal Patterns." Pp. 357-399 in Contemporary Economic Problems, edited by W.
Fellner. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.
Deaux, Kay, Nida Bikmen, Alwyn Gilkes, Ana Ventuneac, Yvanne Joseph, Yasser A.
Payne, and Claude M. Steele. 2007. "Becoming American: Stereotype Threat Effects in
Afro-Caribbean Immigrant Groups." Social Psychology Quarterly 70:384-404.
Dominguez. 1975. From Neighbor to Stranger: The Dilemma of Caribbean Peoples in
the U.S. New Haven, Conneticuit: Antilles Research Program.
Foner, Nancy. 1985. "Race and Color: Jamaican Migrants in London and New York
City." International Migration Review 19:708-727.
Frederick, Carl. 2010. "A Crosswalk for Using Pre-2000 Occupational Status and
Prestige Codes with Post-2000 Occupation Codes." Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Gans, Herbert. 1992. "Second-Generation Decline: Scenarios for the Economic and
Ethnic Futures of the Post-1965 American Immigrants." Ethnic and Racial Studies
15:173-192.
Grissom, Robert J. and John J. Kim. 2005. "Effect Sizes for One-Way Anova Designs."
Pp. 117-138 in Effect Sizes for Research: A Broad Practical Approach. Mahwah, New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
142
Grosfoguel, Ramon and Chloe S. Georas. 2003. ""Coloniality of Power" And Racial
Dynamics: Notes on a Reinterpretation of Latino Caribbeans in New York City." Pp.
144-175 in Colonial Subjects: Puerto Ricans in Global Perspective. Berkeley and Los
Angeles, California: University of California Press.
Hauser, Robert M. and John Robert Warren. 1997. "Socioeconomic Indexes for
Occupations: A Review, Update, and Critique." Sociological Methodology 27:177-298.
Ho, Christine G.T. 1995. "The Twin Processess of Racialization and Ethnification among
Afro-Trinidadian Immigrants in Los Angeles." Caribbean Quarterly 41:99-122.
Jackson, James S., Harold W. Neighbors, Randolph M. Nesse, Steven J. Trierweiler, and
Myriam Torres. 2004a. "Methodological Innovations in the National Survey of American
Life." International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research 13:289-298.
Jackson, James S., Myriam Torres, Cleopatra H. Caldwell, Harold W. Neighbors,
Randolph M. Nesse, Robert Joseph Taylor, Steven J. Trierweiler, and David R. Williams.
2004b. "The National Survey of American Life: A Study of Racial, Ethnic and Cultural
Influences on Mental Disorders and Mental Health." International Journal of Methods in
Psychiatric Research 13:196-207.
Jackson, Regine O. 2010. "Black Immigrants and the Rhetoric of Social Distancing."
Sociology Compass 4:193-206.
Jann, Ben. 2008. "The Blinder-Oaxaca Decomposition for Linear Regression Models."
The Stata Journal 8:453-479.
Kasinitz, Philip. 1992. Caribbean New York: Black Immigrants and the Politics of Race.
Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
Kasinitz, Philip, John Mollenkopf, and Mary C. Waters. 2003. "Becoming
Americans/Becoming New Yorkers: Immigrant Incorporation in a Majority Minority
City." in Host Societies and the Reception of Immigrants, edited by J. J. Reitz. La Jolla,
California: Center for Comparative Immigration Studies, University of California, San
Diego.
Kent, Mary Mederios. 2007. "Immigration and America's Black Population." Population
Bulletin 62:1-16.
Kim, Claire Jean. 1999. "The Racial Triangulation of Asian Americans." Politics &
Society 27:105-138.
—. 2004. "Imagining Race and Nation in Multiculturalist America." Ethnic and Racial
Studies 27:987-1005.
143
Kinder, Donald R. and David O. Sears. 1981. "Prejudice and Politics: Symbolic Racism
Versus Racial Threats to the Good." Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 40:414431.
Mason, Patrick. 2009. "Culture Matters: African Diaspora and Labor Market Outcomes."
Tallahassee, Florida.
Mincer, Jacob. 1974. Schooling Experience and Earnings. New York, New York:
National Bureau of Economic Research, Columbia University Press.
Model, Suzanne. 1995. "West Indian Prosperity: Fact or Fiction?" Social Problems
42:535-553.
—. 2008a. "Documenting the Difference between West Indians and African Americans."
Pp. 12-48 in West Indian Immigrants: A Black Success Story? New York, New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.
—. 2008b. "Testing the White Favoritism Hypothesis." Pp. 116-142 in West Indian
Immigrants: A Black Success Story? New York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
—. 2008c. West Indian Immigrants: A Black Success Story? New York, New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.
Ngai, Mae M. 2004. Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern
America. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Oaxaca, Ronald L. 1973. "Male-Female Wage Differentials in Urban Labor Markets."
International Economic Review 14:693-709.
Ogbu, John U. 1992. "Adaptation to Minority Status and Impact on School Success."
Theory Into Practice 31:287-295.
Phelps, Edmund S. 1972. "The Statistical Theory of Racism and Sexism." American
Economic Review 62:659-661.
Pierre, Jemima. 2004. "Black Immigrants in the United States and The "Cultural
Narratives" Of Ethnicity." Identities 11:141-170.
Portes, Alejandro and Min Zhou. 1993. "The New Second Generation: Segmented
Assimilation and Its Variants." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science 530:74-96.
Rogers, Reuel. 2001. ""Black Like Who": Afro-Caribbean Immigrants, African
Americans and the Politics of Group Identity." Pp. 163-192 in Islands in the City: West
Indian Migration to New York, edited by N. Foner. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London:
University of California Press.
144
Rosenthal, Robert and Ralph L. Rosnow. 1991. Essentials of Behavioral Research:
Methods and Data Analysis. New York: McGraw Hill.
Sears, David O. and P.J. Henry. 2005. "Over Thirty Years Later: A Contemporary Look
at Symbolic Racism and Its Critics." Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 37:95150.
Sinning, Mathias, Markus Hahn, and Thomas K. Bauer. 2008. "The Blinder–Oaxaca
Decomposition for Nonlinear Regression Models." The Stata Journal 8:480-492.
Sowell, Thomas. 1975. Race and Economics. New York: David McKay Publishers.
—. 1978. "Three Black Histories." Pp. 7-64 in Essays and Data on American Ethnic
Groups, edited by T. Sowell. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Tuan, Mia. 1998. Forever Foreigners or Honorary Whites? The Asian Ethnic Experience
Today. New Brunswick, New Jersey and London: Rutgers University Press.
Vickerman, Milton. 1998. Crosscurrents: West Indian Immigrants and Race. New York,
New York: Oxford University Press.
—. 1999. Crosscurrents: West Indian Immigrants and Race. New York, New York:
Oxford University Press.
Waters, Mary C. 1999a. Black Identities: West Indian Immigrant Dreams and American
Realities. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: Harvard University Press.
—. 1999b. "Encountering American Race Relations." Pp. 140-191 in Black Identities:
West Indian Immigrant Dreams and American Realities. Cambridge, Massachusetts and
London, England: Harvard University Press.
—. 1999c. "West Indians at Work." Pp. 94-139 in Black Identities: West Indian
Immigrant Dreams and American Realities. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London,
England: Harvard University Press.
Watkins-Owens, Irma. 2001. "Early-Twentieth Century Caribbean Women: Migration
and Social Networks in New York." Pp. 25-51 in Islands in the City: West Indian
Migration to New York, edited by N. Foner. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London:
University of California Press.
145
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION
Black Immigrants Are Not A Model Minority
The goal of this dissertation was to examine the factors that account for disparities
in socioeconomic status between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans in order to
derive further insight into the nature of racial inequality in the United States. First, like
previous research, I found that black ethnic socioeconomic disparities do continue to
exist (i.e., Afro Caribbeans do indeed outperform African Americans in terms of
employment status, occupational prestige and personal income; Model 1995, Model
2008a, Sowell 1978). Second, I found mixed support for the two most prominent
perspectives on these disparities: ‘cultural attitudes and behaviors’ and ‘self-selection.’
The ‘cultural attitudes and behaviors’ perspective has argued that Afro Caribbeans have
better socioeconomic outcomes than African Americans because – among other things –
they have a greater value for work, or Protestant work ethic (Portes and Zhou 1993,
Sowell 1975, Sowell 1978). Those arguing in favor of ‘self-selection’ have argued that
those who move from country-to-country or state-to-state have greater levels of ability,
motivation and self-efficacy than those who do not move (Butcher 1994, Chiswick 1979,
Model 2008c). In several instances, group differences in attributes associated with these
perspectives (e.g., ability and economic autonomy) provide a partial explanation for
socioeconomic disparities. However, it is much more likely the case that adjusting for
attributes associated with these perspectives results in either no change in the disparity or
an increase in the disparity. Third, my examination of race and ‘differential treatment’
(see Chapter 4) is new to the literature and provides some preliminary insights into the
146
unexpected increase in the disparities under study, or ‘suppression effect.’ Specifically, I
find that the labor market rewards African Americans and Afro Caribbeans differently for
the same attributes. I offer the ‘differential racialization thesis’ in order to explain or
provide the ‘motive’ for differential treatment and as a result provide further insight into
the links between race, ethnicity and social inequality in the United States.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AFRICAN AMERICANS AND AFRO CARIBBEANS
Much of the literature on black ethnic disparity focuses on the idea that Afro
Caribbeans ‘do better’ than African Americans because they are different in ways that
matter for socioeconomic attainment in the US. For instance, many speculate that Afro
Caribbeans possess a greater value for work than African Americans (i.e., a Protestant
work ethic). However, previous research that has speculated on the magnitude of these
differences and their role in shaping black ethnic disparities has rarely measured these
attributes (i.e., there is no prior empirical support for the idea that Afro Caribbeans have a
greater Protestant work ethic than African Americans). In this dissertation, I contribute to
the literature by measuring several key attributes that scholars have previously alluded to
but not measured. My analyses reveal that there are few differences between these two
black ethnic groups on many of these key attributes and that the differences that do exist
are relatively small.67 For instance, Afro Caribbeans report greater levels of ability and
motivation, but – on average – the magnitude of their favor on these three characteristics
67
In addition to tests of statistical significance, I rely on standardized measures of effect size in order to
assess the magnitude of statistical differences (see Rosenthal, Robert and Ralph L. Rosnow. 1991.
Essentials of Behavioral Research: Methods and Data Analysis. New York: McGraw Hill.)
147
are small.68 On the other hand, African Americans hold slight advantages in self-efficacy
and the Protestant work ethic. Finally, there are no meaningful differences in ‘race
consciousness,’ family structure and functioning, perceptions of race relations, black
political attitudes or responses to perceived discrimination. In sum, there are few
differences between the two groups and the magnitude of Afro Caribbean favor is not in
line with what scholars have suggested in the literature on black ethnic disparities.69 That
is, there is very little evidence in support of the idea that Afro Caribbeans represent a
‘model minority.’
EXPLAINING BLACK ETHNIC DISPARITIES
When taken together, the three empirical chapters of this dissertation provide an
analysis of the three major perspectives on the causes of black ethnic socioeconomic
disparities: ‘cultural attitudes and behaviors,’ ‘self-selection’ and ‘white interest.’ After
testing the assumptions of the three major perspectives in the literature on black ethnic
disparities, there are several instances where these perspectives provide for partial
explanations – i.e., accounting for factors associated with these perspectives results in a
limited reduction in black ethnic disparity. There are also instances where these
perspectives are unable to account for black ethnic disparities and many more instances
where accounting for these factors results in an increase in disparities – i.e., a
‘suppression effect.’ Importantly, disparities in personal income between Afro
68
There are also group differences in economic autonomy that favor Afro Caribbeans but the measure of
economic autonomy is likely very biased and there I do not include it in this average. I will discuss this
measure later in the chapter.
69
I comment on differences in attitudes towards whites and perceived discrimination in a later subsection.
148
Caribbeans and African Americans are generally the result of social background and
demographic differences between he two groups.
Partial Reductions in Black Ethnic Disparities
There are several instances when accounting for group level differences is
associated with a partial reduction in black ethnic disparities. Both the ‘self-selection’
and ‘cultural’ perspectives provide for partial reductions in black ethnic disparities.
Partial reductions range from less than 1 percent to 35 percent and average about 10
percent. For example, self-selection accounted for a 1 percent reduction in the
employment disparity and a 35 percent reduction in the occupational prestige disparity.
However, there is little support for the idea that self-selection (or moving) is associated
with greater levels of ability, motivation or self-efficacy. While African Americans who
move have higher levels of ability than African Americans who do not move, Afro
Caribbean movers have essentially the same levels of ability as non-movers. There is
little-to-no support for the connection between ability, self-efficacy and moving for both
African Americans and Afro Caribbeans. In addition, accounting for differences in these
attributes (i.e., ability, motivation and self-efficacy) is generally not associated with a
reduction in black ethnic disparities. Therefore, while moving is associated with greater
socioeconomic attainment, the reasons provided in the literature for this linkage have
very little empirical support. Future research should explore the role of social networks in
labor recruitment in the context of black ethnic disparities (Bashi 2007, Waters 1999g).
The cultural perspective is only slightly more consistent in terms of providing
partial explanations. First, there are few group differences in the key attributes associated
149
with the cultural perspective. In fact, of the five factors associated with this perspective,
economic autonomy (or a preference for economic self-reliance) is the only one with
meaningful group level differences between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans.
Beyond very few group level differences in cultural attitudes and behaviors, accounting
for differences in economic autonomy and consumption of Afro Caribbean media were
associated with 14 and 8 percent reductions in the employment disparity, respectively.
Despite a lack of meaningful differences in family structure and functioning, accounting
for this characteristic was associated with a 4 percent decrease in the employment
disparity. Therefore, while the cultural perspective is slightly more viable than the ‘selfselection’ perspective, it provided limited insight into the causes of black ethnic
disparities in the United States. That is, cultural differences are not the source of
socioeconomic disparities between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans in the United
States.
These findings reveal that group differences are not completely responsible for
black ethnic disparities. In fact, while both the self-selection and cultural perspectives
provide instances of partial reductions in black ethnic disparities, the more general trend
is that accounting for attributes associated with each perspective results in either no
change or a ‘suppression effect’ in black ethnic disparities.
Black Ethnic Disparities and the ‘Suppression Effect’
Unexpectedly, accounting for differences in the attributes proposed to account for
black ethnic disparities lead more often to a slight ‘suppression effect’ in black ethnic
disparities. To clarify, I use the term ‘suppression effect’ to refer to instances when the
150
size of the disparity increases after accounting for attributes associated with the selfselection, cultural or perspectives associated with white interest. There are times when
the ‘suppression effect’ is due to African Americans having greater levels of a certain
attribute that is also linked to higher socioeconomic status (e.g., African Americans have
more self-efficacy and greater self-efficacy is associated with greater socioeconomic
status). There are also instances of suppression that emerge when Afro Caribbeans have
favorable levels on certain key attributes and times when no group differences result in a
‘suppression effect.’ The former instance of suppression is fairly commonsensical but the
later two instances require further explanation.
One example of suppression that is associated with African Americans having
better scores on an attribute than Afro Caribbeans is self-efficacy in the context of
employment. After controlling for social background factors in the baseline model, the
coefficient for the black ethnic disparity in employment remains at .790. After adjusting
the model to account for black ethnic differences in self-efficacy (that favor African
Americans), the disparity in employment increases by about 17 percent to .924.
Interestingly, accounting for the interaction between moving and self-efficacy, the
disparity increases still, from .924 to .956 (for a total increase of 21 percent). This finding
is not surprising. If higher levels of self-efficacy are associated with a greater likelihood
of employment and African Americans have higher levels of self-efficacy then
‘controlling’ for self-efficacy removes the African American advantage, thereby
increasing the employment disparity. Although explaining this kind of suppression is
fairly straightforward, the idea that African Americans have advantages over Afro
151
Caribbeans on certain key attributes associated with social mobility is unpredicted by the
literature.
The more perplexing instances of suppression are when ‘suppression’ results from
accounting for attributes that favor Afro Caribbeans, or when accounting for attributes
when there is little-to-no difference between Afro Caribbeans and African Americans.
One example of the former is the role of personal motivation in black ethnic occupational
prestige disparities. Since Afro Caribbeans have greater levels of motivation than African
Americans, theoretically, taking this advantage away from Afro Caribbeans should have
resulted in a reduction of the disparity. However, accounting for this difference results in
a 7 percent increase in the occupational prestige disparity. An example of controlling for
an attribute with no group difference that results in a suppression effect is ‘racial
consciousness’ – again in the context of disparities in occupational prestige. First, there
are essentially no differences in ‘racial consciousness’ between African Americans and
Afro Caribbeans. However, adjusting models for race consciousness increases the
occupational prestige disparity by 21 percent (an increase from 1.166 to 1.407). One
possible explanation for these findings is that the labor market responds to Afro
Caribbean motivation and race consciousness ‘differently’ than it responds to African
American motivation and race consciousness. The fact that there are more instances of
suppression than partial explanation reveals that – on average – the labor market treats
Afro Caribbeans more favorably than African Americans – even when both groups
express the same values, attitudes and behaviors.
One finding lies outside of this general pattern. My results show that differences
in ability account for black ethnic disparities in occupational prestige. However, this
152
finding is somewhat complex. That is, accounting for differences in ability results in a
‘suppression effect’ in the employment disparity but provides a full explanation for
occupational disparities. This indicates that there is some type of unequal appreciation for
ability in the context of hiring and that this unequal treatment may result in employers
hiring more able Afro Caribbeans and then promoting Afro Caribbeans with greater
ability. This means that improving the ability of African Americans would likely do little
to improve black ethnic disparities because it would not increase there likelihood of being
hired and given constraints in employment, it would only result in restricted
improvements in the occupational prestige disparity. African Americans with greater
ability are not likely to be promoted because employers are not likely to hire them in the
first instance. That is, if African Americans are not equally rewarded for their ability in
the context of hiring then more needs to be done do provide equitable treatment before
intervening in the process of acquiring ability.
Despite this complex exception, the ‘suppression effect’ was the most consistent
pattern of results when attempting to explain black ethnic disparities. These findings
reveal that these two groups are experiencing different returns for having the same
characteristics and point toward the previously unexplored notion of ‘differential
treatment.’
Black Ethnic Disparities, Race and Differential Treatment
Based on the findings presented in this dissertation, a meaningful portion of
socioeconomic disparities between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans appear to be
due to exogenous factors. The exogenous factors considered in this dissertation are
153
associated with race relations in the US and include: white favoritism, white comfort and
‘differential treatment.’ All three of these factors are exogenous because they consider
the role of external factors – principally the role of ‘white interest’ – in black ethnic
socioeconomic disparities. The key differences between white favoritism and comfort on
the one hand, and ‘differential treatment’ on the other, is that the former assert that whites
engage in a kind of ‘statistical discrimination’ (Phelps 1972) while the latter highlights
how ‘white interest’ clouds the vision of white employers, resulting in disparate treatment
for comparable attributes. That is, the argument for white favoritism is that white
employers prefer Afro Caribbean workers because they are – in fact - better workers
(e.g., better skilled with a greater work ethic). My findings show that while Afro
Caribbeans have more education, African Americans have a greater Protestant work
ethic; a mixed story on inequities in black ethnic labor quality that is not predicted by the
literature. Those who have argued for white comfort assert that whites prefer to hire Afro
Caribbeans because they do not ‘bring up’ or ‘represent’ race and racism in the same
manner or to the same degree as African Americans. The literature in this area suggests
that ‘white comfort’ is mainly an affective outcome and not a sociopolitical goal (more
on this distinction below). Again, my findings provide mixed support for this argument,
as Afro Caribbeans do not consistently hold racial attitudes that would promote greater
white comfort, and in many instances, there is either no difference between African
Americans and Afro Caribbeans or African Americans hold racial attitudes that should
promote greater white comfort. More importantly, adjusting models for white favoritism
and comfort does not provide for reductions in black ethnic disparities. Taken together,
evidence in support of white favoritism and comfort is sparse. That is, findings in this
154
dissertation do not support the idea that there are large and meaningful differences
between African Americans and Afro Caribbeans in terms of the characteristics that
white employers’ say are important in hiring and promotion. Therefore, the premise for
the ‘statistical discrimination’ argument is flawed.
Three key findings from Chapters 2, 3 and 4 support the case for ‘differential
treatment.’ First, there is limited support for large group differences between African
Americans and Afro Caribbeans on the key attributes identified in the literature (see
above). Second, while there are a few instances of partial explanation, the more general
pattern is the ‘suppression effect.’ That is, adjusting for factors related to ‘immigrant
selectivity’ (Chapter 2) and ‘cultural attributes and behaviors’ (Chapter 3) is more likely
to result in an increase in black ethnic disparity, rather than in a reduction. Finally, the
case for ‘differential treatment’ is strengthened when I combine these results with
findings from Chapter 4, “The Role of White Interest in Black Ethnic Disparities.” That
is, Chapter 4 presents an empirical assessment of the role of ‘white interest’ – as a key
exogenous factor – in shaping black ethnic socioeconomic disparities. Using indirect
measures for white favoritism and comfort, I found additional support for the idea that
employers prefer Afro Caribbeans to African Americans. Specifically, I found that 47
percent of the disparity in employment, 34 percent of the disparity in occupational
prestige and 54 percent of the disparity in personal income are attributable to ‘differential
treatment.’ That is, African Americans being treated unfairly vis-à-vis Afro Caribbeans in
the US labor market. Importantly, in the case of occupational prestige, once I allow group
level characteristics to be rewarded differently for African Americans and Afro
Caribbeans, ability differences do not provide a full explanation for black ethnic
155
disparities in occupational prestige.
Black Ethnicity and Differential Racialization
Given the prominent role of ‘racial phenotype’ in discussions concerning ‘antiblack’ discrimination, the possibility that exogenous factors explain black ethnic
disparities has generally remained unexplored. That is, prior research has generally
assumed that when focused on the black ethnic comparative, ‘race’ (or more specifically
‘racial phenotype’) is controlled or held constant, thereby removing the role of racial bias
or unfair differential treatment in the manufacture of black ethnic disparities (Sowell
1978). However, recent research provides a more complex and multi-layered conception
of race and racism (e.g., Bonilla-Silva 1997, Bonilla-Silva 2004, Hesse 2007, Kim 1999,
Ngai 2004, Omi and Winant 1994). Research on black ethnic comparisons does not
reflect current thinking regarding the role of non-phenotypical features – like national
origin, foreignness and language – in the process of assigning racial meanings to the
body. Given these recent shifts in ‘race theory’ and recent findings regarding the role of
‘white interest’ in black ethnic disparities (Waters 1999a), I argue that the differential
treatment found in Chapter 4 is in fact a ‘race related differential treatment.’ Borrowing
from state-of-the-art theory on race and racism (e.g., Bonilla-Silva 1997, Kim 1999), I
offer the ‘differential racialization thesis’ to explain the ‘suppression’ (in Chapters 2 and
3) and ‘differential treatment’ (in Chapter 4) effects found in this dissertation.
Recent theorizing on race and racialization has heavily influenced the differential
racialization thesis. This work illustrates the centrality of non-phenotypical characteristics
in the process of assigning racial meanings – e.g., national origin, foreignness and
156
language (Kim 1999, Ngai 2004, Tuan 1998, Urciuoli 1996). Therefore, the differential
racialization thesis posits that society assigns racial meanings to the black body according
to perceived foreignness. That is, attitudinal and behavioral proclivities and capacities
that many imagine to be primordial are attached to the black body differently, based on
regional origin. When social actors perceive the body to be of Caribbean origin, they
assign it racial meanings associated with the ‘model minority myth.’ That is, they claim
that the relative success of Afro Caribbeans is due to the ‘fact’ that they work harder and
concentrate less on race and racism in the United States. Conversely, when the black
body is perceived to be of American origin, social actors assign racial meanings that are
associated with the ‘urban underclass’ (or historical notions of blackness in the US) and
explanations for their relative underachievement hinge on the claim that they are lazy and
too concerned with identifying race and racism at every turn. The implication is that
society then does not tax Afro Caribbeans to the same degree as African Americans when
they exhibit ‘American’ attitudes and behaviors that are associated with the ‘urban
underclass’ and society does not reward African Americans to the same extent as Afro
Caribbeans when exhibiting attitudes and behaviors associated with the ‘model minority
myth’ and the ‘Caribbean.’ Given the limited empirical support of endogenous
explanations that center on group level differences in ability, motivation and economic
autonomy and the findings associated with ‘white interest’ in black ethnic disparity, I
conclude that differential racialization is the primary driving force behind the ‘differential
treatment’ effect observed in Chapter 4.70
70
The difference between the ‘differential racialization thesis’ and ‘differential treatment’ is that
‘differential treatment’ describes a phenomenon while the ‘differential racialization thesis’ provides an
explanation or motive for the phenomenon. Specifically, ‘differential treatment’ was tested as a result of an
‘inductive’ assessment of findings in the literature while differential racialization is an attempt to develop a
157
LIMITATIONS
There are several limitations to findings presented in this dissertation. First, I use
data from a cross-sectional social survey. While this improves the case for
generalizability relative to qualitative methods, it limits my ability to infer the direction
of causality. Therefore, I base all statements regarding causality on theory. The direction
of causality is not self-evident. Second, there are various limitations in the measurement
of the core concepts under study. Third, there are some issues related to ‘simultaneity’ or
‘endogeneity’ that are often associated with research that draws upon cross-sectional
social surveys. I also leave room to explore the implications of time in the US and intergenerational issues. Finally, my dataset restricted me to indirect assessments of the role
of ‘differential treatment’ in black ethnic disparity.
Although my measurements of the core concepts under study are better than
previous measures, they remain imperfect. A few operationalizations stand out. My
measurement of the Protestant work ethic combines measures of a ‘willingness to work’
with measures that have traditionally been used for the measurement of job satisfaction.
Ultimately, I decided that ‘Protestant work ethic’ is not only about a ‘willingness to
work’ but also about the larger meaning of working. Job satisfaction was the best
approximation available for this unique characteristic. A better measure would include a
measure of the purpose of work in the respondents’ life. My measurement of oppositional
posturing also deserves mention. My conception of oppositional posturing is derived
from the more widely noted concept of ‘oppositional culture.’ I did not have the requisite
measures of oppositional culture so I measured a single dimension of oppositional
deductive theory that explains ‘differential treatment’ using recent thinking on race and racialization in the
United States.
158
culture, childhood defiance (Harris 2006). This means that my findings for ‘oppositional
culture’ are conservative and that oppositional culture may explain more variance if it
were measured as a multidimensional construct. My measure of economic autonomy is
imperfect because foreign-born Afro Caribbeans often come from countries that do not
offer welfare during childhood and many do not qualify for welfare in the US. This
means that the disparity in economic autonomy is biased upward and in favor of Afro
Caribbeans. If Afro Caribbeans had greater opportunities to take welfare payments from
the state, they might very well have taken the payments and ended up with lower scores
on economic autonomy. As it stands, differences in economic autonomy do not explain
disparities in socioeconomic status.
Recently, scholars have noted the changing character of the ‘stock’ of the
immigrant population, to include Afro Caribbeans (Borjas 1985).71 These scholars note
that changes in US immigration policy have resulted in an immigrant population with
fewer skills. The increase in family reunification permits associated with the 1965
immigration reform is thought to be responsible for this downward shift in the skill
distribution. The implication for this dissertation is that one of the reasons for weak
support for the self-selection hypothesis is that immigrant quality is decreasing.
Therefore, while historical black ethnic disparities may have been a result of differences
in native and immigrant skill, recent disparities are less likely to be accounted for by
large skill gaps. In addition, although all models presented in this dissertation control for
generation (i.e., first and second generation Afro Caribbean immigrants) future research
71
Sherri-Ann Butterfield is currently working on an in-depth examination of this phenomenon among Afro
Caribbeans living in New York.
159
should separate the analysis by the generational status of immigrants to better understand
the concepts under study.
Findings in Chapter 4 are limited because the data only allowed for indirect tests
of white favoritism, white comfort and ‘differential treatment.’ That is, each of these
perspectives on how race matters in black ethnic disparities reference the role of white
employers and I do not have data on the employer-worker dyads that include attitudes
toward the black respondents. In lieu of direct measures, I assess the qualities that white
managers have reported to be important in their relative evaluations of black employees
(i.e., high skill and work ethic, and ‘low’ racial attitudes). Ideally, I would not only have
data on these characteristics but also data on the ways in which employers perceived
these characteristics. This is not the present case.
RACIALIZATION, RACISM AND
RACIAL INEQUALITY IN THE UNITED STATES
The ‘differential racialization thesis’ provides two key contributions to the
literature on race and racism in the United States. First, for scholars interested in race and
racialization it provides a conceptual framework for incorporating non-phenotypical
attributes into the process of assigning racial meaning to a particular body politic.
Whereas others have theorized and explored racialized conceptions of national origin,
foreignness and language, in these studies, variation in non-phenotypical characteristics is
often ‘confounded’ by the simultaneous presence of linked variation in ‘racial phenotype’
that parallels or ‘sits on top of’ non-phenotypic characteristics. For instance, Claire Kim
(1999, 2004) offers the role of foreignness in the process of racialization but then
compares ‘Asians’ to ‘Blacks.’ However, these two groups are different not only because
160
of their perceived ‘level’ of foreignness but they also have different ‘racial phenotypes.’
The same is true with Mai Ngai (2004) and her conception of national origin as a nonphenotypical characteristic important for racialization. She argues that society racializes
Mexicans based on national origin but Mexicans arguably share a particular ‘racial
phenotype.’ In my dissertation, the groups share the same ‘racial phenotype’ but are
accorded divergent racialized meanings based on their perceived regional origin. By
holding ‘racial phenotype’ constant, findings from my dissertation provide the strongest
evidence yet for non-phenotypical characteristics in the process of racialization.
The second major contribution of the ‘differential racialization thesis’ concerns
debates on the cause(s) of racial inequality in the United States. As stated at the outset of
this dissertation, there is a long-standing debate in the social sciences regarding the
relative roles of black cultural pathology and anti-black discrimination in the manufacture
of black-white racial inequality. For instance, some argue that racial inequality is due to
the values, attitudes and behaviors of blacks (i.e., African Americans) while others
promote the idea that racial inequality is a result of racial discrimination. Previously, at
least one scholar has used the black ethnic comparative in order to argue that since black
ethnic disparities cannot possibly be related to ‘anti-black discrimination,’ the gap must
reflect differences in the values and behaviors between African Americans and Afro
Caribbeans – i.e., endogenous factors (Sowell 1975, Sowell 1978). Findings from this
dissertation provide reasons to be skeptical of ‘cultural’ explanations for black ethnic
disparities. This skepticism can also be extended to arguments that foreground ‘cultural’
factors in racial inequality. That is, the reason for disparate outcomes between African
Americans and Afro Caribbeans is not largely due to endogenous group differences –
161
cultural or otherwise – but to exogenous factors that implicate ‘white interest’ or white
supremacy in black ethnic disparities. In this case, the white interest is a reasoned interest
in the maintenance of the white group position – not an affective one (Blumer 1958,
Bobo 2006, Bonilla-Silva 1997). Scholars and pundits alike then use the ‘model minority’
cultural argument ‘found’ in the context of relative Afro Caribbean success to ‘invalidate’
African American assertions that racism and discrimination are the primary cause of
racial inequality. Surely, the logic goes, if Afro Caribbeans can experience greater
success so could African Americans if they were to simply work harder and complain
about race less. That is, the model minority argument posits that African Americans can
overcome racial inequality by adopting a greater value for hard work and a disinvestment
in racial ideologies that seek to identify racial discrimination. Never mind the fact that
black-white inequality is much greater and persists at the same time as black ethnic
disparities. That is, if Afro Caribbeans are doing better than African Americans –
presumably because of their model minority attributes – they certainly are not doing as
well as whites. By attributing black-white inequality to the attitudes and behaviors of
blacks (i.e., African Americans) commentators forestall public policy formation that
would otherwise undo racial inequality. If black ethnic disparities are not due to cultural
factors then racial inequality is also not likely to be due to cultural factors.
162
CITED LITERATURE
Allison, Paul D. 2002. Missing Data. Thousand Oaks, London and New Delhi: Sage
Publications.
Almaguer, Tomas. 1994. Racial Fault Lines: The Historical Origins of White Supremacy
in California. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
Anderson, James D. 1988. The Education of Blacks in the South, 1860-1935. Chapel Hill,
North Carolina: University of North Carolina Chapel Hill.
Arroyo, Carmen G. and Edward Zigler. 1995. "Racial Idenity, Academic Achievement
and the Psychological Well-Being of Economically Disadvantaged Adolescents." Journal
of Personality & Social Psychology 69:903-914.
Baron, Reuben M. and David A. Kenny. 1986. "The Moderator-Mediator Variable
Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic and Statistical
Considerations." Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 51:1173-1182.
Bashi, Vilna. 2007. Survival of the Knitted: Immigrant Social Networks in a Stratified
World. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Bashi, Vilna and Antonio McDaniel. 1997. "A Theory of Immigration and Racial
Stratification." Journal of Black Studies 27:668-682.
Bauer, Thomas K. and Mathias Sinning. 2006. "An Extension of the Blinder-Oaxaca
Decomposition to Non-Linear Models." Pp. 1-12 in Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für
Wirtschaftsforschung: Discussion Papers. Essen, Germany.
Bennett, Pamela R. and Amy Lutz. 2009. "How African American Is the Net Black
Advantage? Differences in College Attendance among Immigrant Blacks, Native Blacks,
and Whites." Sociology of Education 82:70-99.
Benson, Janel F. 2006. "Exploring the Racial Identities of Black Immigrants in the
United States." Sociological Forum 21:219-247.
Biafora, Frank A. Jr., Dorothy L. Taylor, George J. Warheit, Rick S. Zimmerman, and
William A. Vega. 1993. "Cultural Mistrust and Racial Awareness among Ethnically
Diverse Black Adolescent Boys." Journal of Black Psychology 19:266-281.
Blank, Rebecca M. and Marilyn Dabady. 2004. "Measuring Racial Discrimination."
Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Blinder, Alan S. 1973. "Wage Discrimination: Reduced Form and Structural Estimates."
The Journal of Human Resources 8:436-455.
163
Blumer, Herbert. 1958. "Race Prejudice as a Sense of Group Position." The Pacific
Sociological Review 1:3-7.
Bobo, Lawrence D. 1999. "Prejudice as Group Position: Microfoundations of a
Sociological Approach to Racism and Race Relations." Journal of Social Issues 55:445472.
—. 2006. Prejudice in Politics: Group Position, Public Opinion and the Wisconsin
Treaty Rights Dispute. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press.
Bogan, Vicki and William Darity. 2007. "Culture and Entrepreneurship? African
American and Immigrant Self-Employment in the United States." Ithaca, New York.
Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 1997. "Rethinking Racism: Toward a Structural Interpretation."
American Sociological Review 62:465-480.
—. 2004. ""We Are All Americans" The Latin Americanization of Race Relations in the
United States." Pp. 149-183 in The Changing Terrain of Race and Ethnicity, edited by M.
Krysan and A. E. Lewis. New York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Borjas, George J. 1985. "Assimilation, Changes in Cohort Quality, and the Earnings of
Immigrants." Journal of Labor Economics 3:463-489.
—. 1986. "The Self-Employment Experience of Immigrants." The Journal of Human
Resources 21:485-506.
—. 1987. "Self-Selection and the Earnings of Immigrants." American Economic Review
77:531-553.
—. 1991. "Immigration and Self-Selection." Pp. 29-76 in Immigration, Trade and the
Labor Market, edited by J. M. Abowd and R. B. Freeman. Chicago, Illinois: University
of Chicago Press.
Bowman, Phillip J. and Cleopatra Howard. 1985. "Race-Related Socialization,
Motivation and Academic Achievement: A Study of Black Youths in Three-Generation
Families." Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry 24:134-141.
Bryce-Laporte, Roy Simon. 1972. "Black Immigrants: The Experience of Invisibility and
Inequality." Journal of Black Studies 3:29-56.
—. 1973. "Black Immigrants." Pp. 44-61 in Through Different Eyes: Black and White
Perspectives on American Race Relations, edited by P. I. Rose, S. Rothman, and W. J.
Wilson. New York, New York: Oxford University Press.
164
Butcher, Kristin F. 1994. "Black Immigrants in the United States: A Comparison with
Native Blacks and Other Immigrants." Industrial and Labor Relations Review 47:265284.
Butterfield, Sheri-Ann. 2003. "Something in Between: Locating Identity among Second
Generation West Indians in New York City." Pp. 233-261 in Mighty Change, Tall
Within: Black Identity in the Hudson Valley, edited by M. B. Young Armstead. Albany,
New York: State University of New York Press.
—. 2004. "'We're Just Black': The Racial and Ethnic Identities of Second Generation
West Indians in New York." Pp. 288-312 in Becoming New Yorkers: Ethnographies of
the New Second Generation, edited by P. Kasinitz, J. Mollenkopf, and M. C. Waters.
New York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Carliner, Geoffrey. 1980. "Wages, Earnings, and Hours of First, Second, and Third
Generation American Males." Economic Inquiry 18:87-102.
Chiquiar, Daniel and Gordon H. Hanson. 2005. "International Migration, Self-Selection
and the Distribution of Wages: Evidence from Mexico and the United States." Journal of
Political Economy 113:239-281.
Chiswick, Barry. 1986. "Human Capital and the Labor Market Adjustment of
Immigrants: Testing Alternative Hypothesis." Research in Human Capital Development
4:1-26.
Chiswick, Barry R. 1978. "The Effects of Americanization on the Earnings of ForeignBorn Men." Journal of Political Economy 86:897-921.
—. 1979. "The Economic Progress of Immigrants: Some Apparently Universal Patterns."
Pp. 357-399 in Contemporary Economic Problems, edited by W. Fellner. Washington,
DC: American Enterprise Institute.
Chou, Rosalind S. and Joe R. Feagin. 2008. The Myth of the Model Minority:Asian
Americans Facing Racism. Boulder, Colorado: Paradigm Publishers.
Cokley, Kevin O. and Katherine Helm. 2001. "Testing the Construct Validity of Scores
on the Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity." Measurement & Evaluation in
Counseling & Development 34:80-95.
Cosby, Bill and Alvin F. Poussaint. 2007. Come on People: On the Path from Victims to
Victors. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers.
Daneshvary, Nasser and R. Keith Schwer. 1994. "Black Immigrants in the U.S. Labor
Market: An Earnings Analysis." Review of Black Political Economy 22:77-98.
165
Darity, William. 2005. "Stratification Economics: The Role of Intergroup Inquality."
Journal of Economics and Finance 29:144-153.
Deaux, Kay, Nida Bikmen, Alwyn Gilkes, Ana Ventuneac, Yvanne Joseph, Yasser A.
Payne, and Claude M. Steele. 2007. "Becoming American: Stereotype Threat Effects in
Afro-Caribbean Immigrant Groups." Social Psychology Quarterly 70:384-404.
Domingo, Wilfred A. 1925. "Gift of the Black Tropics." Pp. 341-349 in The New Negro:
An Interpretation, edited by A. Locke. New York: Johnson Reprint.
Dominguez. 1975. From Neighbor to Stranger: The Dilemma of Caribbean Peoples in
the U.S. New Haven, Conneticuit: Antilles Research Program.
Downey, Douglas B., James W. Ainsworth, and Zhenchao Qian. 2009. "Rethinking the
Attitude-Achievement Paradox among Blacks." Sociology of Education 82:1-19.
Du Bois, W.E.B. 1899. The Philadelphia Negro. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
—. 1903. Souls of Black Folks. New York, New York: Penguin Books.
Duleep, Harriet Orcutt and Mark C. Regets. 1999. "Immigrants and Human-Capital
Investment." American Economic Review 89:186-191.
Edwards, Audrey and Craig K. Polite. 1992. Children of the Dream. New York, New
York: Doubleday.
Farley, Reynolds and Walter R. Allen. 1987. "Race, Ancestry and Socioeconomic Status:
Are West Indian Blacks More Successful?" in The Color Line and the Quality of Life in
America. New York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Feagin, Joe R. 2000. Racist America: Roots, Current Realities and Future Reparations.
London, England: Routledge.
Fields, Barbara. 1990. "Slavery, Race and Ideology in the United States of America."
New Left Review 181:95-118.
Foner, Nancy. 1985. "Race and Color: Jamaican Migrants in London and New York
City." International Migration Review 19:708-727.
—. 2001. "Islands in the City: West Indian Migration to New York." Berkeley, Los
Angeles and London: University of California Press.
Foner, Nancy and Richard Napoli. 1978. "Jamaican and Black-American Migrant Farm
Workers: A Comparative Analysis." Social Problems 25:491-503.
166
Fordham, S. and John U. Ogbu. 1986. "Black Students' School Success: Coping with the
'Burden of Acting White'." Urban Review 19:176-206.
Fordham, Signithia. 1988. "Racelessness as a Factor in Black Success: Pragmatic
Strategy or Pyrrhic Victory." Harvard Educational Review 58:54-84.
—. 1996. Blacked Out: Dilemmas of Race, Identity and Success at Capital High.
Chicago, Illiniois: University of Chicago.
Forsythe, Dennis. 1983. "Black Immigrants and the American Ethos: Theories and
Observations." Pp. 55-82 in Caribbean Immigration to the United States, edited by R. S.
Bryce-Laporte and D. M. Mortimer. Washington, DC: Research Institute on Immigration
and Ethnic Studies, Smithsonian Institution.
Frederick, Carl. 2010. "A Crosswalk for Using Pre-2000 Occupational Status and
Prestige Codes with Post-2000 Occupation Codes." Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Gans, Herbert. 1992. "Second-Generation Decline: Scenarios for the Economic and
Ethnic Futures of the Post-1965 American Immigrants." Ethnic and Racial Studies
15:173-192.
Glantz, Oscar. 1977. "Locus of Control and Aspiration to Traditionally Open and
Traditionally Closed Occupations." Journal of Negro Education 46:278-290.
—. 1978. "Native Sons and Immigrants: Some Beliefs and Values of American-Born and
West Indian Blacks at Brooklyn College." Ethnicity 5:189-202.
Glazer, Nathan and Daniel P. Moynihan. 1963. Beyond the Melting Pot: The Negroes,
Puerto Ricans, Jews, Italians and Irish of New York City. Cambridge and London: The
M.I.T. Press.
—. 1970a. Beyond the Melting Pot: The Negroes, Puerto Ricans, Jews, Italians and Irish
of New York City. Cambridge and London: The M.I.T. Press.
—. 1970b. "The Negroes." Pp. 24-85 in Beyond the Melting Pot: The Negroes, Puerto
Ricans, Jews, Italians and Irish of New York City. Cambridge and London: The M.I.T.
Press.
Goldberg, David Theo. 1993. Racist Culture: Philosophy and the Politics of Meaning.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Gould, Stephen Jay. 1996. The Mismeasure of Man. New York, New York: Norton &
Company.
167
Grissom, Robert J. and John J. Kim. 2005. "Effect Sizes for One-Way Anova Designs."
Pp. 117-138 in Effect Sizes for Research: A Broad Practical Approach. Mahwah, New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Grosfoguel, Ramon and Chloe S. Georas. 2003. ""Coloniality of Power" And Racial
Dynamics: Notes on a Reinterpretation of Latino Caribbeans in New York City." Pp.
144-175 in Colonial Subjects: Puerto Ricans in Global Perspective. Berkeley and Los
Angeles, California: University of California Press.
Hanson, Marcus Lee. 1940. The Immigrant in American History. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Harris, Angel L. 2006. "I (Don't) Hate School: Revisiting Oppositional Culture Theory of
Blacks' Resistance to Schooling." Social Forces 85:797-828.
Harris, Angel L. and Kris Marsh. 2010. "Is Raceless Identity an Effective Strategy for
Academic Success among Blacks?" Social Science Quarterly 91:1242-1263.
Harris, Angel L. and Keith Robinson. 2007. "Schooling Behaviorsor Prior Skills? A
Cautionary Tale of Omitted Variable Bias within Oppositional Culture Theory."
Sociology of Education 80:139-157.
Hauser, Robert M. and John Robert Warren. 1997. "Socioeconomic Indexes for
Occupations: A Review, Update, and Critique." Sociological Methodology 27:177-298.
Hemmings, Annette. 1998. "The Self-Transformations of African-American Achievers."
Youth & Society 29:330-368.
Hesse, Barnor. 2007. "Racialized Modernity: An Analytics of White Mythologies."
Ethnic and Racial Studies 30:643-663.
Ho, Christine G.T. 1995. "The Twin Processess of Racialization and Ethnification among
Afro-Trinidadian Immigrants in Los Angeles." Caribbean Quarterly 41:99-122.
Jackson, James S., Harold W. Neighbors, Randolph M. Nesse, Steven J. Trierweiler, and
Myriam Torres. 2004a. "Methodological Innovations in the National Survey of American
Life." International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research 13:289-298.
Jackson, James S., Myriam Torres, Cleopatra H. Caldwell, Harold W. Neighbors,
Randolph M. Nesse, Robert Joseph Taylor, Steven J. Trierweiler, and David R. Williams.
2004b. "The National Survey of American Life: A Study of Racial, Ethnic and Cultural
Influences on Mental Disorders and Mental Health." International Journal of Methods in
Psychiatric Research 13:196-207.
Jackson, John L. 2008. Racial Paranoia: The Unintended Consequences of Political
Correctness: Basic Civitas Books.
168
Jackson, Regine O. 2010. "Black Immigrants and the Rhetoric of Social Distancing."
Sociology Compass 4:193-206.
James, Sherman. 1983. "The Narrative of John Henry Martin." Southern Cultures 1:83106.
James, Sherman, Sue Hartnett, and William Kalsbeek. 1983. "John Henryism and Blood
Pressure Difference among Black Men." Journal of Behavioral Medicine 6:259-278.
Jann, Ben. 2008. "The Blinder-Oaxaca Decomposition for Linear Regression Models."
The Stata Journal 8:453-479.
Johnson, James Weldon. 1930. Black Manhattan. New York, New York: A. A. Knopf
Publishers.
Jung, Moon-Kie. 2009. "The Racial Unconscious of Assimilation Theory." Du Bois
Review 6:375-395.
Kaestner, Robert and Ofer Malamud. 2010. "Self-Selection and International Migration:
New Evidence from Mexico." NBER Working Paper Series.
Kalmijn, Matthijs. 1996. "The Socioeconomic Assimilation of Caribbean American
Blacks." Social Forces 74:911-930.
Kasinitz, Philip. 1992. Caribbean New York: Black Immigrants and the Politics of Race.
Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
—. 2001. "Invisible No More: West Indian Americans in the Social Scientific
Imagination." Pp. 257-275 in Islands in the City: West Indian Migration to New York,
edited by N. Foner. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press.
Kasinitz, Philip, John Mollenkopf, and Mary C. Waters. 2003. "Becoming
Americans/Becoming New Yorkers: Immigrant Incorporation in a Majority Minority
City." in Host Societies and the Reception of Immigrants, edited by J. J. Reitz. La Jolla,
California: Center for Comparative Immigration Studies, University of California, San
Diego.
Kent, Mary Mederios. 2007. "Immigration and America's Black Population." Population
Bulletin 62:1-16.
Kim, Claire Jean. 1999. "The Racial Triangulation of Asian Americans." Politics &
Society 27:105-138.
—. 2004. "Imagining Race and Nation in Multiculturalist America." Ethnic and Racial
Studies 27:987-1005.
169
Kinder, Donald R. and David O. Sears. 1981. "Prejudice and Politics: Symbolic Racism
Versus Racial Threats to the Good." Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 40:414431.
Knight, Franklin W. 1990. The Caribbean: The Genesis of a Fragmented Nationalism.
New York, New York: Oxford University Press.
Lee, Stacey J. 1996. "Asian Americans: The Absent/Silenced/Model Minority." Pp. 1-16
in Unraveling the 'Model Minority' Stereotype: Listening to Asian American Youth. New
York and London: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Lewis, Oscar. 1965. La Vida: A Puerto Rican Family in the Culture of Poverty - San
Juan and New York. New York, New York: Vintage Books.
Light, Ivan. 1972. Ethnic Enterprise in America: Business and Welfare among Chinese,
Japanese and Blacks. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
Long, James E. 1980. "The Effect of Americanization on Earnings: Some Evidence for
Women." Journal of Political Economy 88:620-629.
Marx, Karl. 1890. Capital: A Critical Analysis of Capitalist Production. New York, New
York: Humboldt Publicatons.
Mason, Patrick. 2009. "Culture Matters: African Diaspora and Labor Market Outcomes."
Tallahassee, Florida.
McKee, James B. 1993. Sociology and the Race Problem: The Failure of a Perspective.
Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press.
McWhorter, John. 2000. Loosing the Race: Self-Sabotage in Black America. New York,
New York: The Free Press.
Metzl, Jonathan M. 2009. The Protest Psychosis: How Schizophrenia Became a Black
Disease. Boston: Beacon.
Mincer, Jacob. 1974. Schooling Experience and Earnings. New York, New York:
National Bureau of Economic Research, Columbia University Press.
Model, Suzanne. 1991. "Caribbean Immigrants: A Black Success Story?" International
Migration Review 25:248-276.
—. 1995. "West Indian Prosperity: Fact or Fiction?" Social Problems 42:535-553.
170
—. 2008a. "Documenting the Difference between West Indians and African Americans."
Pp. 12-48 in West Indian Immigrants: A Black Success Story? New York, New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.
—. 2008b. "Testing the Cultural Hypotheses." Pp. 89-115 in West Indian Immigrants: A
Black Success Story? New York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
—. 2008c. "Testing the Hypothesis of Selectivity." Pp. 71-88 in West Indian Immigrants:
A Black Success Story? New York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
—. 2008d. "Testing the White Favoritism Hypothesis." Pp. 116-142 in West Indian
Immigrants: A Black Success Story? New York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
—. 2008e. West Indian Immigrants: A Black Success Story? New York, New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.
Moynihan, Daniel Patrick. 1965. The Negro Family: The Case for Naitonal Action.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor (Office of Policy and Planning Research).
Nagel, Joane. 1994. "Constructing Ethnicity: Creating and Recreating Ethnic Identity and
Culture." Social Problems 41:152-177.
Ngai, Mae M. 2004. Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern
America. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Oaxaca, Ronald L. 1973. "Male-Female Wage Differentials in Urban Labor Markets."
International Economic Review 14:693-709.
Ogbu, John. 1987. "Variability in Minority Performance: The Problem in Search of
Explanation." Anthropology and Education Quarterly 18:312-334.
—. 2003. Black American Students in an Affluent Suburb: A Study of Academic
Disengagement. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ogbu, John and H.D. Simons. 1998. "Voluntary and Involuntary Minorities: A CulturalEcological Theory of School Performance with Some Implications for Education."
Anthropology and Education Quarterly 29:155-188.
Ogbu, John U. 1978. Minority Education and Caste: The American System in CrossCultural Perspective. New York: Academic Press.
—. 1992. "Adaptation to Minority Status and Impact on School Success." Theory Into
Practice 31:287-295.
Omi, Michael and Howard Winant. 1994. Racial Formation in the United States: From
the 1960s to the 1990s. New York, New York: Rutledge.
171
Paris, D. Elliott. 1981. "The Contributions of the Caribbean Immigrant to the United
States Society." Journal of Caribbean Studies 2:10.
Park, Robert Ezra. 1950a. "Our Racial Frontier on the Pacific." Pp. 138-151 in Race and
Culture. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
—. 1950b. "Racial Assimilation in Secondary Groups." in Race and Culture. Glencoe,
IL: Free Press.
Patterson, Orlando. 1998. The Ordeal of Integration: Progress and Resentment in
America's "Racial" Crisis. Washington, DC: Counterpoint.
Pearlin, Leonard I. and Carmi Schooler. 1978. "The Structure of Coping." Journal of
Health and Social Behavior 19:2-21.
Phelps, Edmund S. 1972. "The Statistical Theory of Racism and Sexism." American
Economic Review 62:659-661.
Pierre, Jemima. 2004. "Black Immigrants in the United States and The "Cultural
Narratives" Of Ethnicity." Identities 11:141-170.
Portes, Alejandro and Min Zhou. 1993. "The New Second Generation: Segmented
Assimilation and Its Variants." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science 530:74-96.
Prashad, Vijay. 2000. The Karma of Brown Folk. Minneapolis and London: University of
Minnesota Press.
Raphael, Lennox. 1964. "West Indians and Afro-Americans." Freedomways 4:438-445.
Reid, Ira A. 1939. The Negro Immigrant, His Background, Characteristics and Social
Adjustment. New York, New York: Arno Press.
Rogers, Reuel. 2001. ""Black Like Who": Afro-Caribbean Immigrants, African
Americans and the Politics of Group Identity." Pp. 163-192 in Islands in the City: West
Indian Migration to New York, edited by N. Foner. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London:
University of California Press.
—. 2006. Afro-Caribbean Immigrants and the Politics of Incorporation: Ethnicity,
Exception or Exit. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Rosenthal, Robert and Ralph L. Rosnow. 1991. Essentials of Behavioral Research:
Methods and Data Analysis. New York: McGraw Hill.
172
Sanchez, George J. 1999. "Race, Nation and Culture in Recent Immigration Studies."
American Ethnic History 18:66-84.
Sears, David O. and P.J. Henry. 2005. "Over Thirty Years Later: A Contemporary Look
at Symbolic Racism and Its Critics." Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 37:95150.
Sellers, Robert M., Stephanie A.J. Rowley, Tabbye M. Chavous, J. Nicole Shelton, and
Mia A. Smith. 1997. "Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity: A Preliminary
Investigation of Reliability and Construct Validity." Journal of Personality & Social
Psychology 73:805-815.
Sinning, Mathias, Markus Hahn, and Thomas K. Bauer. 2008. "The Blinder–Oaxaca
Decomposition for Nonlinear Regression Models." The Stata Journal 8:480-492.
Sowell, Thomas. 1975. Race and Economics. New York: David McKay Publishers.
—. 1978. "Three Black Histories." Pp. 7-64 in Essays and Data on American Ethnic
Groups, edited by T. Sowell. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
—. 1981a. "The Blacks." Pp. 183-224 in Ethnic America: A History. New York, New
York: Basic Books.
—. 1981b. "Webber and Bakke, and the Presuppositions of Affirmative Action." Pp. 3797 in Discrimination, Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity, edited by W. E. Block
and M. A. Walker. New Jersey, New York: The Fraser Institute.
—. 1983. The Economics and Politics of Race. New York, New York: William Morrow
and Co.
—. 1984. "The Special Case of Blacks." Pp. 73-90 in Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality?
New York, New York: William Morrow and Company.
Sue, S. and H.H.L. Kitano. 1973. "Stereotypes as a Measure of Success." Social Issues
29:83-98.
Suzuki, Bob H. 1977. "Education and the Socialization of Asian Americans: A
Revisionist Analysis of the 'Model Minority' Thesis." Amerasia Journal 4:23-52.
Thernstrom, Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom. 1997. America in Black and White: One
Nation, Indivisible. New York, New York: Simon & Schuster.
Truab, James. 1981. "You Can Get It If You Really Want." Harpers 264:27-31.
Tuan, Mia. 1998. Forever Foreigners or Honorary Whites? The Asian Ethnic Experience
Today. New Brunswick, New Jersey and London: Rutgers University Press.
173
Urciuoli, Bonnie. 1996. "Racialization and Language." Pp. 15-40 in Exposing Prejudice:
Puerto Rican Exeriences of Language, Race and Class. Boulder, Colorado: Westview
Press.
Vickerman, Milton. 1998. Crosscurrents: West Indian Immigrants and Race. New York,
New York: Oxford University Press.
—. 1999a. "Attitudes toward African Americans." Pp. 137-164 in Crosscurrents: West
Indian Immigrants and Race. New York, New York: Oxford University Press.
—. 1999b. Crosscurrents: West Indian Immigrants and Race. New York, New York:
Oxford University Press.
—. 1999c. "Race in Jamaica." Pp. 23-57 in Crosscurrents: West Indian Immigrants and
Race. New York, New York: Oxford University Press.
Walker, J.E. 1998. The History of Black Business in America: Capitalism, Race,
Entrepreneurship. New York, New York: Twayne Publishers.
Waters, Mary C. 1994. "Ethnic and Racial Identities of Second-Generation Black
Immigrants in New York City." International Migration Review 28:795-820.
—. 1999a. Black Identities: West Indian Immigrant Dreams and American Realities.
Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England: Harvard University Press.
—. 1999b. "Encountering American Race Relations." Pp. 140-191 in Black Identities:
West Indian Immigrant Dreams and American Realities. Cambridge, Massachusetts and
London, England: Harvard University Press.
—. 1999c. "Identities of the Second Generation." Pp. 285-326 in Black Identities: West
Indian Immigrant Dreams and American Realities. Cambridge, Massachusetts and
London, England: Harvard University Press.
—. 1999d. "Intergenerational Dynamics." Pp. 192-242 in Black Identities: West Indian
Immigrant Dreams and American Realities. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London,
England: Harvard University Press.
—. 1999e. "Racial and Ethnic Identity Choices." Pp. 44-93 in Black Identities: West
Indian Immigrant Dreams and American Realities. Cambridge, Massachusetts and
London, England: Harvard University Press.
—. 1999f. "Segregated Neighborhods and Schools." Pp. 243-284 in Black Identities:
West Indian Immigrant Dreams and American Realities. Cambridge, Massachusetts and
London, England: Harvard University Press.
174
—. 1999g. "West Indians at Work." Pp. 94-139 in Black Identities: West Indian
Immigrant Dreams and American Realities. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London,
England: Harvard University Press.
Watkins-Owens, Irma. 2001. "Early-Twentieth Century Caribbean Women: Migration
and Social Networks in New York." Pp. 25-51 in Islands in the City: West Indian
Migration to New York, edited by N. Foner. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London:
University of California Press.
Weber, Max. 1930. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York, New
York: Allen and Unwin; Rutledge Classics.
Weinberg, Meyer. 1977. A Chance to Learn: A History of Race and Education in the
United States. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Cambridge University Press.
Wilson, William J. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass and
Public Policy. Chicago, Illinois, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Winston, James. 2002. "Explaining Afro-Caribbean Social Mobility in the United States:
Beyond the Sowell Thesis." Comparative Studies in Society and History:218-262.
Woodbury, Stephen A. 1991. "Earnings of Black Immigrants: Implications for Racial
Discrimination." Pp. 295-330 in New Approaches to Economic and Social Analyses of
Discrimination, edited by R. R. Cornwall and P. V. Wunnava. New York, Westport and
London: Praeger.
Yancey, William L., Eugene P. Ericksen, and Richard N. Juliani. 1976. "Emergent
Ethnicity: A Review and Reformulation." American Sociological Review 41:391-403.
Zhou, Min. 1997. "Segmented Assimilation: Issues, Controversies, and Recent Research
on the New Second Generation." International Migration Review 31:975-1008.
Zuberi, Tukufu. 2001. Thicker Than Blood: How Racial Statistics Lie. Minneapolis,
Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.
175
MOSI ADESINA IFATUNJI
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO
Behavioral Sciences Building
Department of Sociology
1007 West Harrison Street
Chicago, Illinois 60607-7140
Tele: (312) 607-2825
Email: [email protected]
http://www.ifatunji.com
EDUCATION
Ph.D.
2011
Department of Sociology
University of Illinois at Chicago
“Are Black Immigrants A Model Minority?
Race, Ethnicity and Social Inequality in the United States.”
M.A.
2007
Department of Sociology
University of Illinois at Chicago
Area concentration: Race, Ethnicity and Gender
“Education and Discrimination among African Americans:
An Examination of Some Potential Mediating Factors.”
B.A.
2003
Department of Psychology
University of Illinois at Chicago
“Second Generation African Immigrants and Family Governance.”
B.A.
2003
Department of African American Studies
University of Illinois at Chicago
RESEARCH INTERESTS
Racial and Ethnic Minorities.
Immigration and Migration.
Social Psychology.
Political Economy.
FELLOWSHIPS, SCHOLARSHIPS & AWARDS
2010 – 2011
Dissertation Research Fellow, Race and Difference Initiative, Emory University.
2010 – 2011
Ford Dissertation Fellowship, National Academies of Science (Honorable Mention).
2007 – 2010
General Fellow, Minority Fellowship Program, American Sociological Association.
2004 – 2008
Abraham Lincoln Fellowship, Graduate College, University of Illinois at Chicago.
2004 – 2005
Diversifying Faculty in Higher Education in Illinois Program, State of Illinois, University of
Illinois at Chicago, Graduate College, Department of Sociology.
176
RESEARCH EXPERIENCE
2009 – 2010
Research Assistant, University of Chicago, Center for the Study of Race Politics and
Culture, Department of Political Science: Mobilization, Change, and Political and Civic
Engagement Project. Cathy Cohen and Michael Dawson (with funding from the Ford
Foundation).
2008 – 2009
Research Assistant, African American Studies, Race and Affirmative Action in the United
States and South Africa, Paul Zeleza, University of Illinois at Chicago (with funding
from the Ford Foundation).
2005 – 2008
Research Assistant, Institute for Government & Public Affairs, Race and Public Policy.
Tyrone Forman, University of Illinois at Chicago.
2004 – 2005
Research Assistant, Center for the Study of Race Politics and Culture, Department
of Political Science, Black Youth Project. Cathy Cohen, University of Chicago (with
funding from the Ford Foundation).
2004 – 2005
Interviewer, Department of Sociology, Chicago Area Study. Maria Krysan and Tyrone
Forman, University of Illinois at Chicago (with funding from the National Science
Foundation).
2004
Research Assistant, Department of African American Studies, Racism in West Africa.
Jemima Pierre, University of Illinois at Chicago.
2003
Research Assistant, Department of Sociology, African American Student Achievement in
the Middle Class. Amanda Lewis, University of Illinois at Chicago.
2002 – 2003
Research Assistant, Institute for Research on Race and Public Policy, Black Fathers
& Families in Distressed Urban Communities: Bridging Research, Community Development and
Public Policy. Philip Bowman, University of Illinois at Chicago.
2002 – 2003
Research Assistant, Community Mental Health Council, Department of Research
and Evaluation, Public Heath Corrections and Community Initiative. Lynn Mock.
2002
Research Assistant, Department of Psychology, Immigration and Acculturation of
Africans, Jews and Mexicans. Edison Trickett, University of Illinois at Chicago.
2001 – 2002
Research Assistant, Institute on Disability and Human Development, Advocacy and
Empowerment for Minorities with Disabilities Program, Urban Passage Mentorship
Program. Fabricio Balcazar, University of Illinois at Chicago.
PUBLICATIONS
Harnois, Catherine and Mosi Ifatunji. 2011. “Gendered Measures, Gendered Models:
Toward an Intersectional Analysis of Racial Discrimination” Journal of Ethnic and
Racial Studies.
Cohen, Cathy, Mosi Ifatunji and Alex Bell (2005). Reclaiming Our Future: The State of AIDS
among Black Youth in America. Black AIDS Institute.
Ifatunji, Mosi (2004). The Social Psychology of Race among African Americans. Black Youth Project,
University of Chicago, Center for the Study of Race, Politics and Culture.
(http://blackyouthproject.uchicago.edu/).
Bowman, Philip J., Ray Muhammad and Mosi Ifatunji (2003). Skin Tone, Class and Racial
Attitudes Among African Americans. In Herring, Cedric (Ed), Skin Deep. Pp. 128 –158.
Chicago, Illinois: University of Illinois Press.
UNDER REVIEW
“An Account for the Gender Gap in Perceptions of Discrimination among African
Americans: Considering the Role of Gendered Measures” (Mosi Ifatunji and
Catherine Harnois) Social Psychology Quarterly – Revise and Resubmit
“Interracial Contact and Racial Attitudes: A Comparative Study of Youth”
(with Tyrone Forman) Social Forces
“Race, Class, and Positive Mental Health” (Tyrone Forman and Mosi Ifatunji) American
Journal of Public Health
MANUSCRIPTS
“Education and Perceived Discrimination among African Americans: A Test of Four
Mediating Mechanisms” (with Tyrone Forman)
“Cohorts, Discrimination, and African Americans’ System-Blame Ideology” (Tyrone
Forman and Mosi Ifatunji) Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science
“Will Racism Ever End? Rap Music, Perceived Discrimination and Youth Race Futurology”
(with Cathy Cohen and Alexandra Moffett-Bateau)
“The Social Psychology of Race among Blacks in the United States: Comparisons Between
West Indian Immigrants and the Decedents of American Slavery”
CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS
2010
Ifatunji, Mosi A. Race Thought and Black Nativity: Implications for Socioeconomic Inequality
in the United States. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association of Black
Sociologists in Atlanta, Georgia.
2009
Ifatunji, Mosi A. Undermining Notions of the Black Immigrant As Model Minority. Invited
symposium presentation at Indiana University (“Social Research on Race: Building
Bridges Across the Academic Pipeline”).
2008
Ifatunji, Mosi A. Will Racism Ever End? Rap Music, Perceived Discrimination and Youth
Race Futurology. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological
Association in Boston, Massachusetts.
2008
Ifatunji, Mosi A. The Social Psychology of Race among Blacks in the United States:
Comparisons Between West Indian Immigrants and the Decedents of American Slavery.
178
Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association of Black Sociologists in Boston,
Massachusetts.
2008
Ifatunji, Mosi A. The Social Psychology of Race among Blacks in the United States:
Comparisons Between West Indian Immigrants and the Decedents of American Slavery.
Presented at the Workshop on Migration and the New African Diaspora at the
University of Illinois at Chicago, Department of African American Studies.
2007
Ifatunji, Mosi A. and Catherine Harnois. Discrimination as Gendered. Presented at the
Annual Meeting for the Midwest Sociological Association in Chicago, Illinois.
2006
Ifatunji, Mosi A. Educational Attainment and Perceived (Racial) Discrimination Among
African Americans: Testing Some Potential Mediating Mechanisms. Presented at the Annual
Meeting for the Association of Black Sociologists in Montreal, Canada.
2006
Ifatunji, Mosi A. and Catherine Harnois. Discrimination as Gendered. Presented at the
Annual Meeting for the American Sociological Association in Montreal, Canada.
2005
Forman, Tyrone and Mosi A. Ifatunji. Cohorts, Discrimination, and Causal Attributions:
System Blame Ideology among African Americans. Presented at the Annual Meeting for the
American Sociological Association in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
2005
Ifatunji, Mosi A. Educational Attainment and Perceived (Racial) Discrimination Among
African Americans: Testing Some Potential Mediating Mechanisms. Presented at the Annual
Meeting for the American Association of Public Opinion Research in Miami Beach,
Florida.
2005
Ifatunji, Mosi A. Educational Attainment and Perceived (Racial) Discrimination Among
African Americans: Testing Some Potential Mediating Mechanisms. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the Midwest Sociological Association in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
2004
Ifatunji, Mosi A. Neighborhood Racial Formation in Chicago: The Institutional Factor in
Integration. Presented at Sociology Day, the Department of Sociology at the
University of Illinois at Chicago.
2003
Ifatunji, Mosi A. African Self-Consciousness and Student Adaptation Among African
Americans at a Predominantly White College. Presented at Souls of Black Folks: 100
Years Later Conference in Chicago, Illinois.
TEACHING
2010
Instructor, Department of Sociology, Race and Ethnicity in the United States, University
of Illinois at Chicago. Summer Term. 40 students. (Cross-listed in African American
Studies and Latin and Latin American Studies).
2010
Instructor, Department of Sociology, Race and Ethnicity in the United States, University
of Illinois at Chicago. Spring Term. 175 students. (Cross-listed in African American
Studies and Latin and Latin American Studies).
2009
Instructor, Department of Sociology, Race and Ethnicity in the United States, University
of Illinois at Chicago. Fall Term. 150 students. (Cross-listed in African American
Studies and Latin and Latin American Studies).
179
2009
Instructor, Department of Sociology, Social Problems (Race, Gender and Politics),
University of Illinois at Chicago. Summer Term. 30 students.
2009
Instructor, Department of Sociology, Social Problems, University of Illinois at
Chicago. Spring Term. 65 students.
2008
Teaching Assistant, Department of Sociology, Introduction to Graduate Statistics.
Pamela Popielarz, University of Illinois at Chicago.
2008
Teaching Assistant, Department of African American Studies and Sociology,
Comparative Racialization. Tyrone Forman, University of Illinois at Chicago.
2007
Guest Lecture, Department of Sociology and Human Development, Introduction to
Sociology (The Development of Black Racial Apathy: A Response to Bill Cosby)., Malcolm X
College.
2007
Guest Lecture, Department of African American Studies, Research Methods
(Quantitative Methods and the Feminist Epistemology). Kerry Ann Rockquemore,
University of Illinois at Chicago.
2005
Guest Lecture, Department of Psychology, African American Behavior Patterns
(African American Racial Socialization and Racial Identity). Jacque Bowman, University of
Illinois at Chicago.
2003
Guest Lecture, Department of Urban Planning and Policy, Research Methods in
Race and Public Policy (Values in Research on Race and Public Policy). Philip Bowman,
University of Illinois at Chicago.
2002
Teaching Assistant, Department of Psychology, Introduction to Liberal Arts and
Sciences, Social Networks and Transitions. Edison Trickett, University of Illinois at
Chicago.
2001
Guest Lecture, Department of African American Studies, Introduction to African
American Studies (African American Psychology). Ray Muhammad, University of
Illinois at Chicago.
SERVICE
2008 – 2009
Volunteer, United African Organization, Research Associate.
http://www.uniteafricans.org/.
2008 – 2009
Volunteer, Pan African Association for African Immigrants and Refugees, Citizenship
Training Program. http://www.panafricanassociation.org/.
2007 – 2009
Co-Founder and Convener, Dissertation Associates Working Group, Institute for
Research on Race and Public Policy, University of Illinois at Chicago.
2007 – 2008
Graduate Student Representative, Section on Race and Ethnic Minorities, American
Sociological Association.
180
2006 – 2007
Graduate Student Representative, Departmental Advisory Committee to the Head,
Department of Sociology, Barbara Risman, University of Illinois at Chicago.
2005
Graduate Student Session Organizer, Annual Meeting for the American Sociological
Association.
2004 – 2005
Program Organizer, Chicago Ethnography Conference.
2003 – 2005
Graduate Assistant, University of Illinois at Chicago, Office of the Provost, Office of
Access and Equity, Chancellor’s Committee on the Status of Blacks.
2003 – 2004
Graduate Assistant, College of Education, Office of the Dean. The Best Teachers for
Chicago Neighborhood Schools: Learn from Practice. Vicki Chou, University of
Illinois at Chicago.
2003
Student Manuscript Reviewer, Journal of Black Psychology Association of Black
Psychologists.
2001 – 2002
Program Consultant, American Friends Service Committee, African American
Community Empowerment Program, Umoja Leadership Institute.
PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS
American Sociological Association
Midwest Sociological Society
Society for the Study of Social Problems
Association of Black Sociologists
181
Table 2.1
Unweighted with Multiple Impuation
Unadjusted Means for the Association Between
Black Ethnicity and Socioeconomic Status
African
American
Afro
Caribbean
Eta
.689
(.463)
.775
(.418)
.089 ***
Occupational prestige
30.89
(12.52)
34.14
(13.48)
.117 ***
Annual personal income
22052
(19696)
28303
(26802)
.130 ***
Currently employed
One-tailed test of statistical significance: a = p <.20, * = p <.10, ** = p < .02, *** = p <.002.
The total sample size is 4415. There are 3009 African Americans and 1406 Afro Caribbeans.
182
Table 2.2
Unweighted with Multiple Impuation
Unadjusted Means for the Association Between
Black Ethnicity and Selectivity Attributes
African
American
Afro
Caribbean
Eta
Personal Ability
Years of education
.121 ***
12.40
(2.49)
13.08
(2.80)
Work experience
23.89
(16.30)
21.47
(15.28)
Additional training
.380
(.485)
.425
(.495)
.041 **
John Henryism
3.52
(.461)
3.64
(.418)
.128 ***
Ambition
2.39
(1.71)
2.54
(1.64)
.040 **
Sense of mastery
3.33
(.587)
3.24
(.586)
.070
Future orientation
3.32
(.855)
3.32
(.822)
.000
.069
Personal Motivation
Personal Efficacy
One-tailed test of statistical significance in favor of Afro Caribbeans: a = p <.10, * = p <.05, ** = p < .01, *** = p <.001.
The total sample size is 4415. There are 3009 African Americans and 1406 Afro Caribbeans.
183
Table 2.3
Unweighted with Multiple Impuation
Unadjusted Means for the Association Between
Self-Selection and Selectivity Attributes by Black Ethnicity
African American
Mover
(n = 961)
Non-Mover
(n = 2048)
Afro Caribbean
Mover
(n = 1110)
Eta
Non-Mover
(n = 296)
Eta
Personal Ability
Years of education
12.77
(2.49)
12.23
(2.47)
.099 ***
13.02
(2.90)
13.33
(2.39)
.037
Work experience
26.98
(16.27)
22.44
(16.12)
.128 ***
23.38
(15.18)
14.31
(13.45)
Additional training
.413
(.493)
.364
(.481)
.044 **
.426
(.495)
.422
(.495)
.000
John Henryism
3.51
(.468)
3.53
(.458)
.011
3.66
(.410)
3.57
(.440)
.089 ***
Ambition
2.30
(1.69)
2.43
(1.72)
.031
2.51
(1.68)
2.65
(1.50)
.024
Sense of mastery
3.35
(.576)
3.32
(.591)
.021
3.21
(.594)
3.36
(.537)
.102
Future orientation
3.34
(.828)
3.31
(.867)
.004
3.29
(.838)
3.43
(.754)
.063
.241 ***
Personal Motivation
Personal Efficacy
One-tailed test of statistical significance: a = p <.10, * = p <.05, ** = p < .01, *** = p <.001.
The total sample size is 4415. There are 3009 African Americans and 1406 Afro Caribbeans.
184
a
Table 2.4
Weighted with Multiple Imputation
Afro Caribbean
Self-selection
LOGIT Regression of Currently Employed on
Black Ethnicity and Selectivity Factors
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.790**
(0.251)
0.783**
(0.262)
0.796**
(0.258)
0.824**
(0.263)
0.795**
(0.258)
0.793**
(0.270)
0.011
(0.116)
-0.189
(0.336)
7
8
9
0.924*** 0.956*** 0.923***
(0.270)
(0.285)
(0.282)
-0.495
(0.526)
-0.599
(1.286)
Personal Ability
High school
0.590**
(0.189)
0.654**
(0.207)
0.582**
(0.227)
Some college
0.724**
(0.268)
0.807**
(0.321)
0.699*
(0.334)
College or more
0.846*
(0.354)
0.748*
(0.407)
0.594a
(0.437)
Additional schooling
0.133a
(0.085)
-0.003
(0.130)
-0.020
(0.139)
Work experience
-0.116*
(0.058)
-0.118*
(0.059)
-0.100a
(0.063)
Work experience squared
0.001**
(0.000)
0.001**
(0.000)
0.001*
(0.000)
Self-selection with high school
-0.214
(0.232)
-0.234
(0.267)
Self-selection with some college
-0.240
(0.345)
-0.239
(0.364)
Self-selection with college or more
0.179
(0.348)
0.150
(0.371)
Self-selection with additonal schooling
0.401*
(0.226)
0.472*
(0.248)
Self-selection with work experience
0.010
(0.018)
0.008
(0.017)
Self-selection with work experience squared
-0.000
(0.000)
-0.000
(0.000)
185
Personal Motivation
John Henryism
0.181a
(0.128)
Personal ambition
-0.192*** -0.172***
(0.028)
(0.036)
0.224a
(0.168)
0.162
(0.134)
-0.105**
(0.043)
Self-selection with John Henryism
0.052
(0.067)
0.105
(0.311)
Self-selection with ambition
-0.060
(0.063)
-0.049
(0.068)
Self-Efficacy
Personal mastery
0.478*** 0.416**
(0.117)
(0.131)
0.278*
(0.144)
Future orientation
0.191*
(0.101)
0.206*
(0.111)
0.129
(0.114)
Self-selection with mastery
0.192
(0.178)
0.155
(0.200)
Self-selection with future orientation
-0.044
(0.137)
-0.091
(0.136)
Intercept
N
adj. R-sq
-2.368*** -2.365*** -4.584*** -4.548*** -2.512*** -2.511*** -4.586*** -4.414*** -6.171***
(0.375)
(0.371)
(1.028)
(1.043)
(0.646)
(0.652)
(0.535)
(0.573)
(1.187)
4415
.152
4415
.152
4415
.178
One-tailed test of statistical significance: a = p <.10, * = p <.05, ** = p < .01, *** = p <.001.
The total sample size is 4415. There are 3009 African Americans and 1406 Afro Caribbeans.
185
4415
.181
4415
.166
4415
.166
4415
.176
4415
.177
4415
.201
Table 2.5.
Weighted with Multiple Imputation
Afro Caribbean
Self-selection
OLS Regression of Occupational Prestige on
Black Ethnicity and Selectivity Factors
1
2
3
4
5
6
2.756**
(0.974)
1.805*
(0.973)
0.742
(0.697)
0.537
(0.714)
2.947**
(0.953)
2.027*
(0.957)
3.010***
2.118*
(0.929)
(0.921)
0.729
(0.755)
-0.787
(5.801)
-1.973
(3.384)
-0.320
(5.869)
2.249a
(1.498)
2.350***
(0.473)
7
8
9
Personal Ability
High school
3.923*** 4.427***
(0.551)
(0.568)
4.007***
(0.569)
Some college
9.611*** 10.256***
(0.580)
(0.702)
9.558***
(0.694)
College or more
21.843*** 22.785***
(1.085)
(1.420)
21.865***
(1.423)
Additional schooling
2.121*** 2.205***
(0.507)
(0.613)
2.077***
(0.597)
Work experience
0.121*** 0.099**
(0.031)
(0.035)
0.104**
(0.034)
Work experience squared
-0.002*** -0.001**
(0.000)
(0.001)
-0.002**
(0.001)
Self-selection with high school
-1.480a
(1.009)
-1.554a
(1.011)
Self-selection with some college
-2.008a
(1.453)
-2.133a
(1.451)
Self-selection with college or more
-2.673
(2.085)
-2.863a
(2.036)
Self-selection with additonal schooling
-0.277
(0.902)
-0.189
(0.919)
Self-selection with work experience
0.040
(0.091)
0.039
(0.090)
Self-selection with work experience squared
-0.002
(0.001)
-0.002
(0.001)
186
Personal Motivation
John Henryism
-1.939**
(0.768)
-2.235**
(0.861)
-0.388
(0.816)
Personal ambition
-0.747*** -0.652**
(0.194)
(0.262)
-0.128
(0.217)
Self-selection with John Henryism
1.006
(1.629)
0.660
(1.441)
Self-selection with ambition
-0.168
(0.367)
-0.086
(0.296)
Self-Efficacy
Personal mastery
2.737*** 2.341***
1.147*
(0.613)
(0.594)
(0.565)
Future orientation
2.014*** 1.951***
0.569*
(0.353)
(0.410)
(0.339)
Self-selection with mastery
1.115
(1.256)
-0.129
(1.050)
Self-selection with future orientation
0.170
(0.694)
0.363
(0.578)
Intercept
N
adj. R-sq
31.256*** 30.493*** 22.410*** 21.769*** 39.590*** 39.641*** 15.403*** 16.180*** 18.088***
(0.396)
(0.389)
(0.597)
(0.641)
(2.755)
(3.105)
(1.528)
(1.357)
(3.592)
4415
.074
4415
.077
4415
.343
One-tailed test of statistical significance: a = p <.10, * = p <.05, ** = p < .01, *** = p <.001.
The total sample size is 4415. There are 3009 African Americans and 1406 Afro Caribbeans.
186
4415
.345
4415
.084
4415
.087
4415
.114
4415
.117
4415
.343
Table 2.6.
Weighted with Multiple Imputation
Afro Caribbean
Self-selection
OLS Regression of Log Annual Personal Income on
Black Ethnicity and Selectivity Factors
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0.051
(0.160)
-0.204
(0.178)
0.032
(0.146)
-0.175
(0.148)
0.066
(0.159)
-0.174
(0.171)
0.115
(0.153)
-0.149
(0.175)
-0.125
(0.148)
1.439**
(0.478)
3.809***
(0.887)
0.383***
(0.081)
1.518***
(0.268)
0.691
(0.730)
Personal Ability
High school
0.461*
(0.202)
0.635**
(0.220)
0.630**
(0.212)
Some college
0.734**
(0.272)
1.022***
(0.280)
0.984***
(0.277)
College or more
0.844*
(0.453)
1.134**
(0.461)
1.102**
(0.453)
Additional schooling
0.108a
(0.079)
0.247*
(0.114)
0.201a
(0.122)
Work experience
-0.147*
(0.076)
-0.117a
(0.076)
-0.103a
(0.076)
Work experience squared
0.001a
(0.001)
0.001
(0.001)
0.001
(0.001)
Self-selection with high school
-0.526*
(0.221)
-0.524*
(0.223)
Self-selection with some college
-0.830***
(0.209)
-0.800***
(0.218)
Self-selection with college or more
-0.773***
(0.193)
-0.746***
(0.201)
Self-selection with additonal schooling
-0.390**
(0.163)
-0.346*
(0.165)
Self-selection with work experience
-0.038**
(0.016)
-0.045**
(0.016)
Self-selection with work experience squared
0.000*
(0.000)
0.001*
(0.000)
187
Personal Motivation
John Henryism
-0.133
(0.124)
-0.114
(0.164)
0.062
(0.163)
Personal ambition
-0.008
(0.031)
0.013
(0.036)
0.092*
(0.042)
Self-selection with John Henryism
-0.047
(0.198)
-0.232
(0.193)
Self-selection with ambition
-0.063
(0.053)
-0.135**
(0.053)
Self-Efficacy
Personal mastery
0.274*** 0.301**
(0.084)
(0.106)
0.264**
(0.108)
Future orientation
0.140*
(0.060)
0.216**
(0.075)
0.125a
(0.078)
Self-selection with mastery
-0.092
(0.152)
-0.117
(0.149)
Self-selection with future orientation
-0.227*
(0.110)
-0.204*
(0.112)
Intercept
N
adj. R-sq
7.492*** 7.604*** 4.863**
(0.567)
(0.577)
(1.680)
4415
.159
4415
.161
4415
.194
One-tailed test of statistical significance: a = p <.10, * = p <.05, ** = p < .01, *** = p <.001.
The total sample size is 4415. There are 3009 African Americans and 1406 Afro Caribbeans.
187
5.088**
(1.607)
4415
.198
8.014*** 8.001*** 6.048*** 5.797***
3.465*
(0.704)
(0.813)
(0.648)
(0.676)
(1.817)
4415
.159
4415
.161
4415
.167
4415
.169
4415
.200
Table 3.1
Unweighted with Multiple Impuation
Unadjusted Means for the Association Between
Black Ethnicity and Socioeconomic Status
African
American
Afro
Caribbean
Eta
.689
(.463)
.775
(.418)
.089 ***
Occupational prestige
30.89
(12.52)
34.14
(13.48)
.117 ***
Annual Personal income
22052
(19696)
28303
(26802)
.130 ***
Currently employed
One-tailed test of statistical significance in the hypothesized direction: a = p <.10, * = p <.05, ** = p < .01, *** = p <.001.
The total sample size is 4415. There are 3009 African Americans and 1406 Afro Caribbeans.
188
Table 3.2
Unweighted with Multiple Impuation
Unadjusted Means for the Association Between
Black Ethnicity and Model Minority Attributes
African
American
Afro
Caribbean
Eta
Protestant Work Ethic
Willingness to work
.906
(.292)
.898
(.302)
.000
Satisfied with work
2.79
(.946)
2.66
(.926)
.070
Enjoy the work you do
3.16
(1.00)
3.23
(.942)
.045
Received welfare, before 18
.251
(.433)
.092
(.290)
.184 ***
Received welfare, since 18
.292
(.455)
.124
(.330)
.183 ***
Entrepreneurial
.105
(.306)
.124
(.330)
.025 *
.092
(.264)
.083
(.252)
.000
Currently married
.349
(.477)
.439
(.496)
.085 ***
Ever been married
.028
(.164)
.023
(.149)
.000
Frequency of familial contact
3.25
(.970)
3.09
(.969)
.073
Familial support
3.13
(.516)
3.09
(.490)
.036
Minority blame
2.18
(1.00)
2.16
(.937)
.049
Linked fate
1.32
(1.16)
1.34
(1.17)
.000
Racial salience
.909
(1.07)
.703
(.960)
.094 ***
Racial centrality
3.12
(.810)
3.34
(.775)
.123
Economic Autonomy
Oppositional Posturing
Family Structure and Functioning
Race Consciousness
One-tailed test of statistical significance in the hypothesized direction: a = p <.10, * = p <.05, ** = p < .01, *** = p <.001.
The total sample size is 4415. There are 3009 African Americans and 1406 Afro Caribbeans.
189
Table 3.4
Weighted with Multiple Imputation
Afro Caribbean
OLS Regression of Occupational Prestige on
Black Ethnicity and Model Minority Attributes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1.160
(0.936)
0.917
(0.956)
1.102
(0.956)
1.153
(0.935)
1.038
(0.924)
1.187
(0.953)
1.021
(0.977)
Protestant Work Ethic
Willingness to work
1.628**
(0.598)
1.406*
(0.595)
Satisfied with work
0.330
(0.449)
0.685*
(0.396)
Enjoy the work
0.917**
(0.341)
0.661*
(0.329)
Economic Autonomy
Received welfare, before 18
1.140*
(0.517)
1.253**
(0.501)
Received welfare, since 18
-1.904***
(0.444)
-1.822***
(0.447)
Entrepreneurial
-0.562
(0.658)
-0.748
(0.663)
Oppositional Posturing
-0.303
(0.918)
-0.304
(0.904)
Family Structure and Functioning
Currently married
1.550**
(0.487)
1.426**
(0.487)
Ever married
-0.402
(1.304)
-0.227
(1.285)
Family contact
0.477*
(0.221)
0.443*
(0.218)
Familial support
-0.346
(0.316)
-0.434
(0.343)
Race Consciousness
Minorities blame self
0.863*** 1.016***
(0.265)
(0.261)
Linked fate
0.157
(0.212)
0.311a
(0.207)
Racial salience
0.423a
(0.269)
0.399a
(0.288)
Racial centrality
0.487
(0.401)
0.411
(0.451)
Intercept
N
adj. R-sq
-32.377** -36.969** -32.809** -32.062* -31.093* -36.782** -26.153*
(13.352) (13.544) (13.475) (13.464) (13.012) (12.980) (11.522)
4415
.298
4415
.307
4415
.301
One-tailed test of statistical significance: a = p <.10, * = p <.05, ** = p < .01, *** = p <.001.
The total sample size is 4415. There are 3009 African Americans and 1406 Afro Caribbeans.
191
4415
.298
4415
.300
4415
.304
4415
.312
Table 3.4
Weighted with Multiple Imputation
Afro Caribbean
OLS Regression of Occupational Prestige on
Black Ethnicity and Model Minority Attributes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1.160
(0.936)
0.917
(0.956)
1.102
(0.956)
1.153
(0.935)
1.038
(0.924)
1.187
(0.953)
1.021
(0.977)
Protestant Work Ethic
Willingness to work
1.628**
(0.598)
1.406*
(0.595)
Satisfied with work
0.330
(0.449)
0.685*
(0.396)
Enjoy the work
0.917**
(0.341)
0.661*
(0.329)
Economic Autonomy
Received welfare, before 18
1.140*
(0.517)
1.253**
(0.501)
Received welfare, since 18
-1.904***
(0.444)
-1.822***
(0.447)
Entrepreneurial
-0.562
(0.658)
-0.748
(0.663)
Oppositional Posturing
-0.303
(0.918)
-0.304
(0.904)
Family Structure and Functioning
Currently married
1.550**
(0.487)
1.426**
(0.487)
Ever married
-0.402
(1.304)
-0.227
(1.285)
Family contact
0.477*
(0.221)
0.443*
(0.218)
Familial support
-0.346
(0.316)
-0.434
(0.343)
Race Consciousness
Minorities blame self
0.863*** 1.016***
(0.265)
(0.261)
Linked fate
0.157
(0.212)
0.311a
(0.207)
Racial salience
0.423a
(0.269)
0.399a
(0.288)
Racial centrality
0.487
(0.401)
0.411
(0.451)
Intercept
N
adj. R-sq
-32.377** -36.969** -32.809** -32.062* -31.093* -36.782** -26.153*
(13.352) (13.544) (13.475) (13.464) (13.012) (12.980) (11.522)
4415
.298
4415
.307
4415
.301
One-tailed test of statistical significance: a = p <.10, * = p <.05, ** = p < .01, *** = p <.001.
The total sample size is 4415. There are 3009 African Americans and 1406 Afro Caribbeans.
191
4415
.298
4415
.300
4415
.304
4415
.312
Table 3.5
Weighted with Multiple Imputation
Afro Caribbean
OLS Regression of Log Annual Personal Income on
Black Ethnicity and Model Minority Attributes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0.298*
(0.153)
0.282*
(0.155)
0.263*
(0.150)
0.298*
(0.153)
0.276*
(0.153)
0.286*
(0.155)
0.242a
(0.155)
Protestant Work Ethic
Willingness to work
0.560**
(0.185)
0.565**
(0.186)
Satisfied with work
0.034
(0.103)
0.071
(0.091)
Enjoy the work
-0.004
(0.078)
-0.053
(0.079)
Economic Autonomy
Received welfare, before 18
0.054
(0.089)
0.060
(0.088)
Received welfare, since 18
-0.245**
(0.092)
-0.210*
(0.092)
Entrepreneurial
0.003
(0.089)
0.011
(0.082)
Oppositional Posturing
-0.022
(0.212)
-0.006
(0.226)
Family Structure and Functioning
Currently married
0.246**
(0.094)
0.232**
(0.094)
Ever married
0.135
(0.136)
0.158
(0.132)
Family contact
0.079a
(0.054)
0.078a
(0.055)
Familial support
-0.019
(0.083)
-0.032
(0.085)
Race Consciousness
Minorities blame self
0.020
(0.066)
0.022
(0.064)
Linked fate
0.088*
(0.044)
0.102**
(0.041)
Racial salience
0.081a
(0.054)
0.082a
(0.057)
Racial centrality
-0.003
(0.092)
0.009
(0.094)
Intercept
N
adj. R-sq
-11.487*
(5.041)
-11.799*
(5.106)
-11.448*
(5.041)
-11.464*
(4.992)
-11.363*
(4.960)
-11.782*
(5.024)
-9.531*
(4.956)
4415
.116
4415
.123
4415
.118
4415
.116
4415
.118
4415
.120
4415
.127
One-tailed test of statistical significance: a = p <.10, * = p <.05, ** = p < .01, *** = p <.001.
The total sample size is 4415. There are 3009 African Americans and 1406 Afro Caribbeans.
192
Table 3.6
Unweighted with Multiple Impuation
Unadjusted Means for the Association Between
Afro Caribbean Ethnic Identity and Socioeconomic Status
Closeness
High
(n = 778)
Currently Employed
Low
(n = 628)
Media Consumption
High
(n = 712)
Eta
Low
(n = 695)
Ethnic Identification
Eta
High
(n = 755)
Low
(n = 651)
Eta
.788
(.409)
.759
(.428)
.022
.762
(.426)
.787
(.410)
.027
.792
(.406)
.756
(.430)
.037
Occupational prestige
34.15
(13.22)
34.13
(13.81)
.000
34.38
(13.46)
33.96
(13.53)
.007
32.84
(12.96)
35.64
(13.92)
.101
Annual Personal income
29305
(26861)
27062
(26699)
.032
28288
(28485)
28323
(24422)
.000
28478
(30677)
28101
(21469)
.000
a
One-tailed test of statistical significance in the hypothesized direction: a = p <.10, * = p <.05, ** = p < .01, *** = p <.001.
This table includes 1406 Afro Caribbeans.
193
Table 3.7
Unweighted with Multiple Impuation
Unadjusted Means for the Association Between
Afro Caribbean Ethnic Identity and Model Minority Attributes
Closeness
High
(n = 779)
Low
(n = 627)
Media Consumption
High
(n = 1258)
Eta
Low
(n = 148)
Ethnic Identification
Eta
High
(n = 755)
Low
(n = 651)
Eta
Protestant Work Ethic
Willingness to work
.903
(.296)
.892
(.311)
.000
.894
(.307)
.929
(.258)
.023
.896
(.305)
.901
(.299)
.000
Satisfied with work
2.78
(.926)
2.76
(.925)
.007
2.20
(.940)
2.31
(1.00)
.025
2.65
(.927)
2.66
(.933)
.000
2.87
(.99)
2.84
(1.01)
.015
2.39
(1.07)
2.45
(1.08)
.000
3.24
(.927)
3.17
(.961)
.035
Received welfare, before 18
.075
(.264)
.114
(.319)
.062 **
.09
(.281)
.14
(.352)
.055 *
.041
(.198)
.152
(.359)
.190 ***
Received welfare, since 18
.103
(.304)
.150
(.357)
.065 **
.116
(.320)
.194
(.397)
.068 **
.069
(.254)
.187
(.390)
.177 ***
Entrepreneurial
.115
(.319)
.136
(.343)
.017
.121
(.326)
.158
(.366)
.022
.109
(.312)
.142
(.349)
.044
.087
(.258)
.079
(.244)
.000
.082
(.250)
.097
(.267)
.000
.066
(.224)
.103
(.279)
.069 **
Currently married
.446
(.497)
.430
(.495)
.000
.439
(.496)
.441
(.498)
.000
.459
(.499)
.416
(.493)
.037
Ever been married
.023
(.149)
.023
(.150)
.000
.023
(.152)
.017
(.127)
.000
.026
(.158)
.020
(.139)
.000
Frequency of familial contact
3.13
(.940)
3.05
(1.00)
.032
3.08
(.959)
3.15
(1.05)
.000
3.11
(.933)
3.07
(1.01)
.000
Familial support
3.14
(.470)
3.03
(.507)
.107 ***
3.10
(.482)
2.99
(.543)
.064 **
3.10
(.489)
3.07
(.491)
.031
Minority blame
1.73
(.902)
1.77
(.927)
.000
1.94
(.926)
1.91
(.918)
.000
2.13
(.933)
2.19
(.940)
.038
Linked fate
1.42
(1.16)
1.23
(1.16)
.078
1.36
(1.16)
1.13
(1.18)
.054
1.31
(1.16)
1.37
(1.18)
.015
Racial salience
1.11
(1.02)
1.09
(1.02)
.000
1.40
(1.07)
1.28
(1.13)
.026
2.41
(1.40)
2.52
(1.37)
.032
Racial centrality
2.50
(.661)
2.46
(.644)
.037
3.09
(.706)
2.97
(.786)
.047
3.34
(.760)
3.33
(.792)
.000
Enjoy the work you do
Economic Autonomy
Oppositional Posturing
Family Structure and Functioning
a
Race Consciousness
One-tailed test of statistical significance in the hypothesized direction: a = p <.10, * = p <.05, ** = p < .01, *** = p <.001.
This table includes 1406 Afro Caribbeans.
194
a
Table 3.8
Weighted with Multiple Imputation
LOGIT Regression of Currently Employed on
Afro Caribbean Ethnic Identity and Model Minority Attributes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Closeness
0.060
(0.261)
0.023
(0.253)
0.042
(0.239)
-0.001
(0.250)
0.031
(0.246)
0.071
(0.256)
-0.043
(0.215)
Media Consumption
-0.619
(0.306)
-0.583
(0.319)
-0.582
(0.293)
-0.620
(0.300)
-0.557
(0.316)
-0.572
(0.368)
-0.476
(0.385)
Ethnic identification
0.592a
(0.369)
0.606a
(0.372)
0.479a
(0.354)
0.620a
(0.366)
0.517a
(0.338)
0.592a
(0.360)
0.480a
(0.322)
Afro Caribbean Ethnic Identity
Protestant Work Ethic
Willingness to work
0.506a
(0.330)
0.318
(0.415)
Satisfied with work
0.006
(0.227)
0.081
(0.226)
Enjoy the work
0.021
(0.202)
-0.016
(0.196)
Economic Autonomy
Received welfare, before 18
0.364
(0.473)
0.528
(0.487)
Received welfare, since 18
-1.018**
(0.297)
-0.912**
(0.285)
Entrepreneurial
-0.036
(0.272)
0.018
(0.279)
Oppositional Posturing
1.099**
(0.427)
1.196**
(0.451)
Family Structure and Functioning
Currently married
0.538**
(0.210)
0.502*
(0.205)
Ever married
-1.055a
(0.753)
-0.981
(0.818)
Family contact
0.042
(0.173)
0.013
(0.136)
Familial support
0.300
(0.264)
0.296a
(0.212)
Race Consciousness
Minorities blame self
-0.146
(0.157)
-0.094
(0.149)
Linked fate
-0.045
(0.082)
-0.002
(0.090)
Racial salience
-0.009
(0.121)
-0.004
(0.140)
Racial centrality
0.102
(0.190)
0.132
(0.226)
Intercept
N
Pseudo R-sq
-6.677*
(3.686)
-7.516*
(3.562)
-6.282*
(3.618)
-6.888*
(3.761)
-7.454*
(3.669)
-6.724*
(3.732)
-8.388*
(3.455)
1406
.004
1406
.008
1406
.008
1406
.005
1406
.010
1406
.013
1406
.028
One-tailed test of statistical significance: a = p <.10, * = p <.05, ** = p < .01, *** = p <.001.
This table includes 1406 Afro Caribbeans.
195
Table 3.9
Weighted with Multiple Imputation
OLS Regression of Occupational Prestige on
Afro Caribbean Ethnic Identity and Model Minority Attributes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Closeness
0.940
(1.159)
0.865
(1.171)
0.858
(1.090)
1.032
(1.174)
0.834
(0.916)
0.776
(1.142)
0.555
(0.930)
Media Consumption
1.047
(1.637)
1.462
(1.794)
1.345
(1.691)
1.089
(1.626)
1.416
(1.603)
0.653
(1.847)
1.625
(1.858)
Ethnic identification
-0.235
(1.454)
-0.240
(1.459)
-0.638
(1.443)
-0.271
(1.465)
-0.568
(1.451)
-0.176
(1.512)
-0.966
(1.480)
Afro Caribbean Ethnic Identity
Protestant Work Ethic
Willingness to work
0.506
(1.687)
-0.524
(1.333)
Satisfied with work
0.298
(0.987)
0.751
(1.022)
Enjoy the work
0.916
(0.976)
0.694
(0.979)
Economic Autonomy
Received welfare, before 18
-2.774*
(1.603)
-2.094a
(1.471)
Received welfare, since 18
-3.767a
(2.214)
-3.706*
(2.049)
Entrepreneurial
-0.764
(1.551)
-1.841
(1.462)
Oppositional Posturing
-1.725
(1.428)
-1.716
(1.570)
Family Structure and Functioning
Currently married
4.395**
(1.344)
4.247**
(1.428)
Ever married
0.968
(2.049)
0.963
(2.089)
Family contact
-0.255
(0.618)
-0.252
(0.612)
Familial support
0.616
(1.594)
0.283
(1.411)
Race Consciousness
Minorities blame self
1.034
(1.360)
1.356
(1.255)
Linked fate
0.063
(0.583)
0.202
(0.494)
Racial salience
1.243a
(0.842)
1.260a
(0.740)
Racial centrality
-2.215*
(1.190)
-2.160*
(1.183)
Intercept
N
adj. R-sq
-6.963
(15.159)
-12.285
(14.642)
-2.558
(14.554)
-7.141
(15.068)
-5.214
(16.637)
-6.125
(15.000)
-5.499
(16.083)
1406
.011
1406
.016
1406
.013
1406
.010
1406
.014
1406
.034
1406
.048
One-tailed test of statistical significance: a = p <.10, * = p <.05, ** = p < .01, *** = p <.001.
This table includes 1406 Afro Caribbeans.
196
Table 3.10
Weighted with Multiple Imputation
OLS Regression of Log Annual Personal Income on
Afro Caribbean Ethnic Identity and Model Minority Attributes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Closeness
0.204a
(0.131)
0.196a
(0.135)
0.187a
(0.130)
0.195a
(0.139)
0.201a
(0.125)
0.195a
(0.121)
0.162
(0.127)
Media Consumption
-0.012
(0.153)
-0.016
(0.161)
0.003
(0.155)
-0.016
(0.149)
0.022
(0.152)
-0.020
(0.175)
0.033
(0.168)
Ethnic identification
-0.058
(0.166)
-0.055
(0.164)
-0.080
(0.166)
-0.054
(0.168)
-0.100
(0.165)
-0.056
(0.168)
-0.119
(0.166)
Afro Caribbean Ethnic Identity
Protestant Work Ethic
Willingness to work
0.174
(0.155)
0.089
(0.152)
Satisfied with work
-0.009
(0.122)
0.027
(0.130)
Enjoy the work
-0.005
(0.116)
-0.024
(0.128)
Economic Autonomy
Received welfare, before 18
-0.216a
(0.160)
-0.191
(0.165)
Received welfare, since 18
-0.182
(0.188)
-0.126
(0.188)
Entrepreneurial
-0.216
(0.190)
-0.250
(0.196)
Oppositional Posturing
0.168
(0.293)
0.122
(0.300)
Family Structure and Functioning
Currently married
0.280**
(0.103)
0.285**
(0.096)
Ever married
-0.481
(0.610)
-0.523
(0.591)
Family contact
0.060
(0.049)
0.052
(0.054)
Familial support
0.060
(0.163)
0.052
(0.166)
Race Consciousness
Minorities blame self
0.063
(0.085)
0.078
(0.084)
Linked fate
0.002
(0.036)
0.025
(0.038)
Racial salience
0.068
(0.085)
0.078
(0.085)
Racial centrality
-0.087
(0.130)
-0.070
(0.135)
Intercept
N
adj. R-sq
0.066
(2.080)
-0.069
(2.114)
0.347
(2.100)
0.084
(2.054)
-0.135
(1.906)
-0.038
(2.213)
-0.190
(1.996)
1406
.001
1406
.012
1406
.003
1406
.001
1406
.013
1406
.005
1406
.026
One-tailed test of statistical significance: a = p <.10, * = p <.05, ** = p < .01, *** = p <.001.
This table includes 1406 Afro Caribbeans.
197
Table 4.1
Unweighted with Multiple Impuation
Unadjusted Means for the Association Between
Black Ethniicty and Socioeconomic Status
African
American
Afro
Caribbean
Eta
.689
(.463)
.775
(.418)
.089 ***
Occupational prestiege
30.89
(12.52)
34.14
(13.48)
.117 ***
Annual personal income
22052
(19696)
28303
(26802)
.130 ***
Currently employed
One-tailed test of statistical significance: a = p <.10, * = p <.05, ** = p < .01, *** = p <.001.
The total sample size is 4415. There are 3009 African Americans and 1406 Afro Caribbeans.
198
Table 4.2
Unweighted with Multiple Impuation
Unadjusted Means for the Association Between
Black Ethnicity and Factors Related to White Favortism
African
American
Afro
Caribbean
Eta
-.245
(.695)
-.868 ***
(.975)
Willingness to work
.906
(.291)
.898
(.302)
.000
Satisfied with doing this work
2.58
(.980)
2.40
(.941)
.099
Enjoy the work you do
2.75
(1.07)
2.64
(1.03)
.069
12.40
(2.49)
13.08
(2.80)
.121 ***
23.89
(16.30)
21.47
(15.28)
.380
(.485)
.425
(.495)
Whites' closeness to…1
Protestant work ethic
Human capital characteristics
Years of education
Years of work experience
Additional training
.069
.041 ***
One-tailed test of statistical significance: a = p <.10, * = p <.05, ** = p < .01, *** = p <.001.
The total sample size is 4415. There are 3009 African Americans and 1406 Afro Caribbeans.
1
The estimates for "Whites' closeness to…" represent a difference score for whites' closesness to African Americans and
Afro Caribbeans, net whites' closeness to other whites. The significance test is a paired t-test.
199
Table 4.3
Unweighted with Multiple Impuation
Unadjusted Means for the Association Between
Black Ethnicity and Factors Related to White Comfort
African
American
Afro
Caribbean
Eta
Attitudes towards whites
Closeness toward whites
2.59
(.874)
2.48
(.854)
.055
Okay with qualified white boss
1.32
(.894)
1.48
(.789)
.082 *
Minorities comfortable with whites
3.01
(.937)
2.92
(.928)
.075
Whites do not respect blacks
2.67
(.934)
2.87
(.904)
.102
Whites do not think blacks add to US
1.79
(.887)
1.64
(.852)
.084 *
Support for affirmative action
.746
(1.29)
.756
(1.27)
.029
Support for reparations
1.92
(.829)
1.73
(.774)
.115 *
Linked fate
1.32
(1.16)
1.34
(1.17)
.000
Major life discrimination
.149
(.187)
.137
(.176)
.026 *
Everyday discrimination
2.21
(.822)
2.15
(.810)
.033 **
Perceived race relations
Black racial politics
Perceived discrimination
One-tailed test of statistical significance: a = p <.10, * = p <.05, ** = p < .01, *** = p <.001.
The total sample size is 4415. There are 3009 African Americans and 1406 Afro Caribbeans.
200
Table 4.4
Unweighted with Multiple Impuation
Unadjusted Means for the Association Between
Black Ethnicity and Responses to Everyday Discirmination
African
American
Afro
Caribbean
Eta
Less comfort
Expressed anger or got mad
.130
(.337)
.138
(.345)
.011
Tried to do something about it
.094
(.292)
.090
(.286)
.000
Talked to someone about feelings
.153
(.360)
.133
(.340)
.021 *
Worked harder to prove them wrong
.149
(.356)
.134
(.341)
.014
Realized that you brought it on yourself
.012
(.110)
.012
(.109)
.000
Accepted it as a fact of life
.183
(.386)
.162
(.368)
.021
More comfort
One-tailed test of statistical significance: a = p <.10, * = p <.05, ** = p < .01, *** = p <.001.
The total sample size is 4415. There are 3009 African Americans and 1406 Afro Caribbeans.
201
LOGIT Regression of Currently Employed on
Black Ethnicity and Factors Related to White Favortism and Comfort
Table 4.5
Weighted with Multiple Imputation
1
Afro Caribbean
0.836**
(0.254)
2
0.855**
(0.258)
3
0.787**
(0.247)
4
0.837**
(0.257)
5
0.792**
(0.249)
6
0.815**
(0.256)
White Favortism Related Factors
Years of education
-1.039**
(0.355)
-1.081**
(0.339)
Additional training
0.146^
(0.082)
0.152^
(0.083)
Work experience
-1.291***
(0.352)
-1.331***
(0.334)
Work experience squared
0.002**
(0.001)
0.002**
(0.001)
Willingness to work
0.535***
(0.132)
0.530***
(0.132)
Job satisfaction
-0.027
(0.120)
-0.026
(0.113)
Enjoy job
0.037
(0.113)
0.052
(0.101)
White Comfort Related Factors
Closeness to whites
-0.047
(0.046)
-0.048
(0.046)
-0.062
(0.043)
Okay with white boss
0.001
(0.061)
-0.003
(0.062)
-0.051
(0.063)
Minorities comfortable with whites
0.017
(0.079)
0.024
(0.080)
-0.016
(0.081)
Supports afirmative action
-0.038
(0.048)
-0.036
(0.048)
-0.024
(0.049)
Supports reparations
-0.157^
(0.090)
-0.157^
(0.093)
-0.149
(0.093)
Linked fate
0.082^
(0.046)
0.088^
(0.048)
0.065
(0.049)
Major life discrimination
0.097
(0.335)
0.096
(0.336)
-0.216
(0.364)
Everyday discrimination
-0.073
(0.071)
-0.083
(0.077)
-0.037
(0.080)
Tried to do something about it
-0.077
(0.218)
-0.060
(0.232)
-0.131
(0.229)
Talked to someone
-0.097
(0.213)
-0.085
(0.214)
-0.082
(0.219)
Worked harder to prove them wrong
-0.053
(0.175)
-0.023
(0.177)
0.014
(0.186)
Brought it on yourself
-1.173***
(0.331)
-1.182***
(0.341)
-1.162**
(0.339)
Accepted it as a fact of life
0.305^
(0.169)
0.344^
(0.175)
0.258
(0.176)
-2.105***
(0.406)
-2.556***
(0.353)
-2.165***
(0.406)
-13.057***
(2.170)
4415
.154
4415
.151
4415
.156
Intercept
N
Pseudo R-sq
-2.513***
(0.347)
4415
.150
-13.316***
(2.247)
4415
.177
Two-tailed test of statistical significance: ^ = p <.10, * = p <.05, ** = p < .01, *** = p <.001.
The total sample size is 4415. There are 3009 African Americans and 1406202
Afro Caribbeans.
4415
.182
OLS Regression of Occupational Prestige on
Black Ethnicity and Factors Related to White Favortism and Comfort
Table 4.6
Weighted with Multiple Imputation
1
Afro Caribbean
1.700
(1.167)
2
1.088
(0.951)
3
1.693
(1.128)
4
1.842
(1.160)
5
1.731
(1.117)
6
0.991
(0.948)
White Favortism Related Factors
Years of education
0.889
(1.972)
0.502
(1.852)
Additional training
1.728***
(0.469)
1.536**
(0.457)
Willingness to work
-2.295
(2.002)
-2.590
(1.880)
Work experience squared
0.010**
(0.003)
0.009**
(0.003)
Not refused job
1.696**
(0.596)
1.699**
(0.618)
Job satisfaction
0.304
(0.568)
0.415
(0.482)
Enjoy job
0.685
(0.424)
0.807*
(0.345)
White Comfort Related Factors
Closeness to whites
-0.708*
(0.289)
-0.743*
(0.290)
-0.963***
(0.272)
Okay with white boss
1.090***
(0.276)
1.059***
(0.279)
0.536
(0.324)
Minorities comfortable with whites
0.548^
(0.279)
0.564*
(0.279)
0.027
(0.313)
Supports afirmative action
-0.474^
(0.256)
-0.459^
(0.258)
-0.178
(0.230)
Supports reparations
-0.413
(0.356)
-0.422
(0.361)
-0.572
(0.388)
Linked fate
0.756**
(0.234)
0.768**
(0.238)
0.304
(0.211)
Major life discrimination
6.207***
(1.437)
6.010***
(1.458)
1.542
(1.357)
Everyday discrimination
-0.086
(0.321)
-0.611^
(0.363)
0.064
(0.323)
Tried to do something about it
2.251*
(1.110)
1.786
(1.113)
0.734
(1.015)
Talked to someone
1.283
(0.996)
1.016
(1.024)
1.039
(0.876)
Worked harder to prove them wrong
-1.530
(1.034)
-1.218
(1.015)
-0.696
(0.934)
Brought it on yourself
-3.401
(2.199)
-3.066
(2.326)
-2.239
(1.843)
Accepted it as a fact of life
2.258**
(0.768)
2.412***
(0.684)
0.835
(0.691)
9.323***
(2.180)
8.704***
(1.717)
10.108***
(2.179)
-34.991**
(12.728)
4415
.097
4415
.080
4415
.104
4415
.312
Intercept
N
adj. R-sq
9.093***
(1.651)
4415
.072
-35.846*
(13.479)
4415
.306
Two-tailed test of statistical significance: ^ = p <.10, * = p <.05, ** = p < .01, *** = p <.001.
The total sample size is 4415. There are 3009 African Americans and 1406203
Afro Caribbeans.
OLS Regression of Log Annual Personal Income on
Black Ethnicity and Factors Related to White Favortism and Comfort
Table 4.7
Weighted with Multiple Imputation
1
Afro Caribbean
0.091
(0.151)
2
0.099
(0.145)
3
0.072
(0.146)
4
0.094
(0.152)
5
0.073
(0.146)
6
0.079
(0.140)
White Favortism Related Factors
Years of education
-1.557*
(0.774)
-1.592*
(0.729)
Additional training
0.089
(0.079)
0.044
(0.080)
Work experience
-1.817*
(0.772)
-1.832*
(0.728)
Work experience squared
0.001*
(0.001)
0.001*
(0.001)
Willingness to work
0.365*
(0.164)
0.377*
(0.159)
Job satisfaction
0.049
(0.074)
0.062
(0.071)
Enjoy job
-0.057
(0.067)
-0.049
(0.068)
White Comfort Related Factors
Closeness to whites
-0.045
(0.052)
-0.046
(0.052)
-0.056
(0.049)
Okay with white boss
0.158**
(0.055)
0.157**
(0.055)
0.115*
(0.052)
Minorities comfortable with whites
-0.014
(0.058)
-0.010
(0.058)
-0.048
(0.057)
Supports afirmative action
-0.042
(0.040)
-0.040
(0.039)
-0.024
(0.037)
Supports reparations
-0.064
(0.063)
-0.062
(0.062)
-0.072
(0.061)
Linked fate
0.101*
(0.045)
0.105*
(0.045)
0.081^
(0.042)
Major life discrimination
0.964***
(0.233)
0.960***
(0.232)
0.665**
(0.221)
Everyday discrimination
-0.079
(0.077)
-0.086
(0.077)
-0.041
(0.078)
Tried to do something about it
0.081
(0.152)
0.012
(0.150)
-0.068
(0.154)
Talked to someone
-0.038
(0.140)
-0.072
(0.147)
-0.049
(0.146)
Worked harder to prove them wrong
-0.117
(0.198)
-0.078
(0.192)
-0.036
(0.174)
Brought it on yourself
-0.534
(0.433)
-0.480
(0.420)
-0.468
(0.427)
Accepted it as a fact of life
0.204*
(0.093)
0.211*
(0.098)
0.111
(0.102)
Intercept
4.962***
(0.441)
-8.604^
(4.705)
5.272***
(0.486)
4.945***
(0.422)
5.251***
(0.480)
-8.159^
(4.353)
N
adj. R-sq
4415
.181
4415
.214
4415
.189
4415
.181
4415
.189
4415
.218
Two-tailed test of statistical significance: ^ = p <.10, * = p <.05, ** = p < .01, *** = p <.001.
The total sample size is 4415. There are 3009 African Americans and 1406203
Afro Caribbeans.
Threefold Multivariariate Decomposition of
Current Employment by Black Ethnicity
Table 4.8
Unweighted with Multiple Imputation
Coeff.
Employment Disparity
SE
z
p-value
90% Confidence Int.
.086 ***
(.015)
5.85
.000
.057
.115
Endowment Effect
.017
(.016)
1.10
.271
-.013
.048
Treatment Effect
.040
(.021)
1.89
.059
-.002
.081
Interaction
.029
(.020)
1.40
.160
-.011
.069
a
Two-tailed test of statistical significance: a = p <.10, * = p <.05, ** = p < .01, *** = p <.001.
The total sample size is 4415. There are 3009 African Americans and 1406 Afro Caribbeans.
205
Threefold Multivariariate Decomposition of
Occupational Prestige by Black Ethnicity
Table 4.9
Unweighted with Multiple Imputation
Coeff.
SE
z
p-value
90% Confidence Int.
Occupational Prestige Disparity
Afro-Caribbeans
34.14 ***
(.361)
94.50
.000
33.54
34.73
African Americans
30.89 ***
(.229)
135.00
.000
30.51
31.26
Difference
3.25 ***
(.428)
7.61
.000
2.55
3.96
Endowment Effect
Controls
Skill
Culture
-6.75
(4.63)
-1.46
.145
-14.36
.866
9.03 *
(4.60)
1.96
.050
1.46
16.60
-.178 ***
(.056)
-3.20
.001
-.269
-.086
(.058)
1.82
.069
.010
.200
(.444)
4.98
.000
1.48
2.94
a
Race
.105
Total
2.21 ***
Treatment Effect
Controls
-39.32
(130.69)
-.30
.764
-254.29
175.64
Skill
28.70
(112.05)
.26
.798
-155.61
213.01
Culture
1.32
(1.53)
.86
.390
-1.20
3.83
Race
2.73
(2.42)
1.13
.260
-1.25
6.71
Intercept
7.69
(19.73)
.39
.696
-24.75
40.14
1.11 *
(.554)
2.01
.045
.201
2.02
Controls
1.94
(5.43)
.36
.721
-7.00
10.88
Skill
-1.86
(5.39)
-.34
.731
-10.72
7.01
Culture
-.020
(.073)
-.27
.787
-.140
.101
Race
-.134
(.091)
-1.47
.140
-.283
.015
Total
-.071
(.559)
-.13
.899
-.990
.848
Total
Interaction
Two-tailed test of statistical significance: a = p <.10, * = p <.05, ** = p < .01, *** = p <.001.
The total sample size is 4415. There are 3009 African Americans and 1406 Afro Caribbeans.
206
Threefold Multivariariate Decomposition of
Log Personal Annual Income by Black Ethnicity
Table 4.10
Unweighted with Multiple Imputation
Coeff.
SE
z
p-value
90% Confidence Int.
Personal Income Disparity
Afro-Caribbeans
9.65 ***
(.051)
189.28
.000
9.57
9.74
African Americans
9.29 ***
(.038)
241.53
.000
9.23
9.36
Difference
.362 ***
(.064)
5.66
.000
.257
.467
-1.24
Endowment Effect
Controls
-3.25 **
(1.22)
-2.66
.008
-5.25
Skill
3.51 **
(1.21)
2.91
.004
1.53
5.50
Culture
-.014
a
(.008)
-1.77
.076
-.028
-.001
Race
.018
a
(.009)
1.92
.055
.003
.034
Total
.273 ***
(.073)
3.74
.000
.153
.393
Treatment Effect
Controls
-61.84 **
(21.87)
-2.83
.005
-97.82
-25.87
Skill
51.89 **
(18.76)
2.77
.006
21.03
82.74
Culture
.271
(.240)
1.13
.258
-.123
.666
Race
.129
(.379)
.34
.735
-.495
.752
9.75 **
(3.28)
2.97
.003
4.36
15.15
.194 *
(.084)
2.31
.021
.056
.332
Controls
2.45 *
(1.15)
2.13
.033
.559
4.34
Skill
-2.53 *
(1.14)
-2.22
.026
-4.41
-.658
Culture
-.005
(.012)
-.460
.645
-.024
.014
Race
-.015
(.014)
-1.11
.266
-.037
.007
Total
-.106
(.091)
-1.16
.245
-.255
.044
Intercept
Total
Interaction
Two-tailed test of statistical significance: a = p <.10, * = p <.05, ** = p < .01, *** = p <.001.
The total sample size is 4415. There are 3009 African Americans and 1406 Afro Caribbeans.
207
Appendix A1.1 Items for indexes.
John Henryism Items
I’ve always felt that I could make of my life pretty much what I wanted to make of it.
Once I make up my mind to do something, I stay with it until the job is completely done.
I don’t let my personal feelings get in the way of getting a job done.
It’s important for me to be able to do things in the way I want to do them rather than in the way other people want me to do them.
Sometimes I feel that if anything is going to be done right, I have to do it myself.
I like doing things that other people thought could not be done.
I feel that I am the kind of individual who stands up for what he believes in, regardless of the consequences.
Hard work has really helped me to get ahead in life.
When things don’t go the way I want them to, that just makes me work even harder.
It’s not always easy, but I manage to find a way to do the things I really need to get done.
Very seldom have I been disappointed by the results of my hard work.
In the past, even when things got really tough, I never lost sight of my goals.
Personal Mastery
There is really no way I can solve some of the problems I have.
Sometimes I feel that I’m being pushed around in life.
I have little control over the things that happen to me.
I can do just about anything I really set my mind to.
I often feel helpless in dealing with the problems of life.
What happens to me in the future mostly depends on me.
There is little I can do to change many of the important things in my life.
208
Appendix A3.1 Items for measurement scales and indexes
Familial Support
How often do people in your family - including children, grandparents, aunts, uncles, in-laws and so on - help you out?
How often do you help out people in your family -- including children, grandparents, aunts, uncles, in-laws and so on?
Other than your (spouse/partner), how often do your family members make you feel loved and cared for?
…listen to you talk about your private problems and concerns?
…express interest and concern in your well-being?
…make too many demands on you?
…criticize you and the things you do?
…try to take advantage of you?
(Afro Caribbean) Ethnic Identification
(“How much do you do each of the following?”):
I associate with Caribbeans.
I enjoy listening to Caribbean music.
My contact with Caribbeans has been…
My friends, while I was growing up, were of Caribbean descent.
My family cooks Caribbean food.
My friends now are of Caribbean origin.
I like to identify myself as Caribbean American.
I like to identify myself as Caribbean.
209
Appendix A4.1 Items for indexes.
John Henryism Items
I’ve always felt that I could make of my life pretty much what I wanted to make of it.
Once I make up my mind to do something, I stay with it until the job is completely done.
I don’t let my personal feelings get in the way of getting a job done.
It’s important for me to be able to do things in the way I want to do them rather than in the way other people want me to do them.
Sometimes I feel that if anything is going to be done right, I have to do it myself.
I like doing things that other people thought could not be done.
I feel that I am the kind of individual who stands up for what he believes in, regardless of the consequences.
Hard work has really helped me to get ahead in life.
When things don’t go the way I want them to, that just makes me work even harder.
It’s not always easy, but I manage to find a way to do the things I really need to get done.
Very seldom have I been disappointed by the results of my hard work.
In the past, even when things got really tough, I never lost sight of my goals.
Personal Mastery
There is really no way I can solve some of the problems I have.
Sometimes I feel that I’m being pushed around in life.
I have little control over the things that happen to me.
I can do just about anything I really set my mind to.
I often feel helpless in dealing with the problems of life.
What happens to me in the future mostly depends on me.
There is little I can do to change many of the important things in my life.
210
Table A4.1
Weighted with Multiple Imputation
Multivariate Regressions of Socioeconomic Status
on White Favortism Related Factors by Black Ethnicity
Occupational Prestige
Employed1
African
American
Afro
Caribbean
African
American
z
Afro
Caribbean
Log Annual Personal Income
African
American
z
Afro
Caribbean
z
Years of education
-1.12 *
(.420)
-.315
(.480)
-1.24
1.08
(2.31)
1.47
(2.03)
-.06
-2.17 *
(.980)
-.250
(.287)
-1.81
Additional training
.103
(.085)
.861 **
(.237)
-5.37
1.64 ***
(.488)
2.69
(1.60)
-.34
.144
(.080)
a
-.030
(.165)
1.62
Work experience
-1.40 **
(.415)
-.409
(.501)
-1.49
-2.17
(2.34)
-.821
(2.04)
-.21
-2.51 *
(.977)
-.458
(.297)
-1.93
Work experience squared
.002 **
(.001)
.001
(.001)
1.00
.011 **
(.003)
-.006
(.006)
5.60
.002 **
(.001)
.001
(.001)
1.00
Not refused job
.522 ***
(.140)
.567
(.309)
-.19
1.75 **
(.616)
.588
(1.68)
.34
.552 **
(.187)
.205
(.151)
1.65
Job satisfaction
-.032
(.123)
.081
(.260)
-.59
.336
(.593)
-.022
(.904)
.25
.050
(.095)
-.041
(.128)
.82
Enjoy job
.040
(.116)
-.036
(.246)
.43
.638
(.436)
1.22
(.929)
-.45
-.055
(.083)
.030
(.113)
-.89
Intercept
-14.17 ***
(2.62)
-7.02 *
(3.28)
-.53
-36.30 *
(15.63)
-11.12
(13.86)
-.12
-13.70 *
(5.89)
-.227
(2.10)
-1.31
N
adj. R-sq
3009
.176
a
1406
.175
3009
.304
Two-tailed test of statistical significance: a = p <.10, * = p <.05, ** = p < .01, *** = p <.001.
The total sample size is 4415. There are 3009 African Americans and 1406 Afro Caribbeans.
1
These columns present findings from LOGIT regression models. Therefore the reported R2 is the Pseudo R2.
211
1406
.277
3009
.119
1406
.124
Table A4.2
Weighted with Multiple Imputation
Multivariate Regressions of Socioeconomic Status
on White Comfort Related Factors by Black Ethnicity
Occupational Prestige
Employed1
African
American
Afro
Caribbean
African
American
z
-.651 *
(.307)
-1.43
(.831)
1.08 ***
(.281)
1.16
(1.09)
Closeness to whites
-.049
(.047)
.018
(.210)
-.74
Okay with white boss
.006
(.063)
-.078
(.209)
.79
Minorities comfortable with whites
-.005
(.080)
.380
(.223)
-2.97
.534
(.298)
Supports afirmative action
-.044
(.050)
.041
(.141)
-1.22
Supports reparations
-.164
(.092)
a
.018
(.210)
-1.34
Linked fate
.086
(.049)
a
.028
(.068)
Major life discrimination
.136
(.349)
Everyday discrimination
Intercept
N
adj. R-sq
Afro
Caribbean
Log Annual Personal Income
African
American
z
a
z
-.056
(.059)
-.080
(.108)
.34
-.05
.162 *
(.064)
.005
(.114)
2.04
.582
(.936)
-.04
-.016
(.066)
.061
(.093)
-1.03
-.450
(.268)
-.773
(.579)
.54
-.050
(.044)
-.092
(.055)
.89
-.482
(.365)
.905
(1.18)
-.79
-.129 *
(.060)
.103
(.139)
-2.92
1.08
.763 **
(.246)
.617
(.521)
.28
.132 *
(.050)
.041
(.047)
1.74
-.789
(1.20)
.52
5.93 ***
(1.49)
10.22
(5.38)
1.03 ***
(.249)
.250
(.283)
2.36
-.081
(.074)
-.031
(.226)
-.40
-.043
(.336)
-.603
(1.09)
.37
-.108
(.085)
-.048
(.099)
-.63
-1.97 ***
(.408)
-4.37 *
(1.80)
9.51 ***
(2.33)
7.78
(6.44)
.04
5.58 ***
(.572)
4.60 ***
(.612)
1.04
3009
.149
.66
1406
.167
3009
.088
Two-tailed test of statistical significance: a = p <.10, * = p <.05, ** = p < .01, *** = p <.001.
The total sample size is 4415. There are 3009 African Americans and 1406 Afro Caribbeans.
These columns present findings from LOGIT regression models. Therefore the reported R2 is the Pseudo R2.
1
211
a
1406
.075
a
.78
Afro
Caribbean
-.14
3009
.065
1406
.088
Table A4.3
Weighted with Multiple Imputation
Multivariate Regressions of Socioeconomic Status
on Responses to Everyday Discrimination by Black Ethnicity
Occupational Prestige
Employed1
African
American
Afro
Caribbean
African
American
z
Afro
Caribbean
Log Annual Personal Income
African
American
z
Afro
Caribbean
z
Expressed anger or got mad
-.141
(.254)
.252
(.475)
-.82
.869
(1.12)
-1.23
(2.08)
.39
.188
(.159)
-.582 *
(.214)
3.76
Tried to do something about it
-.050
(.236)
-.103
(.398)
.13
1.82
(1.16)
3.57
(2.72)
-.20
-.036
(.174)
.650 *
(.241)
-2.96
Talked to someone
-.102
(.243)
.575
(.555)
-1.23
.838
(1.15)
3.03
(2.07)
-.40
-.109
(.172)
-.151
(.243)
.18
Worked harder to prove them wrong
.002
(.181)
-.782
(.618)
1.39
-1.21
(1.11)
-4.47 *
(2.05)
.61
-.127
(.222)
-.234
(.272)
.36
Brought it on yourself
-1.09 **
(.348)
-2.72 **
(.832)
1.57
-3.53
(2.40)
-1.56
(3.02)
-.17
-1.07
(.545)
a
-.087
(.742)
-.89
Accepted it as a fact of life
.333
(.175)
.273 *
(.102)
.308
(.159)
Intercept
-2.55 ***
(.367)
5.10 ***
(.486)
4.53 ***
(.450)
N
adj. R-sq
3009
.143
a
.008
(.449)
.86
2.03 *
(.853)
3.75
(2.47)
-.25
-3.19 **
(.950)
.50
9.05 ***
(1.81)
5.13
(6.76)
.08
1406
.166
3009
.067
Two-tailed test of statistical significance: a = p <.10, * = p <.05, ** = p < .01, *** = p <.001.
The total sample size is 4415. There are 3009 African Americans and 1406 Afro Caribbeans.
1
These columns present findings from LOGIT regression models. Therefore the reported R2 is the Pseudo R2.
212
1406
.059
3009
.050
1406
.079
a
-.27
.83