Abstract
Although considerable literature focuses on risk factors predicting parents’ likelihood to engage in maltreatment, relatively less work evaluates potentially protective parental resources, particularly culturally relevant qualities. The current investigation utilized a multi-method longitudinal study to examine parents’ racial identification as a possible resource, hypothesizing that Black parents with stronger racial group identification would demonstrate lower at-risk parenting, operationalized as lower child abuse risk and less negative observed parenting. In a sample of 359 mothers and fathers (half self-identified Black, half non-Hispanic White), controlling for socioeconomic status, findings partially supported the hypothesis. Black parents’ greater racial identification was associated with lower child abuse risk and less observed negative parenting, whereas the reverse was true for White parents. The potential limitations of current assessment approaches to gauge at-risk parenting in parents of color are discussed, as well as how racial identification could be considered in culturally informed prevention programming for at-risk parenting.
Keywords
Parenting that is considered “at-risk” is often characterized by harsh, punitive discipline and coercive control (Seng & Prinz, 2008; Smetana, 2017) and can be manifest as aversive, uninvolved, or less positive parenting behaviors (Haskett et al., 2014; Wilson et al., 2008). Such at-risk parenting is typically also associated with an increased likelihood for physical child abuse (Milner & Crouch, 2017; Rodriguez et al., 2016), the focus of this study. A range of risk factors have been identified as predictive of physical child abuse risk (Stith et al., 2009), many of which are contextual and personal stressors that strain parents’ abilities to raise their children optimally (Rodriguez, 2021). However, contemporary maltreatment literature has stressed the importance of examining protective factors more extensively within the context of child maltreatment risk (Counts et al., 2010; Sprague-Jones et al., 2019) but few studies have adequately considered the benefits of cultural factors as protective for individual at-risk parenting. Culture is often defined along broad categories of shared traits, customs, and historical past, which can be based on skin color or geographic area for grouping purposes (Worrell, 2015). These broad categorizations, although perhaps useful for some purposes, fail to accurately capture nuances within a culture that may inform developmental outcomes related to parenting.
Rates of physical injury from child abuse reported in national community samples show similarities across racial groups in the U.S. (Simon et al., 2018), yet Black children are overrepresented in child welfare and foster care systems whereas White children are underrepresented (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [DHHS], 2022). Black parents report greater use of physical parent-child aggression than White parents (Silveira et al., 2020; Tallieu et al., 2014) and obtain higher scores on traditional measures of physical abuse risk (Combs-Orne et al., 2000; Rodriguez et al., 2021). The reason for these differences is debated but can include racial biases in abuse reporting (Najdowski & Bernstein, 2018), racial disparities in socioeconomic conditions and structural disadvantage, and inadequate services and resources in certain communities (Putnam-Hornstein et al., 2013). More severe consequences and outcomes have been identified for maltreated children of color (Cohen et al., 2001), and Black children are three times as likely as White children to die from maltreatment (DHHS, 2022).
Yet most research has not adequately considered culture-specific contributors to disproportionately that may underlie differences between Black and White families (cf. Drake & Jonson-Reid, 2011; Valentino et al., 2012). Rather, studies often focus on race itself as an explanatory variable. Although demographic factors may be useful in initial inquiry, grouping individuals based on census categories may conceal cultural differences (Fontes, 2022). Further, this approach can foster misrepresentation by lay media that can implicate and stigmatize groups or neighborhoods, failing to convey the pervasiveness of physical child abuse. For example, despite disparities between Black and White children’s rates of maltreatment, studies do not effectively examine the potential role of socioeconomic disparities (Kim & Drake, 2018; Putnam-Hornstein et al., 2013). In any given cultural group, cultural qualities can confer both risk and protective influences–challenges and strengths that can ultimately impact an individual’s developmental trajectory. For Black families, although they may encounter various structural disadvantages (McLoyd, 2019), they may benefit from the collective efficacy of extrafamilial social engagement (e.g., Hunter et al., 2019; Wallace, 2013). Existing research gaps underscore the need for greater understanding of not only risk but culturally relevant protective factors that can inform culturally responsive intervention and enhance research strategies focused on parents’ child abuse risk and resilience.
Cultural norms influence how parents socialize their children and teach their children skills (McLoyd et al., 2019; Ogbu, 1985). Black individuals must actively learn to cope with systemic hostility and discrimination, and thus Black parents become essentially responsible for protecting their children from these aversive experiences by teaching them to appreciate the realities of being Black (e.g., Dunbar et al., 2021; Holloway & Varner, 2021; Silveira et al., 2020). Black individuals must develop adequate competence and coping skills to combat the environmental stressors they are more likely to experience on a daily basis based solely on their minoritized status (Neblett et al., 2004; Scott, 2003).
The strategies Black parents may employ to teach their children to cope vary but are collectively termed racial socialization strategies, which are intended to teach children about racism and cultivate self-esteem and pride (Cabrera et al., 2016; Coard, 2021; McLoyd et al., 2019). Stronger parental racial socialization contributes to children’s positive racial identity development (Huguley et al., 2019) wherein parents who themselves hold favorable attitudes toward their racial group membership–namely, stronger racial identification–in turn engage in more racial socialization with their children (Thomas et al., 2010). Previous studies examining racial identification in people of color have demonstrated beneficial health outcomes (Zapolski et al., 2019), such that African Americans who evidence greater internalized positive racial identity and stronger racial affinity reported healthier psychological functioning and well-being (Belgrave & Allison, 2010; Hughes et al., 2015; Sellers et al., 2006). Stronger racial identification reduces discrimination stress (Yip et al., 2022) and fosters prosocial outcomes in youth (Grills et al., 2016). Therefore, stronger racial identification could be considered a culturally relevant protective factor for Black families.
Research has demonstrated that greater promotion of racial socialization practices is related to better socioemotional and behavioral outcomes in children (Anderson et al., 2021; Reynolds & Gonzales-Backen, 2017). Black mothers who engaged in more racial socialization are also observed to show more positive parent-child interactions, warmth, greater involvement, and less negative interactions toward their children (Frabutt et al., 2002). Nonetheless, parents’ greater racial identification as a potential protective influence with respect to reduced at-risk parenting and lower child abuse risk has not yet been investigated. Given that stressors are recognized contributors to at-risk parenting (Stith et al., 2009), greater racial identification could conceivably represent a resource that would mitigate stress among Black parents.
Hence, the current investigation utilized data from a longitudinal study to examine the role of racial identification on parents’ at-risk parenting and child abuse risk, specifically focused on potential racial differences. At-risk parenting was operationalized as greater likelihood of child maltreatment with traditional measures of abuse risk as well as observed negative parenting during structured parent-child interaction tasks. We hypothesized that Black mothers and fathers in particular with a stronger racial identification (i.e., a stronger group membership affinity) would evidence lower child abuse risk and less observed negative parenting (detachment and harsh behavior) over time (see Figure 1), while controlling for the potential confounding effects of socioeconomic status. By examining culture-specific factors within a parent sample, we can begin to unpack the racial differences in the child maltreatment literature to promote modifiable culturally informed variables that may offset a physically abusive parenting trajectory. Path model of group affirmation. Note. Outcome = Adult-adolescent parenting inventory-2, Child abuse potential inventory, abuse scale, and observed negative parenting (only at Time 2 and Time 3).
Method
Participants
The current sample was comprised of 359 parents who identified as either Black/African-American (n = 179; 52.5% mothers, 47.5% fathers) or non-Hispanic White (n = 180; 52.8% mothers, 47.2% fathers), extracted from a larger prospective longitudinal study, the Following First Families Study (Triple-F) Study. Parents were recruited for the Triple-F study from community public health centers and ob/gyn offices during primiparous mothers’ last trimester of pregnancy (Time 1; T1). Families were reassessed when the child was 6 months old (±2 weeks) for Time 2 (T2) and when their child was 18 months old (±3 weeks) for Time 3 (T3). For this study, 166 White parents and 145 Black parents returned for Time 2 (86.6% retention) and 157 White parents and 150 Black parents returned for Time 3 (85.5% retention). Parents lost to follow-up had moved out of the area or were unable to be located.
At Time 1, Black parents’ mean age was 24.04 years (SD = 5.96). Of this group, 1.3% also identified as Hispanic/Latinx and 6.3% reported they were biracial. With regard to educational attainment, 55.7% reported a high school degree or less, an additional 25.9% reported some vocational training or college, with the remaining 18.4% indicated at least a college degree. The median household income was under $13,000 annually. White parents’ mean age was 30.11 years (SD = 4.65). For the White subsample at Time 1, mean age was 30.13 years (SD = 4.69). Educational attainment for this group was 5.3% high school degree or less, 15.8% some college or vocational training, with the remainder college degree or higher. The median annual household income was between $70,000-79,999.
Measures
Racial Identification
The Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (T1 only) (MEIM; Phinney, 1992) was administered in Time 1 only. The MEIM is a 20-item assessment of personal group identification, which the test author indicates can be adapted for specific populations. For the current study, we included White/Caucasian and Black/African-American as possible groups for respondents to consider regarding their group affiliation (as well as Hispanic, Asian-American, Native American as examples). Although the measure includes a scale on identity searching appropriate for adolescent populations, we focused on responses to the 7-item Affirmation, Belonging and Commitment subscale, reflecting positive attitudes toward one’s group membership (e.g., “I have a lot of pride in my ethnic group”). Items are rated using a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 4 (strongly disagree) and summed for a total score that was oriented such that higher scores suggest stronger group identification. The MEIM has demonstrated acceptable reliability (Phinney et al., 2001), which is consistent with the reliability observed for both Black and White parents in this study (both α = .89).
At-Risk Parenting
The Adult - Adolescent Parenting Inventory-2 (T1-T3) (AAPI-2; Bavolek & Keene, 2001) was administered at all three time points. The AAPI-2 is a measure of parenting beliefs and behaviors about child rearing associated with harsh parenting, intended to distinguish parents and pre-parents at risk for child maltreatment. For example, “Spanking children when they misbehave teaches them how to behave.” Parents indicated their level of agreement with 40 items using a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). Totaled across these items, higher AAPI-2 Total scores indicate harsher parenting attitudes. Previously, AAPI-2 Total scores have evidenced internal consistency as well as concurrent validity with observed parenting (Conners et al., 2006) and parent-child aggression (Rodriguez et al., 2021). In the current sample, the AAPI-2 Total score demonstrated good reliability across time for both Black parents (α = .85 to .90) and White parents (α = .88 to .90).
The Child Abuse Potential Inventory (T1-T3) (CAPI; Milner, 1986) was also administered at all three time points. The CAPI is the most commonly used measure of child abuse risk, which does not focus on parenting and instead assesses parental rigidity and personal and interpersonal distress. Of the 160 Agree/Disagree items, the CAPI Abuse Scale is based on 77 items that are variably weighted, with higher total scores indicating greater child abuse risk. Prior research has demonstrated that the measure evidences good reliability and validity for abusive and non-abusive respondents (Milner, 1986), correctly classifying those who are substantiated for maltreatment (Milner et al., 1994).
Observed Parenting (T2, T3) was rated during three structured tasks adapted from Haltigan and colleagues (2014): a 4-min caregiving task, a 7-min free play task, and a 4-min task designed to elicit child frustration (the final task based on the standardized battery of laboratory temperament assessments developed by Goldsmith & Rothbart, 1996). During caregiving, parents undressed, diapered, and redressed their infant. During free play, parents and infants were seated on the floor next to a standard set of age-appropriate toys; parents were instructed to play with their infant as normal while simultaneously completing a brief form about their infant to tax their attention. During the frustration-eliciting task, the infant was in an infant seat with a harness strap while the parent sat by their side; the experimenter gently restrained the infant’s arms from behind so they were immobile; after 1 minute, parents were instructed to interact with the child as they wished using only the provided toys. For two-parent families, the order of mother and father interaction tasks with the child was counterbalanced.
At Time 3, parents and children participated in four tasks adapted from Leerkes and Wong (2012): an 8-min free play, a 4-min clean-up task, a 4-min task to induce frustration in the child, and a 4-min novelty task (the latter two tasks from the standardized battery of laboratory temperament assessments developed by Goldsmith & Rothbart [1999]). Free play was similar to above but with different toys. For the clean-up task, the assistant: placed all toys on the floor; offered a new musical toy to the child; told the parent to engage the child in picking up and returning all the toys to a container within 4 minutes with a countdown clock placed within the parent’s sight. During the frustration task, the assistant handed the child a light up musical phone and encouraged the child’s interest in the phone. Then, the assistant placed the phone in a clear jar with a lid that was impossible for the child to open and repeatedly told the child to get the phone out of the jar. During the novelty task, an assistant dressed as “Shrek” (first parent-child interaction) or “Sulley” from Monsters, Inc, (second interaction) entered the room and delivered a script while approaching to within 2 feet of the child. Parent-child interaction order was counterbalanced in two-parent families.
At both waves, two coders (coder teams included Black and White coders) were trained by the third author, an expert in the study of maternal behavior in racially diverse samples, who also provided feedback and was available to answer questions throughout the coding process. Coders rated specific dimensions of parenting from videotapes of these parent-child interactions using 7-point scales ranging from 1 (very low) to 7 (very high) based on an adaptation of the codes used in the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development (NICHD ECCRN, 1999). Given the goal of this paper, we focused on parent behaviors indicative of: detachment (disengagement and limited involvement, little awareness of infant needs) and negative regard (hostile, harsh, and critical behaviors toward the child). At each time point, detachment was rated by coders per task (three tasks at T2, four tasks at T3) whereas negative regard was rated in a single score after the coder watched all tasks in a time point. Inter-rater reliability between coders was calculated for each dimension per time point for the parent study using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) based on double-coded cases (T2, double-coded cases n = 44 mothers, n = 37 fathers; T3, n = 39 mothers, n = 52 fathers). At T2, ICCs for Detachment and Negative Regard were .91 and .96, respectively, for mothers, and .97 and .99, respectively, for fathers; at T3, ICCs for Detachment and Negative Regard were .87 and 90, respectively, for mothers, and .90 and .93, respectively, for fathers. Negative Regard and Detachment scores were significantly correlated (r’s ≥ .60) across time; therefore, for T2 and T3, mean Detachment across tasks and Negative regard scores were averaged and combined to yield T2 and T3 Observed Negative Parenting scores.
Covariate
Given evident disparities in income and educational attainment between groups, we considered these socioeconomic status (SES) indicators as covariates. Because these were highly correlated across time (r = .38–.63), to avoid multicollinearity, we computed a composite SES score based on the averaged standardized values of income and education.
Procedure
Participants in the Triple-F study were recruited through flyers distributed at community health centers and local hospitals in a large Southeastern city. At each time point, parents provided written informed consent and completed the protocol in private areas, with the self-report measures delivered on laptop computers. The Triple-F study was approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board.
Analytic Plan
Preliminary analyses were conducted using SPSS 27. Group differences across measures controlled for SES (using analyses of covariance). The main study hypothesis (Figure 1) was tested using Mplus 8.1, with full information maximum likelihood methods to maximize use of all available data. Because parents within the same couple were interdependent, these were nested within family using the CLUSTER command in Mplus. Three separate multigroup path models were tested, each utilizing either AAPI-2 Total scores, CAPI Abuse Scale scores, or Observed Negative Parenting scores using lagged models that control for stability in these outcomes. Model goodness of fit was judged using root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), comparative fit index (CFI) and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) values. A CFI value greater than .95 and RMSEA and SRMR values below .08 were considered to indicate good fit (Kline, 2011). Significant group differences between Black and White parents were tested in Mplus using the Model Constraint command. Reported model path coefficients are standardized whereas tests of group differences are unstandardized.
Results
Preliminary Analyses
See Table 1 for descriptive statistics by group (unadjusted means), with results of ANCOVA group comparisons controlling for SES. Black parents reported significantly stronger group identification on the MEIM compared to White parents. Black parents attained higher scores on the AAPI-2 Total and Observed Negative Parenting across time relative to White parents, but such differences were less apparent on the CAPI Abuse Scale. (Notably, t-test comparisons indicated stronger significant differences across measures, including the CAPI, but those effects reduced, and disappeared entirely on the CAPI, upon controlling for SES).
SES was significantly related to all outcome measures across time for White parents (r’s = −.16 to −.37, all p < .01) as well as for Black parents (r’s = −.18 to .38, all p < .01), with the exception of SES and Black parents’ observed negative parenting at T3. Consequently, SES was included as a time-varying covariate in all three Mplus path models.
Path Analyses
Group Differences in Outcome Measures Across Time.
Note. T1 = Time 1; T2 = Time 2; T3 = Time 3. MEIM = Multigroup ethnic identity measure; AAPI-2 = Adult-adolescent parenting inventory; CAPI Abuse scale = Child Abuse Potential Inventory, Abuse Scale.
aAll ANCOVAs controlling for SES.
bTime 1 only.
Standardized Coefficients for Multigroup Path Models.
Note. T1 = Time 1; T2 = Time 2; T3 = Time 3. AAPI-2 = Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory; CAPI = Child Abuse Potential Inventory, Abuse Scale. All models include time-varying SES covariate. * signifies pathways statistically different between Black and White parents; † pathway different between Black and White parents only significant at p = .07.
The model predicting CAPI Abuse Scale scores demonstrated strong fit RMSEA = .000, CFI = 1.000, SRMR = .016. Although Black parents only demonstrated marginally stronger group affirmation scores in relation to lower CAPI scores, the inverse direction relative to White parents rendered this group difference statistically different at Time 1 (B = 3.01, p = .036). No significant effects were observed at Time 2 or 3.
The model predicting Observed Negative Parenting also demonstrated strong fit RMSEA = .000, CFI = 1.00, SRMR = .016. Black parents who reported stronger group identification at Time 1 were observed to demonstrate less negative parenting at Time 2 (ß = −.19, p = .036)—a path that marginally differed between groups (B = .04, p = .068). Furthermore, White parents who reported stronger group identification at Time 1 were observed to demonstrate more negative parenting at Time 3 (ß = .17, p = .016); Black parents—who displayed the inverse direction—were thus significantly different from White parents at Time 3 observed parenting (B = .039, p = .043).
Discussion
The current investigation considered the role of racial identification in relation to at-risk parenting and child abuse risk, particularly contrasting its role for Black versus White parents using a longitudinal and multimethod design. The findings provide preliminary support for the hypothesized protective role of greater racial identification for reduced at-risk parenting for Black mothers and fathers. In contrast, greater racial identification unexpectedly predicted more at-risk parenting for White parents based on at least one of the self-reports of child abuse risk and in observed negative parenting.
Black parents reported significantly stronger racial group identification than White parents, which was predictive of Black parents’ lower subsequent scores on one of the two child abuse risk measures and with lower observed negative parenting when their children were infants. In these highly controlled models that adjust for both socioeconomic status and stability in the outcome measures across time, these results are notable, particularly because they are not confounded by a cross-sectional design, limited to a single methodological approach, nor affected by observer bias during parent-child interaction coding because coders were blind to parents’ racial identification scores. These findings extend earlier literature implicating the beneficial effects of stronger racial identification for Black individuals (Hughes et al., 2015; Zapolski et al., 2019), which in turn prompts parents to engage in more racial socialization with their children (e.g., Thomas et al., 2010). Given the relative dearth of research on culture-specific protective factors, the current findings on racial identification highlight a potentially important element to promote for Black families and the need for additional research on how racial identification and racial socialization impact parenting behaviors.
However for White parents, greater racial group identification was concurrently associated with higher child abuse risk, significantly different, and in the inverse direction, of the protective effect observed for Black parents on both measures of child abuse risk. During infancy, the protective effect of greater racial identification observed for Black parents’ significantly differed from White parents on one of the measures of child abuse risk (AAPI-2) and was marginally different between groups on observed negative parenting. Significant group differences were again evident for the effect of greater racial identification among White parents on more observed negative parenting by the time children were toddlers. Note these group differences were typically apparent because of the inverse directions between groups for the effects of stronger racial identification.
Compared to the literature on racial identification, or racial socialization overall, for people of color (e.g., Huguley et al., 2019; Yip et al., 2022), relatively little work has examined the effects of racial identification of White individuals in general (see discussion in Wong & Cho, 2005) and White parents in particular. Indeed, much of that work inclusive of White identity is in reference to racial identification processes among biracial individuals (e.g., Csizmadia et al., 2014; Harris, 2018). Recent work, however, identified that White mothers who believed they had experienced more discrimination demonstrated consistently higher child abuse risk despite reporting substantially lower levels of discrimination experiences than Black mothers (Rodriguez et al., 2021). Our current findings extend this by indicating White parents who are more closely aligned to White identity evidence greater at-risk parenting. Contrary to people of color, the privileged status of White identity is often invisible to White Americans because they are not confronted with their race daily and assume positions of power and dominance (Coleman et al., 2021). Conceivably, White parents may thus believe they experience racism and perceive it as stressful (cf. Zhou et al., 2022) potentially as a consequence of a perceived threat to their hegemonic power status in America (Jardina, 2019), rendering them more inclined toward authoritarian, power-assertive parenting (see Rodriguez et al., 2021 for discussion). Apparently continued work is needed to clarify the underlying mechanisms in how in-group racial identification and perceptions of discrimination influence White individuals if indeed these racialized beliefs and processes are detrimental to their parenting.
Finally, controlling for socioeconomic status, Black parents obtained significantly higher scores than White parents on one of the measures of abuse risk (the Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory; AAPI) as well as observed negative parenting, consistent with earlier findings of racial group differences in child abuse risk (Combs-Orne, 2000; Rodriguez et al., 2021). However, no group differences were observed on the Child Abuse Potential Inventory (CAPI) upon controlling for SES. Indeed, fewer effects overall were observed for the CAPI–the most frequently used measure of child abuse risk (Milner, 1986). These findings suggest that the CAPI may be particularly sensitive to socioeconomic disparities, and has been previously linked with lower income, lower levels of education, and community-level poverty (Merritt, 2009). SES was significantly related to child abuse risk, consistent with assertions that observed racial group differences in rates of child abuse may be confounded by SES (Merritt, 2009; Putnam-Hornstein et al., 2013). Studies using the CAPI should thus explicitly consider the potential influence of SES in their findings. Others have further questioned the utility of the AAPI particularly with low-income samples (Lawson et al., 2017) and others have observed racial group differences in how Black individuals approach self-reporting on their parenting (Pérez & Hetherington, 2014). But controlling for SES statistically does not fully resolve racial disparity concerns (see Palloni & Morenoff, 2001) because marginalized groups experience systemic inequities in lived experiences that cannot be eliminated statistically. Furthermore, the NICHD (1999) system utilized in this study to code parent-child interactions was developed with a predominantly White, middle-class sample which may contain embedded biases about what is construed as sensitive parenting, with some arguing for more culturally appropriate approaches to observed parenting behavior (see Woodhouse et al., 2020 for discussion). Note that Black parents must consider unique threats in raising their children to prepare them to enter multiple, marginalized settings (Patton, 2017; Silveira et al., 2020). Black parents experience considerably more worry in response to their children’s behavior (Rodriguez et al., 2021; Vines & Baird, 2009), and engage in both supportive and context-specific emotional socialization strategies with their children (Dunbar et al., 2016), distinguishing Black parenting from White parenting. Collectively, these findings suggest that the assessment of Black parenting needs continued advancement to accurately capture the nuances of what may constitute at-risk parenting for these communities.
Limitations and Future Directions
Several limitations are worth considering to guide future empirical inquiry. The current investigation should be replicated with a larger sample size that could further consider multiple racial socialization processes simultaneously and subdivided by groups that adopt multiple, intersectional identities. Additional strengths from which Black parents may draw upon (e.g., religiosity; collective efficacy from strong social cohesion in their communities; McLoyd, 2019) should also be examined in future research in the continuing effort to identify protective factors rather than solely risk factors. But additional risk factors should also be considered, including the experience of racial traumatic stress, which could interfere with positive racial identification and associated racial socialization practices. Indeed, future research with larger samples could also consider interactive effects to determine whether the presumptive protective factors serve to reduce the adverse impact of the strains commonly associated with at-risk parenting. Racial identification was also assessed only prenatally in the current study, which enabled more predictive relations to be examined later in the study. However, this approach presumed stability in racial identification although tracking changes in parents’ racial identification and associated racial socialization processes across time would also be ideal to determine whether shifts in these factors influence changes in parenting practices (cf. Willis & Neblett, 2020). Parents from our study were drawn from a city that has relatively high rates of racial segregation (Birmingham, Alabama, USA), and thus the current findings should be evaluated in other regions of the country, with potentially greater attention to the role of neighborhood-level factors. Other markers that could be relevant covariates or moderators, such as family structure, could be considered in future work. Additionally, Black parents were considerably younger than White parents, but age was collinear with SES; a research design that matched groups by parent age could parse the role of developmental differences in parenting. Future work should also consider racial identification for other parents of color (e.g., Asian, Latinx) to determine whether similar protective effects are observed for these parent groups.
Researchers and clinicians alike should be cautious in drawing conclusions from assessment approaches that do not adequately incorporate the potential contributing role of socioeconomic factors or consider embedded biases. Given the potential positive effects of racial identification noted for Black parents on their parenting, this protective factor would appear to be uniquely beneficial to incorporate into culturally informed parenting prevention and intervention programs. However, when working with White parents, efforts to redirect such attitudes and mitigate the adverse effects of in-group affiliation and biases may be more relevant. As the country continues to grapple with the consequences of systemic racism, identifying the strengths to promote for marginalized communities remains a critical priority.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
We thank our participating families and participating Obstetrics/Gynecology clinics that facilitated recruitment.
Declaration of conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by award number R15HD071431 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
Disclaimer
The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development or the National Institutes of Health.
