Markers of In-Group Belonging and Academic Outcomes

Minority boys are at risk of academic disengagement. Prior research documents that an aspect of racial-ethnic identity, in-group connection, can buffer against this risk, but that in-group connection is undermined in high-risk neighborhoods. We examined another way that boys may feel connected to the in-group, by looking like in-group members. We hypothesize that physical markers of in-group membership can serve to improve boys’ sense of belongingness, thereby facilitating their engagement in school. We tested our model with low-income, high-risk African American (Study 1, n5 102) and Latino (Study 2, n5 66) teens. Hierarchical regression supported our model; dark skin tone was a protective factor (and light skin tone a risk factor) for African American boys, and feeling that one looks Latino was a protective factor (and feeling that one does not look Latino a risk factor) for Latino boys’ grades, in-class behavior, and school engagement. Mediational analyses suggest that markers of belongingness have their impact via peer-group choice. Emerging research evidence across multiple samples points to the role of racial-ethnic identity in promoting academic success (Altschul, Oyserman, & Bybee, 2006) and engagement (Oyserman, Gant, & Ager, 1995). This research suggests an equally positive role for racial-ethnic identity for boys and girls (for a review, see Oyserman, Brickman, & Rhodes, in press). Yet African American and Latino boys are much less likely to graduate on time than African American or Latino girls (Orfield, Losen, Wald, & Swanson, 2004). Why might this be? One possibility is that African American and Latino boys do not value school as much as African American and Latino girls. This possibility is not supported by the available evidence. Indeed, African American and Latino boys do value academic success—school is a central focus of their possible selves (Oyserman, Johnson, & Bybee, 2006). Another possibility is that the components of racial-ethnic identity that matter most differ between boys and girls. There is some reason to believe that the social-connectedness aspect of racial-ethnic identity is more crucial for boys. Generally, whereas girls value personal relationships, connection to groups is particularly important to boys (Baumeister & Sommer, 1997); boys are more likely than girls to use social group membership as the basis for self-definition (Grace & Cramer, 2003). With regard to low-income African American and Latino boys, there is both evidence that boys attain more academic benefit from feeling connected to their racial-ethnic in-group than girls do (Oyserman, Bybee, & Terry, 2003) and evidence to suggest that boys’ sense of racial-ethnic connection is vulnerable to neighborhood context effects. Boys, but not girls, report lower sense of racial-ethnic in-group connection when they live in economically deprived neighborhoods (Oyserman, Bybee, & Dai, 2006). Given the possibility that boys generally value group membership but that economic deprivation makes it harder for African American and Latino boys to feel a positive sense of in-group connection, we asked if it was easier for some boys than others to hold on to this sense of connection. Specifically, we investigated the role of physical markers of in-group belonging, hypothesizing that thesemarkers can buffer boys against academic risk. We refer to markers of belonging to make the point that markers can provide evidence of fit with the in-group and allow for pursuit of personal goals (e.g., school success). Individuals who lack clear physical markers of belonging, we argue, are more likely than others to pursue belongingness through behaviors perceived as in-group syntonic. A number of literatures have used the termmark ormarked in different ways. The stigma literature has used the word mark to mean blemish or flaw (Goffman, 1963). The linguistics literature has used the word marked to mean tagged or different from the main category. From an insider perspective, however, markers can be markers of belonging, rather than exclusion. We focus on markers as inclusion signals. No matter how they self-identify, boys who feel they do not look like an in-group member may be concerned that other people will misperceive them (Baynes, 1997). Their racialAddress correspondence to Daphna Oyserman, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1248, e-mail: [email protected]. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE 854 Volume 17—Number 10 Copyright r 2006 Association for Psychological Science ethnic identity may be continually challenged by in-group members suspicious of their heritage or belongingness (Graham & Juvonen, 2002). For example, skin tone has been a focus of ingroup boundary marking for African Americans, perhaps because of an assumption that light skin tone connotes lack of racial purity whereas dark skin tone is more ‘‘real’’ (Keenan, 1996; Wade, 1996). For Latinos, need for in-group support may be intensified by migration stress, because the majority of lowincome American Latinos are immigrants or of first-generation Mexican heritage (U.S. Census Bureau, 1993), and according to segmented assimilation theory, feeling identified with the ingroup is an important psychosocial resource that facilitates successful competition in other domains (e.g., school; Lopez, 2003). Moreover, low-income African American and Latino youths are likely to live in neighborhoods where a single racialethnic in-group is the dominant group (Iceland, Weinberg, & Steinmetz, 2002). The combination of a low-income context and racial segregation reduces possible group memberships—if one does not fit in with one’s racial-ethnic group, there are unlikely to be many alternative social identities to engage. MALE ADOLESCENTS’ SOCIAL IDENTITYAND OUTCOMES Adolescents seek to move beyond childhood identities and to establish a sense of the person they will become (reconstructing their answers to the ‘‘who am I?’’ and ‘‘how do I fit in?’’ questions; Erikson, 1968). Because boys look to social groups for belongingness (Baumeister & Sommer, 1997), racial-ethnic social identity is likely to provide an important anchor for them (Quintana, 1998). Looking like an in-group member facilitates this process; feeling unambiguously connected to an important social group should free boys to focus on their future or possible selves. According to social-identity theory, feeling part of one’s in-group should be positively reinforcing (Tajfel & Turner, 1986); nonprototypical physical appearance may challenge this connection, leading boys to seek other means of enacting this important social identity. For adolescent boys, alternative enactment of social identity is likely to involve toughness and not focusing on school (Pollack, 1998). A physical attribute studied among adolescent boys of low socioeconomic status (SES) is having a ‘‘baby face’’: those with a baby face are more likely to be involved in delinquent behavior than their equally attractive but more averagely mature-looking peers (Zebrowitz, Andreoletti, Collins, Lee, & Blumenthal, 1998). The assumption is that baby-faced adolescent boys engage in delinquent activities in an attempt to undermine the perception that they are childlike and not tough (Zebrowitz & Montepare, 1992). With regard to physical attributes connecting boys to their male identity in the context of race-ethnic identity, we were able to find a qualitative study examining enactment of masculinity among low-SES young men. This study suggests both that toughness is valued as a way of expressing autonomous masculinity and that these young men derive a sense of belonging from membership in racial-ethnic groups (Fine, Weis, Addelston, & Marusza, 1997). We propose that physical markers of race-ethnicity may be particularly important for low-SES teenage boys seeking to create a male identity in the context of race-ethnicity. The notion that racial-ethnic membership can be enacted via behaviors antithetical to school success is implied in ethnographies exploring what teens think it means to enact their racialethnic identity (e.g., to ‘‘act Black’’; Cousins, 1999). A number of qualitative studies have identified acting Black with particular dress, style, and music, as well as with lack of cooperation with teachers (Cousins, 1999). Similarly for Latino males, acting Latino includes enacting behaviors that undermine school success—being in a gang, not finishing high school, having children in early adolescence, and leaving school to support family members (E.B. Moje and students, personal communication, March 2005). MARKERS OF SOCIAL IDENTITYAND INCREASED RISK OF POOR SCHOOL PERFORMANCE Group members are expected to adhere to in-group behavioral norms (Arroyo & Zigler, 1995), which provide a way to fit in. As noted, group norms associated with race-ethnicity shape the way that students view school-related behavior. To the extent that misbehaving is associated with acting Black or acting Latino, boys concerned about whether they fit in with their racial-ethnic group are at risk of disengaging from school and school-focused peers and of adopting behaviors that lead to problems in school, whether or not they wish to do well in school personally. Among all racial-ethnic groups, low-income male students who try to succeed in school are frequently taunted as ‘‘nerds’’ (Farrell, 1994). Nerds do what their teachers ask them to do; they are compliant and, therefore, neither masculine nor cool (Farrell, 1994). Whereas in middle-class contexts, successful students can dilute the stigma of compliance with adults through success or leadership in other activities, these alternatives are less likely in high-poverty schools (Farrell, 1994). To fit in and avoid being considered a nerd, a boy is likely to employ various forms of impression management—including reducing extent of focus on and effort in schooling. For low-income boys, acting tough and not focusing effort on school may be seen as ways of enacting racial-ethnic identity. Indeed, girls and boys identify behaviors associated with good students (e.g., paying attention in class) as more female than male (Heyman, 2001). African American boys and girls rate African American boys as more likely to be aggressive (Graham & Juvonen, 2002) and tough than to be good or well behaved (Rodkin, Farmer, Pearl, & Van Acker, 2000). When asked to predict the race-ethnicity and gender of low-performing students, Hispanic teens nominate Hispanic boys (Graham, 2001; Hudley & Graham, 2001). Volume 17—Number 10 855 D. Oyserman et al.