University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The egocentric social networks of Black adolescents and sources of racial socialization messages

(USC Thesis Other)

The egocentric social networks of Black adolescents and sources of racial socialization messages

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Copyright 2023 Emily N. Satinsky

THE EGOCENTRIC SOCIAL NETWORKS OF BLACK ADOLESCENTS AND SOURCES
OF RACIAL SOCIALIZATION MESSAGES

by

Emily N. Satinsky, M.Sc.

A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC DORNSIFE COLLEGE OF LETTERS, ART,S AND SCIENCES
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF ARTS
(CLINICAL SCIENCE)

August 2023

ii

Acknowledgments
First, I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Chardée Galán, for her guidance throughout
this project, as well as my other committee members, Dr. Stanley Huey, Jr., Dr. David Schwartz,
and Dr. Alison Culyba, for vital consultation and feedback. Second, this project would not have
been possible without Isaac Morales’s project coordination, Mythili Iyer’s support with data
cleaning, and other DREAM Lab team members who supported study recruitment,
administration, and data collection: Taryn Buford, Eduardo Carreon, KC Aldana, Asha
Rudrabhatla, Adrelys Mateo Santana, Elayne Zhou, Minjee Park, Janeil Bennett, Wen-Hsin Kuo,
Andrea Manzur, Abigail Gyimah, Keyrin Velasquez, Kaia Sheean, Elle Yokota, Mia Fong, and
David Quezada. I also appreciate members of the Huey Lab, including Katie Galbraith and
Regina Brodell, for providing feedback during the early stages of this project. Additionally,
Alexander Riley and Dr. Jacquelin Rankine at the University of Pittsburgh willingly shared their
time and resources as I learned to clean egocentric social network data in Stata and prepare
network visualizations in ORA-LITE. Similarly, Dr. Thomas Valente and Dr. Alexander Tsai
inspired my interest in social network analysis, oriented me to social network theories and
techniques, and consulted on this project. Next, I am grateful for the constant feedback and
encouragement from my family and USC Clinical Science cohort. I also want to acknowledge
the USC Department of Psychology for funding phase 1 of this study (PI: Emily N. Satinsky)
and the MADRES Center for Environmental Health Disparities for funding phase 2 (NIMHD
grant #P50MD015705, PI: Dr. Chardée Galán). Lastly, I would like to thank all the families who
participated in the Support Net study. This project would not have been possible without them
graciously sharing their experiences and insights.
iii

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments………………………………………………………………………………...ii
List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………………...v
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………...vi
Chapter 1: Introduction…………………..……………………………………………………..…1
1.1. Aim 1…………………………………………………………………………………..7
1.2. Aim 2…………………………………………………………………………………..7
Chapter 2: Methods…………………………………………..……………………………………8
2.1. Participants…………………………………………………………………………….8
2.2. Recruitment……………………………………………………………………………8
2.3. Phase 1 Procedures………………………………………………………………….....9
2.4. Phase 2 Procedures…………………………………………………………………...10
2.5. Measures……………………………………………………………………………...11
2.5.1. Demographics (phases 1 and 2)…………………………………………………11
2.5.2. Social Network Interview (phase 1 and modified version in phase 2)………….11
2.5.3. Social Network Interview Acceptability (phase 2)……………………………...13
2.6. Ethical Approval………………………………………………………………….......13
2.7. Data Analysis………………………………………………………………………...13
2.7.1. Aim 1…………………………………………..………………………………..13
2.7.2. Aim 2……………………………………………………………………………14
2.8. Research Team and Reflexivity……………………………………………………...15
Chapter 3: Results………..………………………………………………………………………17
3.1. Aim 1……………………….………………………………………………………...17
3.1.1. Overview………………………………………………………………………...17
3.1.2. Focus Group……………………………………………………………………..17
3.1.3. Cognitive Interviews…………………………………………………….............18
3.1.4. Widened eligible age range……………………………………………………...20
3.1.5. Introduced follow-up prompts to elicit additional alters……………………...…21
3.1.6. Dropped and revised racial socialization items…………………………………21
3.2. Aim 2………………………………………………………………………………....22
3.2.1. Overview and demographic breakdown (Table 2).………………………….......22
3.2.2. Social network composition (Figure 1, Table 3…………………………………23
3.2.3. Social network structure and quality (Table 3)……………………….................26
3.2.4. RS messages across social networks (Tables 4 and 5).........................................26
3.2.5. Acceptability of social network interview…………………………....................34
Chapter 4: Discussion………..…………………………………………………………………..36
4.1. Future Directions………………………….........………………………….........…....38
4.2. Strengths………………………………………………………………………...........40
4.3. Limitations………………………………………………………………………........41
4.4. Conclusions………………………………………………………………………......43
iv

References………………………………………………………………………………………..44
Appendices………………………………………………………………………………….……51
Appendix A: Phase 2 Recruitment Flyer……………………………………............…...51
Appendix B: Original Social Network Interview Guide………………………...............52

v

List of Tables

Table 1. Summary of adaptations to study design and social network interview made in
response to focus group and cognitive interview feedback............................................19
Table 2. Demographic characteristics of adolescent participants, stratified by developmental
stage (early versus middle adolescence).........................................................................23
Table 3. Characteristics of adolescent participants’ social networks, stratified by
developmental stage (early versus middle adolescence)................................................25
Table 4. Sources of racial socialization messages across participants’ social networks,
stratified by alter race, gender, and age (adult versus minor), and participant
developmental stage (early versus middle adolescence) and gender..............................28
Table 5. Sources of racial socialization messages across participants’ social networks,
stratified by alter ecological context (immediate family, extended family, peer,
school, community), and participant developmental stage (early versus middle
adolescence) and gender.................................................................................................31

vi

Abstract
Racial socialization (RS) messages are protective against the negative impacts of racial
discrimination on Black adolescents’ mental health. Yet, research primarily focuses on parents as
sources of RS. This study applied an egocentric social network approach to define Black
adolescents’ support systems and identify sources of RS messages within these networks. Black
adolescents ages 10 to 14 in Los Angeles, California participated in a focus group and cognitive
interviews (N = 8) to provide feedback on a social network interview (phase 1). Following an
iterative adaptation process, 10-to-17-year-old Black adolescents (N =52) were recruited to
complete the modified social network interview (phase 2). Participants named up to 20 important
people in their lives (i.e., alters), described the quality of these relationships, noted the content of
RS messages provided by each alter, and indicated the extent to which each pair of alters knew
one another. The mean age of participants was 13.8 years (standard deviation [SD] = 2.71), and
65% (N = 34) were boys. Alters (M=11.6, SD=5.74) included immediate family members,
extended family members, peers, and supportive adults at school and in the community. Alters
across all ecological contexts provided RS messages, particularly those that focused on
preparation for bias and cultural socialization. Black alters, female alters, and adults were more
likely than non-Black alters, male alters, and minors to provide these messages. These findings
demonstrate a novel approach to studying RS and highlight a need to study the constellation of
RS messages provided to Black adolescents, across multiple sources.

1

The egocentric social networks of Black adolescents and sources of racial socialization
messages
Chapter 1: Introduction
Black adolescents face exceedingly high rates of racial discrimination, or unequal
treatment based on race. Past work estimated that nearly 90% of Black youth perceive at least
one racially discriminatory event per year (Seaton et al., 2009), yet recent research that
considers virtual encounters suggests that youth may experience as many as five instances of
racial discrimination per day (English et al., 2020). Through both direct and indirect
mechanisms, racial discrimination creates contexts for persistent marginalization and
negatively affects adolescent adjustment, health, and well-being (Benner et al., 2018; Brody
et al., 2006; Cave et al., 2020; Cooper et al., 2008). A substantial literature describes the
effects of racial discrimination on mental health outcomes. In the context of racism, youth
face increased risk of hopelessness, conduct problems, drug use, anxiety, depression, and
suicidal ideation (Assari et al., 2017; Brody et al., 2021; Priest et al., 2013; Sosoo et al., 2020;
Walker et al., 2017). Coupled with the pernicious effects of racism, youth also experience
marked increases in mental health problems during the transition to adolescence (Bor et al.,
2014). This is particularly concerning given underutilization of mental health services, as
well as pervasive structural barriers to mental health care access among Black youth and
families (Planey et al., 2019). Exposure to racial discrimination poses a public health
challenge to Black youth—there is a critical need to identify strategies to mitigate the
detrimental effects of racial discrimination within this population.
Culturally-specific influences are central in promoting resilience among Black youth.
During early adolescence, individuals gain increasing interest in their racial identity and
racial issues (Jackson III, 2012; Jones, 2018); this identity exploration may catalyze
conversations about race and racism (Umaña-Taylor & Hill, 2020). Racial socialization (RS),

2

or the process through which implicit and explicit messages about race and racism are
conveyed (Hughes et al., 2006; Yasui, 2015), has been found to disrupt pathways from racial
discrimination to mental health problems in Black adolescents (Hughes et al., 2006; Neblett
Jr. et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2020; Winchester et al., 2021). RS can be categorized into
multiple types based on the content of the messages: 1) preparation for bias messages teach
youth about racism and discrimination and equip youth with the skills needed to cope in these
situations; 2) cultural socialization messages emphasize racial pride, heritage and traditions;
and 3) egalitarian messages promote color-blind racial beliefs and encourage cultural
assimilation (Hughes et al., 2006; Umaña-Taylor & Hill, 2020).
Across these types of RS messages, associations with youth mental health remain
equivocal. A recent review of 259 empirical studies published between 2010 and 2020
synthesized findings on links between different RS messages and youth adjustment (Umaña-
Taylor & Hill, 2020). Cultural socialization messages had robust, positive associations with
racial identity, self-esteem, coping, and psychological well-being. For example, a meta-
analysis of four cross-sectional datasets found that parental cultural socialization predicted
adolescents’ ethnic-racial identity exploration and commitment. In turn, these factors
predicted fewer symptoms of depression (Nelson et al., 2018). This pathway reflects a well-
supported conceptual model whereby RS is associated with cultural assets (e.g., ethnic-racial
identity, cultural orientation), which subsequently promote youth adjustment and buffer the
negative effects of racial discrimination on mental health (Neblett Jr. et al., 2012). Findings
regarding preparation for bias messages, however, were more mixed. Some studies found
preparation for bias messages to be promotive of youth adjustment (Burt et al., 2012; Grindal,
2017), particularly in the context of supportive interpersonal relationships, while others found
null (Ferrari et al., 2015), context-dependent (Dunbar et al., 2015; Lambert et al., 2015), or
negative associations (Liu & Lau, 2013). Inconsistencies in the literature are likely due to

3

variation in the content of RS messages as well as limited research on egalitarian messages.
Furthermore, the tendency to examine each facet of RS in isolation limits us from attaining a
nuanced understanding of the specific combinations of messages that confer protection.
Despite these findings, RS is generally considered a cultural asset for Black adolescents
(Cheeks et al., 2020; Evans et al., 2012; Grills et al., 2016; Neblett Jr. et al., 2012).
While evidence indicates protective effects of certain combinations of RS messages
on the mental health of Black adolescents, the extant literature has disproportionately focused
on RS messages provided by parents (Peck et al., 2014; Priest et al., 2014; Umaña-Taylor &
Hill, 2020). This may further contribute to inconsistencies in the RS literature. By focusing
only on RS messages provided by parents, without consideration of other potentially
important influences, studies may be obscuring associations between parents’ RS messages
and youth adjustment. Some emerging literature has focused on other sources of RS
messages, including non-parental family members (Sanders Thompson, 1994; Stevenson et
al., 2005), peers (Nelson et al., 2018; Wang & Benner, 2016), teachers (Aldana & Byrd,
2015), and community members (Jones, 2018). A retrospective study of Black emerging
adults ages 19 to 25, for example, looked at multiple RS agents (Jones, 2018). Participants
were provided with a list of socialization agents that included parents, peers, community
leaders, American media, and Black media, among others. They were asked to rank these
agents in order of how much they shaped their identity as a Black person at three
developmental timepoints: early adolescence, late adolescence, and emerging adulthood.
Participants then reported the content of RS messages provided by the top three ranked agents
using the Racial Socialization Questionnaire – Teen (RSQ-t) (Lesane-Brown et al., 2006).
Findings indicated that RS messages from parents, siblings, and adult family members
exerted the greatest influence on racial identity development throughout early and late

4

adolescence. However, the role of RS messages provided by same-race peers became more
salient to participants’ Black identity as they approached adulthood (Jones, 2018).
Despite select studies focused on non-parental RS agents, the broader network of RS
messages to which Black adolescents are exposed has been largely neglected in the literature,
including messages provided via social ties across family, school, and community contexts.
This is concerning given that extra-familial relationships become increasingly influential as
children approach adolescence (Leventhal et al., 2009; Roach, 2018; Steinberg & Monahan,
2007). Additionally, while Black youth are more likely to be raised by their grandparents
compared to youth of other races, little is known about the RS messages provided by Black
grandparents (Murry & Lippold, 2018; Peterson, 2018). Identifying multiple, simultaneous
sources of RS messages at multiple ecological levels is vital to establishing a more
comprehensive socio-ecological model of resilience for Black adolescents. By understanding
the nature of adolescents’ support systems, we can elucidate the complex flow of RS
messages through these networks.
The present study leverages social network analysis to characterize the social
networks through which Black youth receive RS messages. Social network analysis provides
a powerful set of tools that have been channeled to make sense of relationship structures and
patterns (Christakis & Fowler, 2009; Marin & Wellman, 2011), examine the influence of
multiple simultaneous social relationships on health and behavior (Christakis & Fowler,
2012; Smith & Christakis, 2008), and describe how networks may confer protection (Nevard
et al., 2021; Valente, 2010). Social network studies typically comprise either sociocentric
(whole population) or egocentric approaches. In egocentric social network studies, the
participants (hereafter referred to as “egos”) report on the individuals in their social
environment (hereafter referred to as “alters”). These studies begin with one or more name
generator questions (Campbell & Lee, 1991). In response to name generators, participants list

5

the names of salient people in their lives (e.g., those who provide emotional support; those
with whom they discuss important matters). Subsequent questions probe for additional
information about each relation: the alters’ sociodemographic characteristics; the frequency
of communication; the strength of the tie; and the content of communication (Burt, 1984).
Finally, egos report on the degree to which each pair of alters know one another (alter-alter
ties) (Burt, 1984; Marsden, 1987).
Research from the last several decades have repeatedly demonstrated robust
associations between individuals’ social network composition and behavior change (Rogers
& Kincaid, 1981; Valente, 1995), as indicated in research on reproductive health practices
(Comfort et al., 2021), substance use (Christakis & Fowler, 2008; Ennett et al., 2006;
Rosenquist et al., 2010), and violence (Bond & Bushman, 2017). Several tools are used to
measure the composition of egocentric networks; these indicators have important
implications for the ego. Compositional measures provide a basic summary of network size,
distribution (e.g., mean age of alters, proportion kin versus non-kin), and tie strength. While
smaller networks reduce the risk of disease transmission or other negative external pressures,
they also limit social capital and access to care. The degree to which individuals are exposed
to certain messages, beliefs, or behaviors (i.e., network exposure) also influences information
transmission and behavior change. The more alters in a network who engage in a specific
activity, the more likely the ego is to do or be influenced by the same thing (Valente & Saba,
1998). Finally, while weak ties communicate information, strong ties are necessary for actual
behavior change, particularly for complex or consequential targeted behaviors.
In addition to characterizing the composition of egocentric networks, it is also
possible to assess the diversity of ego and alter characteristics using variance measures, such
as homophily and heterogeneity. Homophily assesses the extent to which egos affiliate with
socio-demographically similar alters. There is a strong tendency for people to associate with

6

people who share certain demographic characteristics, values, beliefs, or behaviors (Valente,
2010); homophily across these attributes can facilitate the spread of beliefs or behaviors
within a network. However, at the same time, homophily limits opportunities for new ideas to
enter a network. Heterogeneity, another measure of variance, assesses the degree of similarity
between alters, irrespective of the ego’s own attributes. Individuals with heterogeneous
networks are exposed to a greater diversity of ideas and experiences. Finally, data on alter-
alter ties can be used to assess network density. A dense network with high interconnectivity
between alters provides reinforcement for norms and behaviors and can protect against
outside influence or risk (Valente, 2010).
While social network analysis comprises well-established techniques that have been
harnessed to examine the simultaneous influence of multiple social relations on health and
behavior, this approach has not yet been applied to the study of RS phenomenon. An
egocentric social network approach has the potential to elucidate salient social ties in Black
adolescents’ social networks (e.g., family members, teachers, peers, neighbors), as well as the
multiple sources of RS messages in these networks. There is an outstanding need to develop,
pilot test, and adapt a RS-focused social network interview guide that is relevant and
appropriate for use with Black adolescents. Such a guide can thereby be used to assess the
composition of Black adolescents’ social networks; patterns of exposure to RS messages
within these networks; and ultimately, potential moderating effects of RS network structures
on adolescent mental health in the context of racial discrimination.
The present study builds on a developmental psychopathology framework in which
Black adolescents are considered within the context of their proximal and broader ecology. It
addresses limitations in the RS literature by examining the constellation of RS messages
provided to Black adolescents from multiple, simultaneous sources. A formative focus group
and cognitive interviews allowed participants to guide the adaptation of a social network

7

interview guide. Following adaptations, the revised interview guide was administered to
Black adolescents, marking the first study to apply theories and tools from social network
analysis to identify RS messages across Black adolescents’ social support networks. This
study was guided by two primary aims:
1.1. Aim 1: Elicit feedback during a focus group and cognitive interviews with 10-to-14-
year-old Black adolescents to adapt a racial socialization-focused social network interview
guide. During phase 1, participant input regarding the clarity, structure, and length of the
social network interview was obtained during a focus group and cognitive interviews (Beatty
& Willis, 2007). Participant feedback and response patterns were reviewed iteratively to
identify areas of the interview guide that required adaptation.
1.2. Aim 2: Describe the structure and quality of Black adolescents’ racial socialization
networks across family, school, and community contexts. During phase 2, the adapted social
network interview guide was administered to Black adolescents to characterize participants’
egocentric social networks, as well as the sources of RS messages across these networks.
The central hypothesis guiding this research was that Black adolescents would report
multiple sources of RS messages across proximal and distal ecological contexts. Further,
based on prior research (Jones, 2018), we expected that adolescents who reported that most
alters were also Black/African American (race/ethnicity homophily) and adolescents who
primarily named adult alters (e.g., parents and other supportive adults) would have greater RS
network exposure than adolescents who named fewer Black/African American and more non-
adult alters.

8

Chapter 2: Methods
2.1. Participants
This study took place in Los Angeles (LA), California. Participants for phase 1
included English-speaking adolescents between the ages of 10 and 14 who identified as
Black/African American, regardless of whether they identified with one or more other
racial/ethnic group. Since engagement with the study required sustained attention, mental
processing, and comprehension, participants with a learning disability, intellectual disability,
or pervasive developmental disorder were excluded. There were no exclusion criteria
regarding adolescents’ gender. Only one adolescent per family was eligible for participation.
Eligibility criteria were consistent for phase 2. However, based on feedback from the focus
group and cognitive interviews conducted during phase 1 (described in Chapter 3), the
eligible age range was expanded to include adolescents between the ages of 10 and 17.
2.2. Recruitment
For phase 1 of the study, we recruited participants for a focus group. A subset of the
focus group participants – i.e., those who were actively engaged during the discussion – were
invited back to participate in cognitive interviews. These interviews were conducted to obtain
more detailed feedback on the social network interview. For phase 2 of the study, we
recruited a new sample of adolescents. Participation in the focus group or a cognitive
interview excluded individuals from participating in phase 2.
Three recruitment strategies were used during both phases of the study. First, we
posted flyers throughout the community (phase 2 flyer included in Appendix A). These were
posted in several locations, including coffee shops, gas stations, community centers, places of
worship, beauty salons, barbershops, and public transportation hubs. We primarily posted
recruitment materials in South LA, as this area has the highest proportion of Black residents
in LA County. Second, we reached out to LA-based youth-serving agencies and community

9

groups asking them to distribute the recruitment flyer and a blurb about the study to their
listservs. Some organizations invited us to attend and recruit at community events. Third, we
recruited participants through the University of Southern California (USC) Leslie and
William McMorrow Neighborhood Academic Initiative (NAI), a well-developed college
access and success program in South and East LA. Neighborhood residents who attend
partner schools in the community are eligible for this program beginning in 6
th
grade, and
they enroll close to 1,000 students annually. Participating schools have high enrollment of
racialized ethnic minority adolescents. The NAI and associated leadership referred families
and distributed information through multiple formats. To bolster recruitment during phase 2,
we established a referral program. After completing the study, adolescent participants and
their primary caregivers were provided with flyers to distribute to their friends. For each
family referred to the study, up to a maximum of three, participants received $5. Thus,
participants could receive up to $15 for referrals.
Interested families emailed or called the lab using the information provided in the
recruitment materials (e.g., flyers, emails). We provided any parent who expressed interest
with a brief description of the study. If they remain interested, we continued with a brief
phone screen to determine eligibility. This took place via verbal assessment of inclusion
criteria. Adolescents deemed eligible were scheduled for a study assessment.
2.3. Phase 1 Procedures
To elicit feedback on the social network interview guide, we conducted one remote
focus group via Zoom. This meeting allowed us to collect broad feedback in a time-efficient
manner. Following an informed consent and assent process, parents left the meeting for the
duration of the focus group. We then walked participants through the proposed social
network interview. The name generator and questions were read aloud, and participants were
invited to share their interpretation and potential responses. Throughout, we asked

10

participants to provide input on the social network interview process. The focus group lasted
approximately 90-minutes and was audio-recorded and transcribed for research purposes.
Participants were compensated $45 for their time.
A subset of the focus group participants were selected to participate in one-on-one
cognitive interviews, during which we pilot tested and elicited feedback on the social network
interview guide. One interview took place via Zoom while the others were conducted in
person at USC’s University Park Campus. In person interviews took place in private office
space. Parents waited in a separate room with another member of the research team. A white
noise machine was placed in the room with the parent to ensure that they could not hear their
child’s responses. Throughout each cognitive interview, we elicited feedback on the
participant’s interpretation of and thoughts on the name generator, questions, and response
options. At the end, we asked the participant for overall feedback on the interview (e.g.,
length, ability to sustain focus). Each cognitive interview lasted approximately 60-minutes
and was audio-recorded and transcribed for research purposes. Participants were
compensated $30 for participation, plus travel reimbursement (e.g., mileage, Uber/Lyft).
2.4. Phase 2 Procedures
After adapting the social network interview guide based on participant feedback in
phase 1, we recruited adolescent participants for phase 2. Following an informed consent and
assent process, participants moved to a private room with a trained research assistant.
Primary caregivers stayed in a different room with another member of the research team.
Using REDCap, research assistants administered a demographic survey, the social network
interview, and an acceptability measure to the participants. Each question was read aloud.
Study visits lasted between two and three hours; however, this estimate includes time allotted
to other visit procedures that are not described here (i.e., additional surveys for adolescents
and their primary caregivers, adolescent-caregiver discussion tasks). After completing the

11

measures, adolescent participants were compensated $50 for their time. Families also
received a resource list and were reimbursed for any travel expenses (e.g., mileage,
Uber/Lyft).
For all study procedures, we worked with families to identify appointment times that
best fit their schedule. Leading up to the appointments (focus group, cognitive interviews, or
survey appointments), we sent reminder messages to participating families via phone call,
text, or email, depending on preference. In addition to providing travel reimbursement, we
also provided childcare services to families, as needed.
2.5. Measures
2.5.1. Demographics (phases 1 and 2). Adolescent participants completed a
demographic questionnaire at the beginning of the focus group and cognitive interviews
(phase 1) and prior to completing the social network interview (phase 2). Participants
reported their age, gender, race, ethnicity, school grade, and the number of people living in
their household. They also reported on their parents’ education and immigration status.
Finally, participants reported if there was enough money in the household to pay for the
following: food, transportation costs (e.g., gasoline, bus tickets), utilities, school expenses
(e.g., notebooks, books, computer), clothing the participant needs, clothing the participant
wants, and leisure activities. For each question, participants responded on a 5-point scale
from 0 = “Never ” to 4 = “Always.” They could also report “do not know.” An average score
was calculated across the seven items. Demographic data were used to characterize the
participants and assess the extent to which participants were socio-demographically similar to
the alters they identified.
2.5.2. Social Network Interview (phase 1 and modified version in phase 2). The
original social network interview began with one name generator, used to generate a list of up
to 20 alters in the ego’s network (Appendix B):

12

To start off, I want you to think about the people who play an important role in your
life. These might be people you turn to for emotional support, for information, or for
help getting things done. I am interested in learning about people that you know and
who know you. For example, these could be people in your family, friends, coaches,
or neighbors. I am also interested in people that you spend a lot of time with, like
your teachers, regardless of whether you consider them to be ‘important’ to you.
These should be people you have had contact with sometime during the past 12
months, either face-to-face, by text, by phone, or online (including Zoom or social
media). You can name anyone you know, no matter who they are or where they live.
(Bidart & Charbonneau, 2011; Burt, 1984).

The ego reported each alter’s name (first name, last initial), relationship type (e.g., sister,
coach), age (estimate if unknown), gender, and race/ethnicity.
After the researcher recorded the list of alters, they asked the ego a series of questions
for each alter: frequency of interactions, mode of interactions (i.e., in-person, virtual, both),
and strength of the relationship (i.e., tie strength). To assess tie strength, the researcher asked
the ego to report how much they trust the alter and how close they feel to the alter on scales
from 1 to 10 (Asim et al., 2019).
Next, 10 items from Hughes and Chen’s Racial Socialization scale (Hughes & Chen,
1997) and the RSQ-t (Lesane-Brown et al., 2006) were used to assess the frequency with
which the ego received RS messages in the past 12 months from each respective alter. Items
were differentiated based on the content of socialization messages: 1) preparation for bias
messages that conveyed the possibility that adolescents may face greater challenges because
of their race, and which provided recommendations to cope with race-related challenges; 2)
cultural socialization messages that emphasized racial pride and highlighted positive aspects
of one’s racial background; and 3) egalitarian messages that either denied the existence of
racism or emphasized interracial equality and harmony.
After answering the RS questions for each alter, the ego proceeded to the final section
of the social network interview. They were asked to think about the relationships between the
alters listed. For each pair of alters, they reported the degree to which the two alters knew one

13

another using a 4-point scale from 0 = “They do not know one another” to 3 = “They know
one another and are very close.” If the ego was unsure about the nature of the alter-alter tie,
they were permitted to report “do not know.”
Notably, participants in phase 2 of the study were administered an updated version of
the social network interview. This version included modifications guided by participant
feedback during phase 1. As described in Chapter 3, this version was similar to the original
interview in several ways; however, it only included seven items to assess RS messages
(rather than 10). Many of these seven items were revised from the original version.
2.5.3. Social Network Interview Acceptability (phase 2). Participants completed a
brief acceptability measure after completing the social network interview. Three multiple
choice questions were included to assess if the interview was “easy to complete,” if the
“instructions…were difficult to understand,” and if it was “quick to complete.” Each of these
items was on a 5-point Likert scale from “Strongly disagree” to “Strongly agree.” A final
question prompted participants to review a printed copy of the social network interview.
Following a review of the interview guide, participants provided open-ended feedback on
questions that they thought could be re-worded to improve clarity and acceptability.
2.6. Ethical Approval
USC’s Institutional Review Board provided ethical approval for both phases of the
study.
2.7. Data Analysis
2.7.1. Aim 1. Elicit feedback during a focus group and cognitive interviews with 10-
to-14-year-old Black adolescents to adapt a racial socialization-focused social network
interview guide. For Aim 1, we iteratively reviewed participant feedback on the clarity,
structure, and length of the social network interview. We also reviewed pilot social network
data collected during cognitive interviews to assess common response patterns (e.g., number

14

of alters listed, types of relationships and contexts considered). Throughout this review
process, we identified problems with the social network interview and made appropriate
adaptations. Adaptations were made on an ongoing basis so that participants engaged in
subsequent cognitive interviews were exposed to the updated interview guide. This allowed
us to elicit feedback on recent changes and identify areas for further refinement.
2.7.2. Aim 2. Describe the structure and quality of Black adolescents’ racial
socialization networks across family, school, and community contexts. For Aim 2, we
computed descriptive statistics to characterize adolescent respondents’ egocentric social
networks. We calculated the total number of unique alters named per network, as well as the
mean number of alters and its standard deviation. We also calculated average closeness (1-
10) and average trust (1-10) across all alters in each network. When developing the network
visualizations, the closeness score for each ego-alter tie was rescaled: not very close = 1-4,
somewhat close = 5-7, and very close = 8-10. This allowed us to 1) match the scale between
the ego-alter and alter-alter ties in the network and 2) maintain consistency in the weight of
the edges in the network visualizations.
We then calculated the proportion of the network that comprised each group of alters
(i.e., immediate family alters, extended family alters, peer alters, school alters, and
community alters). For example, when calculating the proportion of the network that included
extended family alters, we divided the total number of alters named from the extended family
(i.e., grandparents, aunts/uncles, cousins) by the total number of alters named across all
ecological contexts. Finally, we calculated the percent of adolescent participants who named
each individual type of alter (e.g., percent of participants who named a father, percent of
participants who named a teacher). To assess homophily between the ego and alters, we
calculated the proportion of the alters who were also minors and also Black/African
American. Additionally, we calculated network homogeneity, or the degree of similarity

15

between the alters, irrespective of the ego’s own attributes. We calculated heterogeneity for
the following alter attributes: age, gender, and race/ethnicity.
As the first investigation of Black adolescents’ RS networks, we calculated the
proportion of alters in an ego’s network who provided each of the seven RS messages. The
proportion of network members providing each RS message was broken down by alter
race/ethnicity (percent of Black alters providing the message versus percent of non-Black
alters providing the message); alter gender (percent of female alters providing the message
versus percent of male alters providing the message); and alter age (percent of adult alters
providing the message versus percent of non-adult alters providing the message). We also
calculated the proportion of alters from each ecological context who provided each message
(e.g., percent of all school alters who provided the message).
Finally, using data on alter-alter connections, we calculated basic network
characteristics (Golbeck, 2013; Marsden, 2002), including the network-weighted density (i.e.,
number of ego-alter and alter-alter ties divided by the total possible number of ties) and the
clustering coefficient (number of alter-alter ties divided by the total possible number of alter-
alter ties).
Across the network analyses, we stratified findings by adolescents’ developmental
stage (early adolescence versus middle adolescence). When looking at the proportion of the
networks who provided each RS message, we also stratified by adolescents’ gender. Analyses
were conducted in Stata Version 16.
2.8. Research Team and Reflexivity
As a White cisgender woman conducting research on the sources of RS messages
among Black adolescents, it is important to acknowledge my positionality and potential
biases that may impact the study. Qualitative research methods allowed for feedback from
individuals with lived experience in the targeted demographic. This participant feedback was

16

critical in ensuring that the social network interview was not influenced solely by my own
worldviews and was instead responsive to the needs and experiences of the participants.
These data were integrated into subsequent iterations of the social network interview and
larger study design to improve acceptability and appropriateness. Further, the study was
developed, coordinated, and conducted by a multidisciplinary and diverse team, including
individuals with varied gender identities and racial/ethnic backgrounds. Inclusion of
undergraduate research assistants, graduate students, and project staff with a range of
backgrounds and perspectives improved study design and development and fostered a more
comfortable and inclusive research environment for participants.

17

Chapter 3: Results
3.1. Aim 1. Elicit feedback during a focus group and cognitive interviews with 10-to-14-year-
old Black adolescents to adapt a racial socialization-focused social network interview guide.
3.1.1. Overview. Participant feedback collected during the focus group and cognitive
interviews was iteratively reviewed and integrated into the social network interview guide
and larger study design to ensure acceptability and appropriateness of the approach. The
focus group (N = 7 participants) took place in early April 2022, and the cognitive interviews
(N = 5) took place in late April and early May 2022. One cognitive interview participant was
unable to attend the focus group. Thus, the phase 1 sample included N = 8 Black adolescents
(n = 4 focus group + cognitive interview; n = 3 focus group only; n = 1 cognitive interview
only). Most participants were girls (n = 5, 62.5%), and the mean age was 11.6 years old
(standard deviation [SD] = 1.19).
3.1.2. Focus Group. The research team encountered several obstacles during the
administration of the focus group. COVID-19-related safety concerns and restrictions
precluded our ability to conduct the focus group in person. In particular, vaccination and
testing requirements at USC’s University Park Campus would have hindered some families
from attending. While the shift to Zoom allowed most interested participants to attend, it
raised other logistical barriers. Despite requests for participants to stay off mute and keep
their videos on, most participants kept their microphones and videos off during the focus
group, and other participants kept their faces out of the screen. Additionally, some
participants did not have a private space in the home from which to participate in the focus
group. One participant was in the car, one had a friend over, and a few were seated in
common spaces with other family members audible in the background. These barriers likely
amplified participants’ hesitancy to provide open responses to questions. To navigate privacy
concerns, some participants only responded to questions via Zoom chat. Although we initially

18

intended to hold additional focus groups, we decided that prioritizing in-person cognitive
interviews would provide more fruitful data.
Despite challenges during the focus group, participants provided useful feedback.
First, participants understood the name generator. Each participant was able to develop a list
of people they would include as alters and answer follow-up questions about these
individuals. Furthermore, prior to the focus group, we were unsure if the two tie strength
items would make sense to participants in this age range. We did not know if participants
would understand how to differentiate between how close they felt to each alter and how
much they trusted each alter. However, across these two items, participants provided different
ratings for a single alter. A 12-year-old girl, for example, elaborated that her trust rating was
lower than her closeness rating for a friend because she only met the friend last year and it
takes longer to build a trusting relationship.
3.1.3. Cognitive Interviews. A review of the focus group data guided adaptations to
the social network interview that were integrated into the cognitive interview script. As
compared to feedback provided during the focus group, participants were more forthcoming
with their responses during the interviews. The depth of data collected during the cognitive
interviews validated our decision to forgo additional focus groups.
Adolescents named between 5 and 9 alters with a mean of 7.40 (SD = 1.67). These
alters comprised parents (mothers, fathers), siblings (sisters, brothers), grandparents
(grandmothers, grandfathers), aunts, cousins, teachers, coaches, friends, a pastor, and a
family friend. Participants recalled specific race-related conversations that they engaged in
with their listed alters. This made the section with the RS items proceed smoothly. Finally,
participants had an easy time answering the alter-alter tie questions. While a few noted that
they had to guess how close different pairs of alters were to one another, they generally felt
confident in their responses. Throughout the cognitive interviews, participants reported that

19

the questions made sense and were easy to complete. They also noted that they were able to
maintain focus.
Specific feedback from the focus group, cognitive interviews, and pilot social network
data guided additional adaptations to the social network interview. Changes are outlined
below, with a full record provided in Table 1.
Table 1. Summary of adaptations to study design and social network interview made in
response to focus group and cognitive interview feedback.

Summary of Change Reason for Change Specific Adaptation
Changed eligible age
range
Younger focus group and cognitive interview
participants had difficulty completing the tasks
(providing feedback, maintaining focus).

Literature indicates shifts in racial identity, RS
processes, and sources of RS across early and
middle adolescence. The wider age range allowed
us to capture these nuances.

Decided to include older adolescents to allow
more robust social network data.
Increased age range for Aim 2 from 10-
to-14-years-old to 10-to-17-years-old.
Introduced follow-up
prompts to elicit
additional alters
Some cognitive interview participants mentioned
individuals in their lives who talked with them
about race and racism or shared media about
Black history but didn’t list these individuals as
alters.

Other cognitive interview participants
remembered people at the end of the interview
who they wanted to include.
Added the following prompt once
participants exhausted their initial list of
alters:

“I am also interested in people that you
spend a lot of time with, for example
teachers or religious leaders, regardless
of whether you consider them to be
‘important’ to you. Do you have any
more names?”

An additional script was developed to
probe for additional alters. This tool was
designed to be adaptive to the alter types
that participants had already named. For
example, if a participant had not named
any family members, research assistants
were prompted to probe for family
members.
Reduced number of
RS items from 7 to 10
Some participants shared that the social network
interview was long or that it was hard to maintain
focus.

Pilot testing showed limited variability in
responses to items 4, 5, and 8, and these items felt
less salient than some of the others.
Removed RS item 4, 5, and 8:

4. Over the past 12 months, how often did
[name] talk to you about the fight for
equality among Black people?
5. Over the past 12 months, how often did
[name] talk to you about Black history
or tell you that your cultural
background is important.
8. Over the past 12 months, how often did
[name] tell you that Black people and
White people should try to understand
each other so that they can get along?
Edited RS items 2 and
3
Some cognitive interview participants shared
messages they received on how to cope with racial
discrimination. Yet, original RS items did not
assess for preparation for bias messages that
focused on coping.
RS item 2 was adapted to include ideas
from the original RS item 3. RS item 3
was fully revised to assess for messages
about coping with racism:

20

Pilot testing showed limited variability in
response to original RS items 2 and 3. These items
seemed conceptually similar.

2. Over the past 12 months, how often did
[name] tell you that people might
dislike you or think they are better than
you because of your race, or that you
have to work twice as hard as White
people to get ahead?
3. Over the past 12 months, how often did
[name] tell you what to do or say if
you experience racism or racial
discrimination?

*Underlined text indicates changes to
existing items
Edited RS items 6 and
7
Follow-up questions during cognitive interviews
revealed that items 6 and 7 did not provide
adequate detail (or enough examples) to capture
cultural socialization messages.

Multiple participants mentioned receiving
messages specifically about their hair.
Revised items 6 and 7 to include
additional details and examples:

6. Over the past 12 months, how often did
[name] tell you that you should be
proud to be Black or that you should
never be ashamed of your Black
features such as your hair or the color
of your skin?
7. Over the past 12 months, how often did
you and [name] do something to
celebrate Black history, culture, or
traditions, such as celebrating Martin
Luther King Jr. Day or Kwanzaa or
cooking/eating traditional Black ethnic
or cultural foods?

*Underlined text indicates changes to
existing items
Edited RS items 9 and
10
Pilot testing, paired with our own assessment of
the original RS items, revealed potential
misinterpretations of these items.
Revised item 9 to encompass messaging
that racism may have existed in the past
but is no longer pervasive in the United
States. Revised item 10 to highlight
messaging about racial equity:

9. Over the past 12 months, how often
did [name] tell you that racism does
not exist or is a thing of the past?
10. Over the past 12 months, how often
did [name] tell you that all people in
the United States have an equal
opportunity to be successful,
regardless of race or ethnicity?

*Underlined text indicates changes to
existing items

3.1.4. Widened eligible age range. Because some of the younger age focus group
participants had difficulty providing feedback and maintaining focus during the focus group,
we decided to increase the age range from 10 to 14 to 10 to 17. This decision was also guided
by literature indicating shifts in racial identity, RS processes, and sources of RS messages
across adolescence (Jackson III, 2012; Jones, 2018; Umaña-Taylor & Hill, 2020). We
hypothesized that we would find interesting differences in the social networks of adolescents

21

in early versus middle adolescence, as well as differences in the type and sources of RS
messages received across the two developmental stages.
3.1.5. Introduced follow-up prompts to elicit additional alters. During the focus group, we
asked participants to write a list of people they would name in response to the name
generator. Several participants only wrote the names of immediate family members or close
friends. However, after additional prompting, participants added the names of other extended
family members and non-familial supportive adults such as teachers, coaches, and a pastor.
Some cognitive interview participants also remembered alters they should have named at the
end of the social network interview. Furthermore, at the beginning of the cognitive
interviews, a few participants shared information on the people in their life who talked with
them about race- related topics or celebrated Black culture. Some of these individuals were
not named as alters during the social network interview. For example, at the beginning of a
cognitive interview, one 11-year-old girl mentioned that her grandfather regularly shared
articles and videos that discussed the Black experience in the United States. Later on, she
noted that she did not list him as an alter because he lived far away, and she was only naming
people who lived close by. Concerned that the social network interview was not adequately
capturing the extent of network ties who may be providing RS messaging, we developed a
follow up prompt to encourage participants to consider other potential relations, including
those with whom contact primarily took place virtually. We also developed an adaptive script
to probe for additional alters.
3.1.6. Dropped and revised racial socialization items. Based on a review of the
pilot data and multiple iterative conversations, three items were removed to manage length.
Other items were revised substantially to either provide details, include examples, or clarify
potential misinterpretations. As an example, during the focus group and cognitive interviews,
some participants shared ways in which people in their social networks taught them how to

22

cope with experiences of racism and discrimination. When speaking about her mom and dad,
a 10-year-old girl shared during a cognitive interview, “they tell me to like, to just walk away
and ignore it because sometimes it’s not true and stuff.” A 14-year-old boy who participated
in the focus group commented on messages he received from his parents in response to police
brutality. He was told, “I should always listen to the police officer if I were ever like, you
know if I ever got pulled over…they tell me…I should you know…follow the police, like,
whatever they say…and always…act mature.” These qualitative reports prompted us to
reassess the RS items included in the original social network interview. While the first three
items assessed for one facet of preparation for bias (i.e., racial awareness), we barely assessed
for racial coping. Thus, in the final iteration of the social network interview guide, we
combined two of the racial awareness items and added a racial coping item.
3.2. Aim 2. Describe the structure and quality of Black adolescents’ racial socialization
networks across family, school, and community contexts.
3.2.1. Overview and demographic breakdown (Table 2). Fifty-two adolescent
participants completed the adapted social network interview between June 2022 and January
2023. Of these, 34 were boys (65.4%), 17 were girls (32.7%) and 1 was non-binary (1.92%).
The mean age was 13.8 years old (SD = 2.71), with 31 participants (59.6%) in early
adolescence (ages 10 to 14) and 21 participants (40.4%) in middle adolescence (ages 15 to
17). Participants in early adolescence were all in elementary or middle school (grades 5 to 8),
while participants in middle adolescence were in high school (grades 9 to 12; n = 19, 36.5%)
or college (n = 2, 3.85%). Twenty-one participants (40.4%) reported being bi- or multiracial.
The mean household size was 3.79 (SD = 1.51), and 22 participants (42.3%) reported living
in single parent households. Almost all participants (n = 49, 94.2%) reported that there was
“Always” of “Often” enough money in the household to pay for different expenses (e.g.,
food, transportation, utilities).

23

Table 2. Demographic characteristics of adolescent participants, stratified by
developmental stage (early versus middle adolescence).
Participant characteristics
All participants

(N = 52)

n (%)
Participants in
early adolescence
(N = 31)

n (%)
Participants in
middle adolescence
(N = 21)

n (%)
p value
a
Age, mean (SD) 13.8 (2.17) 12.3 (1.15) 16.1 (0.89) <.001
Race
Black only
Black & AI/AN
Black & Latinx
Black & Asian
Black & White
Black & Hawaiian
Black & Belizean
Black & AI/AN & Asian
Black & AI/AN & White

31 (59.6%)
5 (9.62%)
4 (7.69%)
3 (5.77%)
3 (5.77%)
2 (3.85%)
2 (3.85%)
1 (1.92%)
1 (1.92%)

17 (54.8%)
2 (6.45%)
3 (9.68%)
3 (9.68%)
1 (3.23%)
1 (3.23%)
2 (6.45%)
1 (3.23%)
1 (3.23%)

14 (66.7%)
3 (14.3%)
1 (4.76%)
0 (0.00%)
2 (9.52%)
1 (4.76%)
0 (0.00%)
0 (0.00%)
0 (0.00%)
.52
Gender
Male
Female
Non-binary

34 (65.4%)
17 (32.7%)
1 (1.92%)

20 (64.5%)
11 (35.5%)
0 (0.00%)

14 (66.7%)
6 (28.6%)
1 (4.76%)
.43
School grade
Elementary / middle school
(5
th
-8
th
grade)
High school+ (9
th
grade-
college)

31 (59.6%)

21 (40.4%)

31 (100%)

0 (0.00%)

0 (0.00%)

21 (100%)
<.001
Parent education status
High school degree or less
Some college
Bachelor’s degree
Master’s or professional degree

10 (19.2%)
8 (15.4%)
21 (40.4%)
13 (25.0%)

3 (9.68%)
6 (19.4%)
15 (48.4%)
7 (22.6%)

7 (33.3%)
2 (9.52%)
6 (28.6%)
6 (28.6%)
.12
Parent immigration status
All guardians born in US
One guardian immigrated to US
All guardians immigrated to US
Do not know

43 (87.8%)
5 (10.2%)
1 (2.04%)
3 (5.77%)

24 (77.4%)
3 (9.68%)
1 (3.23%)
3 (9.68%)

19 (90.5%)
2 (9.52%)
0 (0.00%)
0 (0.00%)
.67
# people in household, mean
(SD)
3.79 (1.51) 4.10 (1.64) 3.33 (1.20) .04
Money available for household
costs
Almost never
Sometimes
Often
Always

1 (1.92%)
2 (3.85%)
13 (25.0%)
36 (69.2%)

1 (3.23%)
0 (0.00%)
6 (19.4%)
24 (77.4%)

0 (0.00%)
2 (9.52%)
7 (33.3%)
12 (57.1%)
.52
a
Comparisons between adolescents in early adolescence and middle adolescence calculated using t-tests for
continuous variables and chi-squared tests for categorical variables
*Figures do not add to 100 due to rounding
Abbreviations: AI/AN = American Indian / Alaska Native; SD = standard deviation

3.2.2. Social network composition (Figure 1, Table 3). Participants named between
3 and 20 alters, with a mean of 11.6 alters (SD = 5.74). On average, participants in early
adolescence named fewer alters than participants in middle adolescence (early adolescence
mean = 11.0 [SD = 5.74] versus middle adolescence mean = 12.4 [SD = 5.77]), though this
difference was not statistically significant (p = .19). In general, participants’ networks were

24

racially homogenous; on average across networks, 76.7% of alters were also Black/African
American or Black bi/multiracial. In fact, 15 participants (28.8%) exclusively named
Black/African American alters. Female alters comprised just over half of participants’
networks on average (50.8%), as did adult alters (55.8%). However, the average percentage
of adult alters in the networks was higher among participants in middle adolescence (62.4%)
than it was among participants in early adolescence (51.3%; p = .05).
Participants named alters across multiple ecological contexts. Connections in the
immediate family included mothers (biological, step, adoptive, foster; named by n = 49
participants, 94.2%), fathers (biological, step, adoptive, foster; named by n = 31 participants,
59.6%), sisters (biological, step, half; named by n = 22 participants; 42.3%), and brothers
(biological, step, half; named by n = 19 participants; 36.5%). Extended family connections
included grandmothers (both sides; named by n = 23 participants, 44.2%), grandfathers (both
sides; named by n = 12 participants, 23.1%), uncles (both sides; named by n = 16
participants, 30.8%), aunts (both sides; named by n = 18 participants, 34.6%), and cousins
(both sides; named by n = 26 participants, 50.0%). Peer connections included friends (named
by n = 43 participants, 82.7%) and romantic partners (named by n = 5 participants, 9.62%).
A couple participants reported that their alters were “crushes” or “frenemies” – these
classifications were re-categorized as friends. School connections included teachers (named
by n = 20 participants, 38.5%) and guidance counselors (named by n = 2 participants,
3.85%). Finally, community connections included coaches (named by n = 4 participants,
7.69%), religious figures (named by n = 2 participants, 3.85%), therapists (named by n = 2
participants, 3.85%), mentors (named by n = 2 participants, 3.85%), and a neighbor (named
by n = 1 participant, 1.92%). Participants in middle adolescence were more likely than
participants in early adolescence to name a father (p = .05), a sister (p = .02), and a coach (p
= .01).

25

Figure 1. Example of adolescent ego networks, including alters identified across
immediate family, extended family, peer, school, and community contexts.

Table 3. Characteristics of adolescent participants’ social networks, stratified by
developmental stage (early versus middle adolescence).
Network characteristics
All participants

(N = 52)

mean (SD) or %
Participants in
early adolescence
(N = 31)

mean (SD) or %
Participants in
middle adolescence
(N = 21)

mean (SD) or %
p value
a

Number of alters 11.6 (5.74) 11.0 (5.74) 12.4 (5.77) .19
Network-weighted density 0.71 (0.19) 0.73 (0.20) 0.68 (0.18) .16
Clustering coefficient 0.66 (0.22) 0.69 (0.23) 0.62 (0.20) .15
Average closeness (1-10) 8.41 (0.99) 8.53 (1.05) 8.22 (0.89) .14
Average trust (1-10) 8.37 (1.18) 8.47 (1.25) 8.23 (1.08) .24
Alters immediate family
b

Mother
c
Father
Sister
Brother
29.7%

94.2% (n=49)
59.6% (n=31)
42.3% (n=22)
36.5% (n=19)
28.4%

96.8% (n=30)
48.4% (n=15)
29.0% (n=9)
32.3% (n=10)
31.4%

90.5% (n=19)
76.2% (n=16)
61.9% (n=13)
42.9% (n=9)
.30

.34
.05
.02
.44
Alters extended family

Grandmother (either side)
Grandfather (either side)
Aunt (either side)
Uncle (either side)
Cousin
27.1%

44.2% (n=23)
23.1% (n=12)
34.6% (n=18)
30.8% (n=16)
50.0% (n=26)
31.2%

51.6% (n=16)
25.8% (n=8)
35.5% (n=11)
29.0% (n=9)
51.6% (n=16)
21.0%

33.3% (n=7)
19.0% (n=4)
33.3% (n=7)
33.3% (n=7)
47.6% (n=10)
.06

.19
.57
.87
.74
.78
Alters peers

Friend
Romantic partner
33.3%

82.7% (n=43)
9.62% (n=5)
33.7%

80.6% (n=25)
6.45% (n=2)
32.6%

85.7% (n=18)
14.3% (n=3)
.44

.64
.35
Alters school

Teacher
Guidance counselor
6.43%

38.5% (n=20)
3.85% (n=2)
4.72%

32.3% (n=10)
3.23% (n=1)
8.96%

47.6% (n=10)
4.76% (n=1)
.07

.26
.78

26

Alters community

Coach
Religious figure
Therapist/social worker
Mentor
Neighbor
2.84%

7.69% (n=4)
3.85% (n=2)
3.85% (n=2)
3.85% (n=2)
1.92% (n=1)
1.18%

0.00% (n=0)
6.45% (n=2)
6.45% (n=2)
0.00% (n=0)
0.00% (n=0)
5.29%

19.0% (n=4)
0.00% (n=0)
0.00% (n=0)
9.52% (n=2)
4.76% (n=1)
.04

.01
.24
.24
.08
.22
Alter gender, % female 50.8% 52.8% 47.9% .17
Alter age, % adults 55.8% 51.3% 62.4% .05
Alter race, % Black 76.7% 79.3% 72.9% .15
a
Comparisons between adolescents in early adolescence and middle adolescence calculated using t-tests

b
Broad relationship type categories (e.g., immediate family, extended family) calculated as percent of networks
made up of that category of relationship, averaged across all participants
c
Specific relationship types (e.g., mother, father, sibling) calculated as percent of participants who named that type
of relationship
Abbreviations: SD = standard deviation

Peer alters comprised the largest percent of participants’ networks, on average
(33.3%). This was closely followed by immediate family alters (29.7%) and extended family
alters (27.1%). School alters (6.43%) and community alters (2.84%) comprised smaller
portions of participants’ networks. Participants in early adolescence had greater network
composition from extended family alters (31.2%) than participants in middle adolescence
(21.0%, p = .06), but participants in middle adolescence had greater composition from school
alters (8.96% versus 4.72%, p = .07) and community alters (5.29% versus 1.18%, p = .04).
3.2.3. Social network structure and quality (Table 3). The mean network-weighted
density across all participants was 0.71 (SD = 0.19). The mean network-weighted density was
slightly lower, though not statistically significant, among participants in middle adolescence
(mean = 0.68, SD = 0.18) than it was among participants in early adolescence (mean = 0.734,
SD = 0.202). The mean clustering coefficient, or the density considering only the alter-alter
ties, across all participants was 0.66 (SD = 0.22). Participants’ tie strength ratings were high
across alters. On a scale from 1 to 10, the mean closeness score across each participant’s list
of alters was 8.41 (SD = 0.99). The mean trust score was similar at 8.37 (SD = 1.18). These
ratings were comparable among participants in early and middle adolescence.
3.2.4. RS messages across social networks (Tables 4 and 5). Participants received
RS messages from multiple sources across their networks. On average across networks, over

27

50% of participants’ alters provided each of following four RS messages at least once in the
past year: 1) talked to the ego about racism and racial discrimination (preparation for bias -
RS item 1; mean = 64.0% of alters per network); 2) told ego people might dislike them or
think they’re better than them because of their race, or that they have to work twice as hard as
White people to get ahead (preparation for bias - RS item 2; mean = 50.1% of alters per
network); 3) told ego to be proud to be Black and/or to never be ashamed of their Black
features (cultural socialization - RS item 4; mean = 61.8% of alters per network); and 4)
celebrated Black history, culture, or traditions with ego (cultural socialization - RS item 5;
mean = 55.9% of alters per network). Less than half of participants’ alters provided the
remaining three RS messages at least once in the past year: 1) told ego what to do or say if
they experience racism (preparation for bias/racial coping - RS item 3; mean = 48.0% of
alters per network); 2) told ego that all people in the United States have an equal opportunity
to be successful, regardless of race (egalitarian - RS item 6; mean = 38.2% of alters per
network); and 3) told ego that racism does not exist or is a thing of the past
(egalitarian/colorblind racial beliefs - RS item 7; mean = 5.94% of alters per network).
Participants were more likely to receive all three preparation for bias messages and both
cultural socialization messages from Black alters than non-Black alters (p = .002 to <.001).
However, there was no racial/ethnic difference in the provision of the two egalitarian
messages. Female alters were more likely than male alters to provide all of the racial
socialization messages. This difference was statistically significant for RS items 1 and 3-5.
Finally, adult alters were more likely than minor alters to provide all RS messages. This
difference was statistically significant for all items. Compared to participants in early
adolescence, participants in middle adolescence reported receiving the first two preparation
for bias messages (RS items 1-2) from a larger percentage of their alters, on average (p = .01
for item 1, p = .02 for item 2).

28

Alters across ecological contexts provided RS messaging. The percentage of alters
providing preparation for bias and cultural socialization messages was highest in the
immediate family and community networks (64.6 - 95.8% across RS items 1-5), followed
closely by the extended family and school networks. Few alters provided the colorblind
message that racism does not exist or is a think of the past, including no alters from the
community context. Similarly, participants in middle adolescence reported never hearing this
message from school alters, and female participants reported never hearing this message from
school or peer alters. Between a quarter and a half of the context-specific networks provided
the egalitarian message that all people in the United States have an equal opportunity to be
successful, regardless of race. These messages were delivered most frequently by alters in the
immediate family and school contexts.
Table 4. Sources of racial socialization messages across participants’ social networks,
stratified by alter race, gender, and age (adult versus minor), and participant
developmental stage (early versus middle adolescence) and gender.

Racial socialization
messages
Mean
%
network
Mean
%
among
Black
alters
Mean
%
among
non-
Black
alters
a

p
value
b
Mean
%
among
female
alters
Mean
%
among
male
alters
c

p
value
Mean
%
among
adult
alters
Mean
%
among
non-
adult
alters
d

p
value
Preparation for bias messages (including racial awareness and racial coping)
Alters who talked
to ego about
racism/racial
discrimination 1+
times in past year
(RS item 1)
64.0% 68.2% 51.9% .002 68.0% 59.6% .02 74.4% 47.4% <.001
Participants in
early
adolescence
(N=31)
56.6% 60.8% 42.4% .01 62.2% 51.8% .03 72.4% 38.7% <.001
Participants in
middle
adolescence
(N=21)
74.9% 79.1% 61.8% .03 76.7% 70.7% .15 77.5% 59.7% .05
p value .01 .01 .08 .05 .03 .26 .03
Male
participants
(N=34)
62.7% 68.6% 49.4% .002 68.5% 59.2% .01 75.2% 44.4% <.001
Female
participants
(N=17)
e
66.1% 67.1% 54.4% .15 66.5% 61.2% .29 74.3% 50.4% .03
p value .35 .43 .37 .42 .43 .46 .31

29

Alters who told
ego people might
dislike them/think
they’re better
because of their
race, or that they
have to work
twice as hard as
White people 1+
times in past year
(RS item 2)
50.1% 54.1% 35.6% .001 53.4% 48.3% .13 60.3% 33.2% <.001
Participants in
early
adolescence
(N=31)
42.8% 46.2% 25.1% .01 49.5% 38.5% .04 57.5% 23.0% <.001
Participants in
middle
adolescence
(N=21)
61.0% 65.8% 46.8% .02 59.1% 62.4% .32 64.4% 47.8% .04
p value .02 .02 .05 .17 .01 .24 .01
Male
participants
(N=34)
48.9% 52.5% 39.0% .03 54.3% 46.7% .13 59.0% 31.8% .002
Female
participants
(N=17)
50.8% 55.6% 26.6% .007 49.4% 51.7% .42 62.1% 32.5% <.001
p value .42 .38 .19 .33 .34 .38 .48

Alters who told
ego what to
do/say if they
experience racism
1+ times in past
year (RS item 3)
48.0% 54.2% 26.8% <.001 53.9% 43.9% .004 62.3% 25.9% <.001
Participants in
early
adolescence
(N=31)
46.5% 51.2% 30.7% .009 51.8% 41.9% .03 63.2% 23.4% <.001
Participants in
middle
adolescence
(N=21)
50.2% 58.6% 22.7% <.001 57.1% 46.7% .02 61.0% 29.5% .001
p value .33 .21 .26 .27 .32 .40 .26
Male
participants
(N=34)
46.9% 53.6% 23.4% <.001 54.0% 43.8% .02 64.7% 21.4% <.001
Female
participants
(N=17)
48.7% 54.5% 29.2% .005 52.3% 43.6% .10 58.3% 30.5% .004
p value .42 .46 .33 .43 .49 .25 .18

Cultural socialization messages
Alters who told
ego to be proud to
be Black/to never
be ashamed of
their Black
features 1+ times
in past year (RS
item 4)
61.8% 69.1% 38.0% <.001 70.5% 54.0% <.001 74.6% 43.7% <.001
Participants in
early
adolescence
(N=31)
61.3% 66.7% 38.9% .002 69.2% 54.2% .004 77.8% 42.4% <.001
Participants in
middle
62.4% 72.5% 37.0% <.001 72.3% 53.7% .01 69.8% 45.5% .003

30

adolescence
(N=21)
p value .45 .27 .44 .37 .48 .19 .40
Male
participants
(N=34)
57.5% 64.3% 38.1% <.001 69.1% 50.4% <.001 69.9% 36.0% <.001
Female
participants
(N=17)
69.0% 77.7% 34.8% <.001 72.2% 62.0% .12 83.9% 55.0% .003
p value .11 .09 .41 .37 .15 .07 .05

Alters who
celebrated Black
history, culture,
or traditions with
ego 1+ times in
past year (RS
item 5)
55.9% 62.0% 31.7% <.001 62.0% 50.2% .001 62.0% 46.3% .008
Participants in
early
adolescence
(N=31)
55.0% 58.8% 30.3% .002 60.8% 49.6% .02 63.7% 42.7% .003
Participants in
middle
adolescence
(N=21)
57.3% 66.8% 33.2% .003 63.9% 51.2% .01 59.5% 51.6% .21
p value .40 .20 .41 .38 .44 .33 .23
Male
participants
(N=34)
54.4% 60.1% 34.7% .004 62.9% 48.1% .001 59.5% 43.3% .04
Female
participants
(N=17)
59.2% 65.3% 27.0% .002 60.8% 54.8% .26 69.2% 50.2% .02
p value .31 .30 .29 .42 .26 .16 .29
Egalitarian messages (including colorblind racial beliefs)
Alters who told
ego racism does
not exist and/or is
a thing of the past
1+ times in past
year (RS item 6)
5.94% 6.25% 2.29% .31 6.71% 4.79% .11 8.06% 2.09% .01
Participants in
early
adolescence
(N=31)
7.48% 7.61% 1.32% .34 7.31% 7.30% .45 9.80% 2.25% .07
Participants in
middle
adolescence
(N=21)
3.66% 4.25% 3.32% .40 5.82% 1.21% .03 5.48% 1.85% .02
p value .22 .25 .20 .39 .11 .23 .42
Male
participants
(N=34)
7.66% 8.14% 2.60% .33 8.14% 7.18% .33 9.67% 2.82% .05
Female
participants
(N=17)
1.76% 2.02% 0.00% .17 2.94% 0.00% .09 3.82% 0.00% .09
p value .13 .12 .12 .17 .09 .17 .07
Alters who told
ego all people in
US have equal
opportunity to be
successful,
regardless of race
1+ times in past
year (RS item 7)
38.2% 38.0% 34.4% .42 40.1% 35.3% .13 44.1% 22.8% <.001

31

Participants in
early
adolescence
(N=31)
37.0% 38.5% 30.0% .31 38.1% 34.7% .40 45.6% 20.0% <.001
Participants in
middle
adolescence
(N=21)
39.9% 37.4% 38.9% .41 43.2% 36.2% .02 41.9% 26.6% .10
p value .40 .46 .25 .33 .45 .38 .26
Male
participants
(N=34)
40.4% 40.4% 33.5% .27 42.8% 37.3% .02 47.0% 23.1% .003
Female
participants
(N=17)
31.6% 31.5% 32.7% .37 32.6% 30.2% .42 38.1% 18.1% .02
p value .22 .22 .48 .20 .28 .24 .32
a
Mean percent of non-Black alters providing each RS message calculated across N=37 participants who named non-
Black alters in their network
b
Comparisons between groups calculated using t-tests
c
Mean percent of male alters providing each RS message calculated across N=51 participants who named male alters in
their network
d
Mean percent of minor alters providing each RS message calculated across N=46 participants who named alters under
age 18 in their network
e
One non-binary participant is not included in the participant gender stratification

Abbreviations: RS = racial socialization; SD = standard deviation

Table 5. Sources of racial socialization messages across participants’ social networks,
stratified by alter ecological context (immediate family, extended family, peer, school,
community), and participant developmental stage (early versus middle adolescence) and
gender.
Racial socialization
messages
Mean %
network
Mean %
among
immediate
family
alters
a
Mean %
among
extended
family alters
b

Mean %
among
peer alters
c

Mean %
among
school
alters
d

Mean %
among
community
alters
e

Preparation for bias messages (including racial awareness and racial coping)
Alters who talked to
ego about
racism/racial
discrimination 1+
times in past year
(RS item 1)
64.0% 74.9% 64.7% 52.6% 64.2% 95.8%
Participants in
early adolescence
(N=31)
56.6% 68.8% 59.9% 43.6% 61.7% 100%
Participants in
middle adolescence
(N=21)
74.9% 83.6% 71.5% 65.0% 66.7% 94.4%
p value .01 .05 .16 .05 .39 .30
Male participants
(N=34)
f

62.7% 76.3% 70.1% 42.4% 60.6% 93.3%
Female participants
(N=17)

66.1% 70.7% 56.7% 67.7% 77.1% 100%
p value .35 .28 .13 .03 .18 .24
Alters who told ego
people might dislike
them/think they’re
better because of
their race, or that
they have to work
twice as hard as
50.1% 64.6% 51.1% 38.5% 46.7% 95.8%

32

White people 1+
times in past year
(RS item 2)
Participants in
early adolescence
(N=31)
42.8% 55.5% 39.8% 30.1% 55.0% 100%
Participants in
middle adolescence
(N=21)
61.0% 77.5% 67.5% 50.2% 38.3% 94.4%
p value .02 .02 .01 .05 .21 .30
Male participants
(N=34)
48.9% 66.1% 52.5% 35.0% 40.9% 93.3%
Female participants
(N=17)
50.8% 59.5% 47.5% 40.7% 60.4% 100%
p value .42 .28 .36 .33 .18 .24
Alters who told ego
what to do/say if
they experience
racism 1+ times in
past year (RS item
3)
48.0% 70.8% 43.0% 31.4% 44.2% 75.0%
Participants in
early adolescence
(N=31)
46.5% 69.8% 41.7% 29.8% 50.0% 100%
Participants in
middle adolescence
(N=21)
50.2% 72.3% 44.8% 33.5% 38.3% 66.7%
p value .33 .40 .40 .38 .28 .34
Male participants
(N=34)
46.9% 69.9% 42.4% 27.8% 39.4% 80.0%
Female participants
(N=17)
48.7% 71.0% 44.6% 33.2% 56.3% 66.7%
p value .42 .46 .44 .33 .20 .34
Cultural socialization messages
Alters who told ego
to be proud to be
Black/to never be
ashamed of their
Black features 1+
times in past year
(RS item 4)
61.8% 82.2% 65.1% 47.6% 48.3% 87.5%
Participants in
early adolescence
(N=31)
61.3% 82.9% 59.7% 46.1% 51.7% 100%
Participants in
middle adolescence
(N=21)
62.4% 81.2% 72.9% 49.6% 45.0% 83.3%
p value .45 .42 .13 .39 .37 .30
Male participants
(N=34)
57.5% 78.3% 64.7% 36.4% 51.5% 80.0%
Female participants
(N=17)
69.0% 88.8% 65.6^ 64.2% 50.0% 100%
p value .11 .13 .47 .01 .47 .24
Alters who
celebrated Black
history, culture, or
traditions with ego
1+ times in past year
(RS item 5)
55.9% 74.3% 61.2% 37.8% 34.6% 77.1%
Participants in early
adolescence
(N=31)
55.0% 70.8% 62.9% 35.6% 36.7% 75.0%

33

Participants in
middle adolescence
(N=21)
57.3% 79.2% 58.8% 40.8% 32.5% 77.8%
p value .40 .21 .37 .34 .41 .47
Male participants
(N=34)
54.4% 72.9% 57.9% 37.0% 31.8% 73.3%
Female participants
(N=17)
59.2% 75.5% 69.4% 37.2% 42.7% 83.3%
p value .31 .41 .19 .50 .29 .37
Egalitarian messages (including colorblind racial beliefs)
Alters who told ego
racism does not exist
and/or is a thing of
the past 1+ times in
past year (RS item
6)
5.94% 6.37% 6.82% 3.37% 5.00% 0.00%
Participants in early
adolescence
(N=31)
7.48% 6.67% 10.3% 3.97% 10.0% 0.00%
Participants in
middle adolescence
(N=21)
3.66% 5.95% 1.85% 2.53% 0.00% 0.00%
p value .22 .45 .09 .34 .17
Male participants
(N=34)
7.66% 8.84% 8.73% 4.75% 9.09% 0.00%
Female participants
(N=17)
1.76% 1.96% 1.48% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
p value .13 .14 .13 .10 .20
Alters who told ego
all people in US
have equal
opportunity to be
successful,
regardless of race 1+
times in past year
(RS item 7)
38.2% 43.7% 38.4% 24.9% 49.6% 25.0%
Participants in early
adolescence
(N=31)
37.0% 40.6% 38.6% 21.8% 45.0% 50.0%
Participants in
middle adolescence
(N=21)
39.9% 48.3% 38.1% 29.1% 54.2% 16.7%
p value .40 .27 .48 .27 .32 .21
Male participants
(N=34)
40.4% 44.2% 41.1% 25.8% 51.5% 40.0%
Female participants
(N=17)
31.6% 39.5% 33.6% 18.2% 53.1% 0.00%
p value .22 .36 .30 .26 .47 .13
a
Mean percent of immediate family alters providing each RS message calculated across N=51 participants who named
immediate family members in their network
b
Mean percent of extended family alters providing each RS message calculated across N=44 participants who named
extended family members in their network
c
Mean percent of peer alters providing each RS message calculated across N=43 participants who named peers in their
network
d
Mean percent of school alters providing each RS message calculated across N=20 participants who named school
connections in their network
e
Mean percent of school alters providing each RS message calculated across N=8 participants who named community
connections in their network
f
One non-binary participant is not included in the participant gender stratification

Abbreviations: RS = racial socialization; SD = standard deviation

34

3.2.5. Acceptability of social network interview. Most participants found the social
network interview easy to complete, with 47 participants (90.4%) reporting “Strongly agree”
or “Agree”. One 10-year-old participant, however, reported “Strongly disagree” indicating
that the interview was challenging to complete. Another 4 participants (7.69%) were
undecided. Similarly, most participants found the instructions easy to understand (n = 39,
75.0%), with another 8 participants reporting that they were “Undecided” (15.4%). Among
the 5 participants who found the instructions difficult to understand, 4 were in middle
adolescence. Participants were more mixed in their responses to whether they found the
social network interview quick to complete. While 31 participants (59.6%) found it quick
(“Strongly agree” or “Agree”), others were undecided (n = 5, 9.62%), disagreed (n = 11,
21%) or strongly disagreed (n = 5, 9.62%).
After looking over the questions in the social network interview guide, 45 participants
(86.5%) reported that they did not have additional feedback. A few of these participants
provided specific comments. One 16-year-old non-binary participant, for example, wrote,
“The questions you asked is good questions, I have no problem with the questions.” Another
14-year-old boy shared, “They weren’t too hard or too easy. Also, they didn’t make me feel
some type of way which was nice, but [they] made me think.”
A few participants provided comments on specific questions, with some suggested
changes for future iterations. For example, a 12-year-old boy reported that he found it
“hard/confusing” to guess the race/ethnicity of the alters in his social network. Providing a
recommendation for future lines of inquiry, a 17-year-old boy noted that it would be
interesting to elicit additional information on how participants’ selected their closeness and
trust ratings and what reasons individuals had for trusting or not trusting their alters.
However, a 13-year-old girl provided opposing feedback. Specifically, she commented that
she did not find the closeness and trust questions relevant to the study. Finally, a 16-year-old

35

boy commented on the alter-alter tie questions. He noted that instead of asking how close
each pair of alters were to one another, it would make more sense to ask how well they knew
each other.

36

Chapter 4: Discussion
In this study, we elicited feedback on a social network interview designed to
characterize the social networks of Black adolescents and identify sources of RS messages
across these networks. Following an iterative review of participant feedback from a focus
group and cognitive interviews (phase 1), we administered an adapted social network
interview with a larger sample of Black adolescents (phase 2). Qualitative data collected
during phase 1 confirmed that the social network interview was clear to Black adolescents,
and data from an acceptability survey administered during phase 2 further established that the
social network interview was easy to complete and understand. From these data, we can
conclude that a social network approach focused on capturing sources of RS messages is
acceptable and appropriate for use with this population. This is a major methodological
advance as it expands the ways in which researchers can study the complexities of RS
processes.
The characteristics of participants’ social networks underlie several structural features
that may be protective. As hypothesized, participants in this study reported alters across
ecological contexts, including individuals from their immediate and extended families, peers,
and supportive adults from school and community environments. In addition to capturing a
range of social ties across Black adolescents’ networks, we found that participants’ networks
were large. Over half of the participants named between 11 and 20 alters. We also found a
high degree of homophily within participants’ networks, supporting data showing
racial/ethnic cohesion among Black adolescents (Goodreau et al., 2009). In fact, nearly a
third of participants only named alters who were also Black/African American. Evidence
suggests that same-race peers and Black role models may support academic success and
racial identity development (Tatum, 2004). Participants’ networks were dense, with high
interconnectivity between alters. Furthermore, most closeness and trust ratings were high,

37

indicating strong tie strength. A recent study shows the protective effect of densely connected
and supportive peer networks on Black adolescents’ symptoms of depression (Copeland &
Kamis, 2022). While the present study focused largely on RS sources across networks, other
structural social network characteristics (e.g., network size, racial/ethnic homophily, network-
weighted density) may be supportive. These network features should be investigated in the
context of Black adolescents’ experiences of racial discrimination, racial identity
development, and mental health outcomes.
While previous studies on the provision of RS messages in Black adolescents have
focused largely on parents as the principal socialization agents (Peck et al., 2014; Priest et al.,
2014; Umaña-Taylor & Hill, 2020), this study showed that Black adolescents receive RS
messages from other sources, across ecological contexts. Participants reported that they
received preparation for bias messages (focused on both racial awareness and racial coping)
and cultural socialization messages from a substantial percentage of each ecological network:
the immediate family network, the extended family network, the peer network, the school
network, and the community network. These classes of RS messages were delivered with
particular frequency by immediate family and community alters (consistently provided by 65-
95% of these network members, on average). Research shows the influence of non-parental
supportive figures in the lives of Black adolescents (Murry & Lippold, 2018; Peterson, 2018),
as well as the increasing influence of extra-familial relationships as these individuals
approach later adolescence and adulthood (Jones, 2018; Leventhal et al., 2009; Roach, 2018;
Steinberg & Monahan, 2007). This study supports existing literature, demonstrating the
shifting role of non-parental figures in Black adolescents’ lives over time. Compared to
participants in early adolescence, participants in middle adolescence were more likely to
name alters from school and community contexts. Furthermore, while most RS literature
focuses on mothers as sources of these messages, participants in middle adolescence were

38

also more likely to name a father. Taken together, these data fill an important gap in our
understanding of RS messages among Black adolescents—building on prior work, we show
that this population receives messages simultaneously from several directions. The synchrony
and repetition of these messages may serve to amplify the content, drive changes in
individuals’ racial identity development, and foster coping and resilience.
In addition to describing the connection types and the ecological contexts from which
Black adolescents receive RS messages, we also summarize the broad demographic
characteristics of key socialization agents (across age, race/ethnicity, and gender). As
hypothesized, Black adolescents received more RS messages from adults and other
Black/African American individuals in their lives compared to minors and alters of other
racial/ethnic backgrounds. Participants also received more messages from female alters than
they did from male alters. Furthermore, participants in middle adolescence were more likely
than adolescents in early adolescence to report receiving messages about racial awareness.
Reflecting a summary of RS literature (Lesane-Brown, 2006), it is possible that alters may
increase the frequency with which they share these messages based on the adolescents’
developmental stage, or it is possible that these conversations become more salient and easier
to recall among older adolescents. It will be critical to investigate these nuances in future
work. Specifically, we should explore how messaging from different sources (including
largely Black women) over time, as well as the impact and salience of these messages, may
confer protection against the toxic developmental consequences of racial discrimination.
4.1. Future Directions
In future work, network data collected during this study will be paired with survey
data to test for interactions between RS networks, racial discrimination, and adolescent
mental health. The hypothesis underlying this research is that receiving RS messages from
multiple ties across environmental contexts will attenuate the association between racial

39

discrimination and symptoms of depression and anxiety among Black adolescents. In
planning for these analyses and following social network theories of diffusion (Valente &
Pitts, 2017), we expect that adolescents with larger, denser networks will be more likely to
internalize RS messages, as evident through ethnic-racial identity commitment, coping skills,
and fewer mental health symptoms in the context of racial discrimination. High-quality
parent-child relationships moderate the relationship between racial discrimination and
negative youth outcomes (Umaña-Taylor & Hill, 2020), and Black adults who receive RS
messages and perceive strong social support systems report greater resilience (Brown, 2008).
Thus, we also expect to find that adolescents who report stronger ties (i.e., greater closeness
and trust) with RS agents will report fewer mental health symptoms.
By advancing our understanding of the simultaneous influence of multiple sources of
RS on mental health, these future analyses will inform the development of innovative mental
health prevention programs. Such program can be implemented within families, schools, and
communities to strengthen Black adolescents’ RS social networks and reduce mental health
risk. Encouragingly, participants gave universally strong ratings of how close they felt and
how much they trusted each alter. Since strong ties are necessary for behavior change, the tie
strength reported by participants bodes well for a strengths-based RS intervention designed to
support Black adolescents’ racial attitudes and foster resilience. Non-parental adults who
Black adolescents trust and feel close to may be well-equipped to provide RS messages and
amplify messages received from other sources (Hurd et al., 2012). Participants’ dense
networks provide further suggestion that a social network-focused intervention will allow
opportunities to reinforce RS messages and may be protective against outside risk (e.g., racial
discrimination) (Valente, 2010). Interventions may also prioritize the development of RS
competency both within the household and beyond. Given the increasing influence of extra-
familial figures across development, there is an opportunity to work with teachers and

40

community members to build RS motivation, skills, and confidence, and decrease RS stress
(Anderson et al., 2018; Anderson & Stevenson, 2019).
Although the present study focused on the RS networks of Black adolescents, we are
midway through data collection for a parallel project on the RS networks of Latinx
adolescents. As part of this study, we translated an adapted social network interview guide
into Spanish to increase participant eligibility. Future work will continue to adapt these
methods for use with adolescents from other racial/ethnic backgrounds. Additionally, RS may
differ between participants who identify as Black only and those who are biracial or
multiracial (Rollins & Hunter, 2013). Nearly half of the participants in our study were bi- or
multi-racial. However, many of the RS items were specific to RS processes within Black
communities specifically. For example, a cognitive interview participant mentioned that his
mom did not provide RS about Black history and traditions but did provide cultural
socialization about his Mexican heritage. We will consider this and examine differences by
race/ethnic identity in subsequent analyses.
4.2. Strengths
This study has several strengths. First, this study and future planned analyses adopt a
strengths-based perspective to research with Black adolescents, representing a critical shift
from traditional deficits framework. Second, the mixed methods approach allowed us to adapt
the social network interview and broader study design to reflect feedback and lived
experiences of Black adolescents. Multimodal qualitative data collection and the iterative
adaptation process ensured that the social network approach was appropriate and acceptable
for use with this population.
Third, warranted mistrust of research institutions and logistical challenges to
participation (e.g., lack of reliable transportation, lack of childcare) have limited the
representation of Black/African American individuals in research. Throughout the study, we

41

thoughtfully navigated accessibility concerns. First, we reimbursed families for travel costs
and we offered childcare services for other children during the visits. Further, despite a slow
recruitment process, we were innovative in exploring multiple strategies to engage Black
families. Participants reported hearing about the study through several sources, including
emails and Facebook posts from community organizations, flyers posted in the community,
information provided by school administrators, the NAI, and word-of-mouth. Furthermore,
many families provided anecdotal reports that they enjoyed the study, appreciated the
opportunity to provide feedback, and were excited to see study findings disseminated.
4.3. Limitations
In addition to noting study strengths, limitations must also be considered. While this
study aimed to characterize the social support networks that may protect Black adolescents
against the consequences of racism, it does not address the underlying drivers of racial
inequity. Efforts to help Black adolescents cope with racial stressors must occur in
conjunction with, rather than in replacement of, efforts to dismantle racism. As we work
toward dismantling racism, developing a more nuanced understanding of RS processes can
inform interventions to mitigate the toxic effects of racial discrimination by leveraging
strengths-based approaches that support resilience and coping.
Second, peer nomination studies have found that youth are not always reliable sources
of information on their peers’ behaviors (Cillessen & Marks, 2017). Thus, the egocentric
network approach presented here only allowed us to capture adolescents’ perceived social
networks. However, one-way relationships (i.e., unreciprocated, asymmetrical ties) still exert
influence on egos’ beliefs and behaviors. In addition, there is generally poor agreement
between what egos think alters do and what the alters actually self-report. Yet, research has
repeatedly demonstrated stronger associations between ego outcomes and perceived alter

42

behavior than between ego outcomes and self-reported alter behavior (Valente et al., 2013;
Valente et al., 1997).
Third, while the present study primarily focuses on explicit messages Black
adolescents receive from people in their social environments, adolescents receive RS
messages through other modes of transmission, for example through media (Jones, 2018) and
implicit, nonverbal routes (Paasch-Anderson et al., 2019). In conversations with community
partners and follow-up interviews with a subset of the adolescent participants, it will be
important to consider how we can assess and integrate these alternative modes of RS into
future social network research studies and interventions.
Fourth, the name generator used was broad in scope and the maximum number of
alters was higher than that of many foundational egocentric network studies (Burt, 1984;
Marsden, 1987). The choice of name generators in social network studies is a fundamental
consideration and challenge (Campbell & Lee, 1991). It is critical that the question is specific
enough to capture the targeted types of interactions while not burdening the participant or
eliciting extraneous information. With each additional alter named, the length of the survey
increases substantially, creating contexts for participant fatigue and potentially compromising
data. While participants seemed to maintain focus during the present study, it will be
important to assess potential inconsistencies in data collected in survey measures that
followed the social network interview.
Finally, this study was conducted within a relatively small sample of Black
adolescents from LA, California, the majority of whom reported secure access to household
necessities. Given the sociopolitical climate in the United States, it is possible that RS
processes may differ in the networks of Black adolescents from other parts of the country
(rural areas, conservatively-leaning regions, etc.) and with different socioeconomic
backgrounds. Similarly, the racial/ethnic composition of adolescents’ environments (e.g.,

43

neighborhoods, schools) may also affect RS messaging. Adolescents’ experiences of racism
may differ across contexts; these experiences may thereby inform the content and frequency
of RS messages to which they are exposed. For example, specific types of RS messages, such
as those that emphasize colorblind racial attitudes, may be more common among extra-
familial adults in different environmental contexts. Future research should consider these
complexities and assess the influence of receiving potentially contradictory RS messages
across networks.
4.4. Conclusions
Building on a large body of RS research that overwhelmingly highlights the role of
parents as agents of RS, this study acknowledges several other concurrent sources of RS
messages. A social network approach is appropriate and acceptable to capture these nuances;
such data may be used to inform strengths-based interventions that aim to foster coping and
resilience and support the mental health of Black adolescents.

44

References
Aldana, A., & Byrd, C. M. (2015). School ethnic-racial socialization: Leaning about race and
ethnicity among African American students. The Urban Review, 47, 563-576.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-014-0319-0

Anderson, R. E., McKenny, M. C., & Stevenson, H. C. (2018). EMBRace: Developing a
racial socialization intervention to reduce racial stress and enhance racial coping
among Black parents and adolescents. Family Processes, 58(1), 53-67.

Anderson, R. E., & Stevenson, H. C. (2019). RECASTing racial stress and trauma:
Theorizing the healing potential of racial socialization in families. American
Psychologist, 74(1), 63-75. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000392

Asim, Y., Kamran Malik, A., Raza, B., & Raza Shahid, A. (2019). A trust model for analysis
of trust, influence and their relationship in social network communities. Telematics
and Informatics, 36, 94-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.11.008

Assari, S., Moghani Lankarani, M., & Caldwell, C. H. (2017). Discrimination increases
suicidal ideation in black adolescents regardless of ethnicity and gender. Behavioral
Sciences, 7(4), 75. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs7040075

Beatty, P. C., & Willis, G. B. (2007). Research synthesis: the practice of cognitive
interviewing. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71(2), 287-311.
https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfm006

Benner, A. D., Wang, Y., Shen, Y., Boyle, A. E., Polk, R., & Cheng, Y. P. (2018).
Racial/ethnic discrimination and well-being during adolescence: A meta-analytic
review. American Psychologist, 73(7), 855-883. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000204

Bidart, C., & Charbonneau, J. (2011). How to generate personal networks: Issues and tools
for a sociological perspective. Field Methods, 23(3), 266-286.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X11408513

Bond, R. M., & Bushman, B. J. (2017). The contagious spread of violence among US
adolescents through social networks. American Journal of Public Health, 107(2), 288-
294. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303550

Bor, W., Dean, A. J., Najman, J., & Hayatbakhsh, R. (2014). Are child and adolescent mental
health problems increasing in the 21st centruy? A systematic review. Australian &
New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 48(7), 606-616.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0004867414533834

Brody, G. H., Chen, Y., Murry, V. M., Ge, X., Simons, R. L., & Gibbons, F. X. (2006).
Perceived discrimination and the adjustment of African American youths: A five-year
longitudinal analysis with contextual moderation effects. Child Development, 77,
1170-1189. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00927.x

Brody, G. H., Yu, T., Chen, E., Miller, G. E., Barton, A. W., & Kogan, S. M. (2021). Family-
centered prevention effects on the association between racial discrimination and

45

mental health in Black adolescents: Secondary analysis of 2 randomized clinical trials.
JAMA Network Open, 4(3), e211964.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.1964

Brown, D. L. (2008). African American resiliency: Examining racial socialization and social
support as protective factors. Journal of Black Psychology, 34(1), 32-48.

Burt, C. H., Simons, R. L., & Gibbons, F. X. (2012). Racial discrimination, ethnic-racial
socialization, and crime: A micro-sociological model of risk and resilience. American
Sociological Review, 77(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122412448648

Burt, R. S. (1984). Network items and the general social survey. Social Networks, 6(4), 293-
339. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(84)90007-8

Campbell, K. E., & Lee, B. A. (1991). Name generators in surveys of personal networks.
Social Networks, 13, 203-221. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(91)90006-F

Cave, L., Cooper, M. N., Zubrick, S. R., & Shepherd, C. C. (2020). Racial discrimination and
child and adolescent health in longitudinal studies: A systematic review. Social
Science & Medicine, 250, 112864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.112864

Cheeks, B. L., Chavous, T. M., & Sellers, R. M. (2020). A daily examination of African
American adoelscents' racial discrimination, parental racial socialization, and
psychological affect. Child Development, 91(6), 2123-2140.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13416

Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2008). The collective dynamics of smoking in a large
social network. New England Journal of Medicine, 358(21), 2249-2258.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa0706154

Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2009). Connected: The surprising power of our social
networks and how they shape our lives. Little, Brown, Spark.

Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2012). Social contagion theory: Examining dynamic social
networks and human behavior. Statistics in Medicine, 2013(32), 556-577.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.5408

Cillessen, A. H. N., & Marks, P. E. L. (2017). Methodological choices in peer nomination
research. In P. E. L. Marks & A. H. N. Cillessen (Eds.), New Directions in Peer
Nomination Methodology. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development
(Vol. 157, pp. 21-44).

Comfort, A. B., Harper, C. C., Tsai, A. C., Moody, J., Perkins, J. M., Ranjalahy
Rasolofomana, J., . . . Krezanoski, P. J. (2021). Social and provider networks and
women's contraceptive use: Evidence from Madagascar. Contraception, 104, 147-
154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2021.04.013

Cooper, S. M., McLoyd, V. C., Wood, D., & Hardaway, C. (2008). Racial discrimination and
the mental health of African American adolescents. In S. M. Q. C. McKown (Ed.),

46

Handbook of Race, Racism, and the Developing Child (pp. 278-312). John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.

Copeland, M., & Kamis, C. (2022). Who does cohesion benefit? Race, gender, and peer
networks associated with adolescent depressive symptoms. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 51, 1787-1797. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-022-01631-3

Dunbar, A. S., Perry, N. B., Cavanaugh, A. M., & Leerkes, E. M. (2015). African American
parents' racial and emotion socialization profiles and young adults' emotional
adaptation. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 21(3), 409-419.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037546

English, D., Lambert, S. F., Tynes, B. M., Bowleg, L., Zea, M. C., & Howard, L. C. (2020).
Daily multidimensional racial discrimination among Black US American adolescents.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 66, 101068.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2019.101068

Ennett, S. T., Bauman, K. E., Hussong, A., Faris, R., Foshee, V. A., Cai, L., & DuRant, R. H.
(2006). The peer context of adolescent substance use: Findings from social network
analysis. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16(2), 159-186.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2006.00127.x

Evans, A. B., Banerjee, M., Meyer, R., Aldana, A., Foust, M., & Rowley, S. (2012). Racial
socialization as a mechanism for positive development among African American
youth. Child Development Perspectives, 6(3), 251-257.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00226.x

Ferrari, L., Ranieri, S., Barni, D., & Rosnati, R. (2015). Transracial adoptees bridging
heritage and national cultures: Parental socialisation, ethnic identity, and self-esteem.
International Journal of Psychology, 50(6), 413-421.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12195

Golbeck, J. (2013). Analyzing the social web. Newnes.

Goodreau, S. M., Kitts, J. A., & Morris, M. (2009). Birds of a feather, or friend of a friend?
Using exponential random graph models to investigate adolescent social networks.
Demography, 46, 103-109. https://doi.org/10.1353/dem.0.0045

Grills, C., Cooke, D., Douglas, J., Subica, A., Villanueva, S., & Hudson, B. (2016). Culture,
racial socialization, and positive African American youth development. Journal of
Black Psychology, 42(4), 343-373. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798415578004

Grindal, M. (2017). Ethnic-racial socialization, social bonds, and college student substance
use. Deviant Behavior, 38(10), 1102-1119.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2016.1241015

Hughes, D., & Chen, L. (1997). When and what parents tell children about race: An
examination of race-related socialization among African American families. Applied
Developmental Science, 1(4), 200-214. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532480xads0104_4

47

Hughes, D., Rodriguez, J., Smith, E. P., Johnson, D. J., Stevenson, H. C., & Spicer, P. (2006).
Parents' ethnic-racial socialization practices: A review of research and directions for
future study. Developmental Psychology, 42(5), 747. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-
1649.42.5.747

Hurd, N. M., Sanchez, B., Zimmerman, M. A., & Caldwell, C. H. (2012). Natural mentors,
racial identity, and educational attainment among African American adolescents:
Exploring pathways to success. Child Development, 83(4), 1196-1212.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01769.x

Jackson III, B. W. (2012). Black identity development. In New perspectives on racial identity
development: Integrating emerging frameworks (2nd ed.). NYU Press.

Jones, D. L. (2018). The impact of ethnic-racial socialization messages from socialization
agents on Black ethnic-racial identity Kansas State University]. K-State Electronic
Theses, Dissertations, and Reports.

Lambert, S. F., Roche, K. M., Saleem, F. T., & Henry, J. S. (2015). Mother-adolescent
relationship quality as a moderator of associations between racial socialization and
adolescent psychological adjustment. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 85(5),
409-420. https://doi.org/10.1037/ort0000085

Lesane-Brown, C. L. (2006). A review of race socialization within Black families.
Developmental Review, 26, 400-426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2006.02.001

Lesane-Brown, C. L., Scotthan, K. M., Nguyen, H. X., & Sellers, R. M. (2006). The Racial
Socialization Questionnaire-teen (RSQ-t): A new measure for use with African
American adolescents. Unpublished manuscript.

Leventhal, T., Dupere, V., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2009). Neighborhood influences on
adolescent development. In L. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of
Adolescent Psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 411-443). Wiley.

Liu, L. L., & Lau, A. S. (2013). Teaching about race/ethnicity and racism matters: An
examination of how perceived ethnic racial socialization processes are associated with
depression symptoms. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 19(4), 383.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033447

Marin, A., & Wellman, B. (2011). Social network analysis: An introduction. In J. Scott & P.
Carrington (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis. SAGE.

Marsden, P. V. (1987). Core discussion networks of Americans. American Sociological
Review, 52(1), 122-131. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095397

Marsden, P. V. (2002). The reliability of network density and composition measures. Social
Networks, 15(4), 399-421. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(93)90014-C

Murry, V. M., & Lippold, M. A. (2018). Parenting practices in diverse family structures:
Examination of adolescents' development and adjustment. Journal of Research on
Adolescence, 28(3), 650-664. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12390

48

Neblett Jr., E. W., Rivas-Drake, D., & Umana-Taylor, A. J. (2012). The promise of racial and
ethnic protective factors in promoting ethnic minority youth development. Child
Development Perspectives, 6(3), 295-303. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-
8606.2012.00239.x

Neblett Jr., E. W., Terzian, M., & Harriott, V. (2010). From racial discrimination to substance
use: The buffering effects of racial socialization. Child Development Perspectives,
4(2), 131-137. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2010.00131.x

Nelson, S. C., Syed, M., Tran, A. G., Hu, A. W., & Lee, R. M. (2018). Pathways to ethnic-
racial identity development and psychological adjustment: The differential
associations of cultural socialization by parents and peers. Developmental
Psychology, 54(11), 2166. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000597

Nevard, I., Green, C., Bell, V., Gellatly, J., Brooks, H., & Bee, P. (2021). Conceptualising the
social networks of vulnerable children and young people: a systematic review and
narrative synthesis. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 56, 169-182.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-020-01968-9

Paasch-Anderson, J., Lamborn, S. D., & Azen, R. (2019). Beyond what, to how: Different
ways African American adolescents receive ethnic and racial socialization messages.
Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 25(4), 566-578.
https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000269

Peck, S. C., Brodish, A. B., Malanchuk, O., Banerjee, M., & Eccles, J. S. (2014).
Racial/ethnic socialization and identity development in Black families: The role of
parent and youth reports. Developmental Psychology, 50(7), 1897.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036800

Peterson, T. L. (2018). Grandparents raising grandchildren in the African American
community. Generations, 42(3), 30-36.

Planey, A. M., McNeil Smith, S., Moore, S., & Walker, T. D. (2019). Barriers and facilitators
to mental health help-seeking among African American youth and their families: A
systematic review study. Children and Youth Services Review, 101, 190-200.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.04.001

Priest, N., Paradies, Y., Trenerry, B., Truong, M., Karlsen, S., & Kelly, Y. (2013). A
systematic review of studies examining the relationship between reported racism and
health and wellbeing for children and young people. Social Science & Medicine, 95,
115-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.11.031

Priest, N., Walton, J., White, F., Kowal, E., Baker, A., & Paradies, Y. (2014). Understanding
the complexities of ethnic-racial socialization processes for both minority and
majority groups: A 30-year systematic review. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 43, 139-155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2014.08.003

49

Roach, A. (2018). Supportive peer relationships and mental health in adolescence: An
integrative review. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 39(9), 723-737.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01612840.2018.1496498

Rogers, E. M., & Kincaid, D. L. (1981). Communication networks: Toward a new paradigm
for research. Free Press.

Rollins, A., & Hunter, A. G. (2013). Racial socialization of biracial youth: Maternal
messages and approaches to address discrimination. Family Relations, 62(1), 140-
153. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2012.00748.x

Rosenquist, J. N., Murabito, J., Fowler, J. H., & Christakis, N. A. (2010). The spread of
alcohol consumption behavior in a large social network. Annals of Internal Medicine,
152(7), 426-433. https://doi.org/10.1059/0003-4819-152-7-201004060-00007

Sanders Thompson, V. L. (1994). Socialization to race and its relationship to racial
identification among African Americans. Journal of Black Psychology, 20(2), 175-
188. https://doi.org/10.1177/00957984940202006

Seaton, E. K., Caldwell, C. H., Sellers, R. M., & Jackson, J. S. (2009). The prevalence of
perceived discrimination among African American and Caribbean Black youth.
Developmental Psychology, 44(5), 1288-1297. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012747

Smith, K. P., & Christakis, N. A. (2008). Social networks and health. Annual Review of
Sociology, 34, 405-429. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.34.040507.134601

Sosoo, E. E., Bernard, D. L., & Neblett Jr., E. W. (2020). The influence of internalized
racism on the relationship between discrimination and anxiety. Cultural Diversity and
Ethnic Minority Psychology, 26(4), 570-580. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000320

Steinberg, L., & Monahan, K. C. (2007). Age differences in resistance to peer influence.
Developmental Psychology, 43(6), 1531. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1531

Stevenson, H. C., McNeil, J. D., Herrero-Taylor, T., & Davis, G. Y. (2005). Influence of
perceived neighborhood diversity and racism experience on the racial socialization of
Black youth. Journal of Black Psychology, 31(3), 273-290.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798405278453

Tatum, B. D. (2004). Family life and school experience: Factors in the racial identity
development of Black youth in White communities. Journal of Social Issues, 60(1),
117-135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-4537.2004.00102.x

Umaña-Taylor, A. J., & Hill, N. E. (2020). Ethnic-racial socialization in the family: A
decade's advance on precursors and outcomes. Journal of Marriage and Family,
82(1), 244-271. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12622

Valente, T. W. (1995). Network models of the diffusion of innovations. Hampton.

Valente, T. W. (2010). Social networks and health: Models, methods, and applications.
Oxford University Press.

50

Valente, T. W., Fujimoto, K., Soto, D., Ritt-Olson, A., & Unger, J. B. (2013). A comparison
of peer influence measuers as predictors of smoking among predominately
Hispanic/Latino high school adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 52(3), 358-
364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.06.014

Valente, T. W., & Pitts, S. R. (2017). An appraisal of social network theory and analysis as
applied to public health: Challenges and opportunities. Annual Review of Public
Health, 38, 103-118. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031816-044528

Valente, T. W., & Saba, W. P. (1998). Mass media and interpersonal influence in a
reproductive health communication campaign in Bolivia. Communication Research,
25(1), 96-124. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365098025001004

Valente, T. W., Watkins, S. C., Jato, M. N., van der Straten, A., & Tsitsol, L. P. M. (1997).
Social network associations with contraceptive use among Cameroonian women in
voluntary associations. Social Science & Medicine, 45(5), 677-687.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0277-9536(96)00385-1

Walker, R., Francis, D., Brody, G., Simons, R. L., Cutrona, C., & Gibbons, F. (2017). A
longitudinal study of racial discrimination and risk for death ideation in African
American youth. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 47(1), 86-102.
https://doi.org/10.1111/sltb.12251

Wang, M. T., Henry, D. A., Smith, L. V., Huguley, J. P., & Guo, J. (2020). Parental ethnic-
racial socialization practices and children of color's psychosocial and behavioral
adjustment: A systematic review and meta-analysis. American Psychologist, 75(1), 1.
https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000464

Wang, Y., & Benner, A. D. (2016). Cultural socialization across contexts: Family-peer
congruence and adolescent well-being. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(3), 594-
611.

Winchester, L. B., Jones, S. C. T., Allen, K., Hope, E., & Cryer-Coupet, Q. R. (2021). Let's
talk: The impact of gendered racial socialization on Black adolescent girls' mental
health. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, (Advance online
publication). https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000484

Yasui, M. (2015). A review of the empirical assessment of processes in ethnic-racial
socialization: Examining methodological advances and future areas of development.
Developmental Review, 37, 1-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2015.03.001

51

Appendix A: Phase 2 Recruitment Flyer

52

Appendix B: Original Social Network Interview Guide
Date: ____ ____/____ ____/____ ____ ____ ____

Social Network Interview Guide

Section 1: Name Generators

Now I am going to ask you about relationships you have with different people. For each
person you name, I will ask some follow up questions.

A. To start off, I want you to think about the people who play an important role in
your life. These might be people you turn to for emotional support, for information, or
for help getting things done. I am interested in learning about people that you know
and who know you. For example, these could be people in your family, friends,
coaches, or neighbors. I am also interested in people that you spend a lot of time with,
like your teachers, regardless of whether you consider them to be ‘important’ to you.

These should be people you have had contact with sometime during the past 12
months, either face-to-face, by text, by phone, or online (including Zoom or social
media). You can name anyone you know, no matter who they are or where they live.

Please list first names and the first initial of last names only – we want to protect the
privacy of these people. We do NOT want to know their full last names. For example,
if someone’s name is Aliyah Brown, list her as Aliyah B.

[After each name is given, ask the participant the following questions]

B. Please tell me this person’s first name and last initial. _______________________

C. What is your relationship to [name]? (select one)

◯ Mother ◯ Cousin
◯ Stepmother ◯ Teacher
◯ Father ◯ School guidance counselor
◯ Stepfather ◯ Coach / athletic director
◯ Guardian (non-biological) ◯ Principal
◯ Adult sibling ◯ Therapist / social worker
◯ Grandmother (mother’s side) ◯ Minister / religious leader
◯ Grandmother (father’s side) ◯ Neighbor
◯ Grandfather (mother’s side) ◯ Friend
◯ Grandfather (father’s side) ◯ Friend’s parent
◯ Aunt / uncle ◯ Friend’s sibling
◯ Brother / sister ◯ Doctor / nurse

53

◯ Half-brother / half-sister ◯ Someone else: _______________
◯ Stepbrother / stepsister

D. How old is [name]? If you do not know for sure, please tell me your best guess.

_____________

E. What is [name]’s gender? (select one)

◯ Male
◯ Female
◯ Gender Queer
◯ Nonbinary
◯ Other: ____________________

F. Does [name] identify as being transgender?

◯ Yes
◯ No

G. Which of the following best describes [name]’s racial background? (please select
all that apply)

☐ American Indian or Alaska Native (Navajo Nation, Mayan, etc.)
☐ Asian (Chinese, Filipino, Asian Indian, Vietnamese, Korean, Japanese, etc.)
☐ Black or African American (Jamaican, Nigerian, Ethiopian, etc.)
☐ Hispanic, Latinx, or Spanish Origin (Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, etc.)
☐ Middle Eastern or North African (Iranian, Egyptian, Moroccan, etc.)
☐ Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (Native Hawaiian, Samoan, Tongan, etc.)
☐ White (German, Irish, English, Italian, Polish, French, etc.)
☐ Something else: ____________________

[After going through sections 1B-G, prompt the participant:]

Who else plays an important role in your life or do you spend a lot of time with?
[Repeat until the participant says that there is no one else. Stop at a maximum of 20
people.]

54

Section 2: Tie Strength

[You now have a list of up to 20 names representing the participant’s social support ties. Ask
the following questions for each person on this list.]

You have given me a list of the people who play an important role in your life. I will now ask
you some questions about your relationships with each of these people.

For the next few questions, I will refer to [name].

1. Thinking about your interactions with [name] over the past 12 months, how often
have you interacted with [name]? (select one)

◯ Once in the past 12 months ◯ Once per week
◯ A few times in the past 12 months ◯ A few times per week
◯ Once per month ◯ Every day or almost every day
◯ A few times per month

2. Where did these interactions take place? Were they in-person, online, or both? (select
one)

◯ In-person
◯ Online (e.g., Zoom, messaging, email, social media)
◯ Both in-person and online

3. How close do you feel to [name] on a scale from 1 to 10, where the number 10
represents “you feel very close to this person” and 1 represents “you do not feel close
to this person at all”? (select one)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Not close Very close

4. How much do you trust [name] on a scale from 1 to 10, where the number 10
represents “you trust this person more than any other person you know”, and the
number 1 represents “you do not trust this person at all”? (select one)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
No trust A lot of trust

[Once the participant answers questions 1-4 (Section 2) for the first name on the list, proceed
with the next name. Repeat up to 20 times, depending on the number of names generated in
Section 1.]

55

Section 3: Racial Socialization

You have told me a bit about your relationship with each person on your list. Now, I am
going to ask some more questions about messages that you may or may not receive from
these people.

For the next few questions, I will refer to [name].

1. Over the past 12 months, how often did [name] talk to you about racism? (select one)

◯ Never
◯ Once or twice
◯ More than twice

2. Over the past 12 months, how often did [name] tell you that people might dislike you,
treat you badly, or think they are better than you because of your race? (select one)

◯ Never
◯ Once or twice
◯ More than twice

3. Over the past 12 months, how often did [name] tell you that people might try to keep
you from being successful, or tell you that you have to work twice as hard as white
people to get ahead? (select one)

◯ Never
◯ Once or twice
◯ More than twice

4. Over the past 12 months, how often did [name] talk to you about the fight for equality
among Black people? (select one)

◯ Never
◯ Once or twice
◯ More than twice

5. Over the past 12 months, how often did [name] talk to you about Black history or tell
you that your cultural background is important? (select one)

◯ Never
◯ Once or twice
◯ More than twice

6. Over the past 12 months, how often did [name] tell you to never be ashamed of your
Black features, or tell you that you should be proud to be Black? (select one)

56

◯ Never
◯ Once or twice
◯ More than twice

7. Over the past 12 months, how often did you and [name] do something to celebrate
Black history or attend a Black cultural event together (either in person or remote)?
(select one)

◯ Never
◯ Once or twice
◯ More than twice

8. Over the past 12 months, how often did [name] tell you that Black people and white
people should try to understand each other so that they can get along? (select one)

◯ Never
◯ Once or twice
◯ More than twice

9. Over the past 12 months, how often did [name] tell you that racism does not exist?
(select one)

◯ Never
◯ Once or twice
◯ More than twice

10. Over the past 12 months, how often did [name] tell you that all people are equal,
regardless of race or ethnicity? (select one)

◯ Never
◯ Once or twice
◯ More than twice

[Once the participant answers questions 1-17 (Section 3) for the first name on the list,
proceed with the next name. Repeat for each name generated in Section 1.]

57

Section 4: Alter-Alter Connections

Now we will do something a little different. Please think about the relations between the
people you named earlier. Some of the people may be total strangers and not recognize each
other on the street. Others may know each other a little bit. Others may be very close.

Thinking about [name] and [name], how well do they know each other?

-99 = Do not know
0 = They do not know one another
1 = They know one another, but are not very close
2 = They know one another and are somewhat close
3 = They know one another and are very close

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
1 ______ X
2 ______ X
3 ______ X
4 ______ X
5 ______ X
6 ______ X
7 ______ X
8 ______ X
9 ______ X
10 _____ X
11 _____ X
12 _____ X
13 _____ X
14 _____ X
15 _____ X
16 _____ X
17 _____ X
18 _____ X
19 _____ X
20 _____ X

Thank you for answering these questions. We are now finished with this part of the study.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Racial socialization (RS) messages are protective against the negative impacts of racial discrimination on Black adolescents’ mental health. Yet, research primarily focuses on parents as sources of RS. This study applied an egocentric social network approach to define Black adolescents’ support systems and identify sources of RS messages within these networks. Black adolescents ages 10 to 14 in Los Angeles, California participated in a focus group and cognitive interviews (N = 8) to provide feedback on a social network interview (phase 1). Following an iterative adaptation process, 10-to-17-year-old Black adolescents (N =52) were recruited to complete the modified social network interview (phase 2). Participants named up to 20 important people in their lives (i.e., alters), described the quality of these relationships, noted the content of RS messages provided by each alter, and indicated the extent to which each pair of alters knew one another. The mean age of participants was 13.8 years (standard deviation [SD] = 2.71), and 65% (N = 34) were boys. Alters (M=11.6, SD=5.74) included immediate family members, extended family members, peers, and supportive adults at school and in the community. Alters across all ecological contexts provided RS messages, particularly those that focused on preparation for bias and cultural socialization. Black alters, female alters, and adults were more likely than non-Black alters, male alters, and minors to provide these messages. These findings demonstrate a novel approach to studying RS and highlight a need to study the constellation of RS messages provided to Black adolescents, across multiple sources.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Mental health consequences of structural racism on Latine youth: moderating role of racial-ethnic socialization

PDF

Friendship network position on adolescent behaviors: an examination of a broker position and the likelihood of alcohol and cigarette use

PDF

The role of social status and gender in the composition of bully-victim dyads in early adolescence

PDF

The link between maternal depression and adolescent daughters' risk behavior: the mediating and moderating role of family

PDF

Racial discourse in the Black Lives Matter era: Black youth’s academic and digital experiences

PDF

Generalization of social rejection in social networks

PDF

Differential associations between same- and cross-ethnicity negative peer attitudes and adjustment outcomes among Vietnamese and Mexican American adolescents

PDF

Social attributes of adolescents’ problem-talk partners predict changes in depression

PDF

The relationship between dating status and academic and social functioning among Latinx and Asian-American middle adolescents

PDF

The impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on therapy utilization among racially/ethnically and socio-economically diverse children with autism spectrum disorder

PDF

Is affluence a developmental risk for Hong Kong Chinese adolescents?

PDF

Opportunity beliefs and behavioral outcomes in Latinx youth: an exploration of Ogbu’s cultural-ecological model

PDF

A network analysis of online and offline social influence processes in relation to adolescent smoking and alcohol use

PDF

Impact of change in sexual identity on mental health risks among sexual minority adolescents

PDF

Social media and health: social support and social capital on pregnancy-related social networking sites

PDF

Adolescent social networks, smoking, and loneliness

PDF

Academic achievement, same- and cross-ethnic positive peer regard among Asian American and Latinx adolescents

PDF

Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias research communication practices with minoritized racial and ethnic groups: a multiple case study

PDF

The role of race and racism in Black male medical students’ specialty selection process

PDF

A conscious effort: how messages urban high school age African-American adolescent males receive from their home and community influence the way they navigate their realities and the value they p...

Asset Metadata

Creator Satinsky, Emily (author)

Core Title The egocentric social networks of Black adolescents and sources of racial socialization messages

School College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program Psychology

Degree Conferral Date 2023-08

Publication Date 07/05/2023

Defense Date 04/25/2023

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Black adolescents,child and adolescent health,cultural socialization,egocentric networks,OAI-PMH Harvest,preparation for bias,protective factors,racial socialization,social networks

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Galán, Chardée (committee chair), Culyba, Alison (committee member), Huey, Stanley Jr. (committee member), Schwartz, David (committee member)

Creator Email ens48@cornell.edu,satinsky@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113260751

Unique identifier UC113260751

Identifier etd-SatinskyEm-12017.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-SatinskyEm-12017

Document Type Thesis

Format theses (aat)

Rights Satinsky, Emily

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230705-usctheses-batch-1061 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu