DO RACE AND ETHNICITY MATTER AMONG FRIENDS?

DO RACE AND ETHNlClTY MATTER AMONG FRIENDS?

Activities among Interracial, Interethnic, and Intraethnic Adolescent Friends

Grace Kao University of Pennsylvania

Kara Joyner Corn ell University

Using the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (or Add Health), a nationally representative sample of adolescents in 1994-1995, we examine if and how friendship activities differ among interracial, interethnic, and intraethnic friendships of white, black, Hispanic, and Asian youths. We find that best friends are more likely than higher-order friends to be from the same ethnic group and that best friends report more shared activities during the past week than do their higher-order friendship counterparts. Hence, we argue that shared activities is a useful indicator of friendship intimacy. In general, interracial friends report fewer shared activities than do intraracial friends, although this difference is strongest for white respondents. Moreover, we find that white, Asian, and Hispanic youths all report fewer activities with their black friends. We find little difference in friendship activities between interethnic and intraethnic friendships. Our findings suggest that, even when youths manage to break racial boundaries in friendship selection, these friendships face greater challenges than do those between individuals of the same race.

In the United States individuals are most likely to marry, live near, and become friends with others who are similar to themselves. Among the social boundaries that separate adults and children, race and ethnicity are among the most formidable. Although most intimate relationships are formed with others from similar racial and ethnic backgrounds, interracial and interethnic relationships do occur. However, it is unknown whether these friendships are less intimate because of the persistence of racial and ethnic differentiation and segregation that permeates through the daily lives of individuals in the United States.

The most recent figures released by the 2000 U.S. Census suggest that among the 14- to 17-year-old population approximately 36 percent were minority students1 Increasingly,

Direct all correspondence to Grace Kao, Department of Sociology, University of Pennsylvania, 3718 Locust Walk, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6299; e-mail: [email protected]

The Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 45, Issue 3, pp. 557-573, ISSN 0038-0253, electronic ISSN 1533-8525. 0 2004 by The Midwest Sociological Society. All rights reserved. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press’s Rights and Permissions website, at httpJ/www. ucpress.edu/journals/rights.htm.

558 THE SOCIOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Vol. 45/No. 3/2004

the average child in the United States will face a multiracial and multiethnic student body. Though past research suggests that early exposure to multiracial friends can affect future attitudes about other groups, it is unclear that a diverse student body necessarily translates into racially integrated peer groups and friendship networks (Emerson, Kim- bro, and Yancey 2002). We examine this issue by evaluating the shared activities of interracial and interethnic contact among adolescents. Using the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (or Add Health), a nationally representative sample of schools and adolescents in those schools, we examine variation in friendship activities of intraethnic, interethnic, and interracial friendships among white, black, Hispanic, and Asian American youths. Add Health offers a unique opportunity to explore interracial contact not only because it includes items about shared activities with friends but also because its design makes it possible to directly trace the racial and ethnic background of peers.

Our article proceeds as follows: First, we briefly review past perspectives on interracial friendship and contact, focusing on issues of friendship activities. Next, we describe Add Health and clarify why it is uniquely suited for our purposes. Then, we consider patterns of interracial and interethnic friendships. Specifically, we examine friendship patterns among black, white, Hispanic, and Asian American adolescents. Our main focus is to examine whether interethnic and interracial friendships are characterized by fewer shared activities than are same-ethnic friendships. We examine both first-listed (or best friends) and higher-order friendships. We are also interested in the extent to which racial and ethnic homophily varies by friendship order and whether this variation accounts for patterns found in friendship activities. In other words, interethnic and interracial friendships may consist of fewer activities because they are less likely to be among the closest friendships reported by adolescents. We examine the extent to which individual and contextual characteristics explain any variation in the number of friendship activities among intraethnic, interethnic, and interracial friendships.

It is important to examine whether friendships that cross racial or ethnic boundaries are less intimate because it gives us a sense of the relative difficulty of maintaining diverse friendships. In other words, given that cross-race and cross-ethnic friendships are less likely to occur than same-ethnic friendships, are these friendships characterized by fewer shared activities since same-ethnic interactions are the norm? Also, might cross-ethnic or cross-race friendships be less likely to occur in the closest friendships reported by youths? One might anticipate that fewer shared activities are a sign of less- intimate friendships. These patterns may indicate the extent to which adolescents are racially and ethnically segregated. Not only can interracial interaction improve individual attitudes about other groups, but racial distance between groups can affect norms of academic achievement (Kao and Tienda 1998; Kao 2000; Emerson, Kimbro, and Yancey

In addition, these patterns may be suggestive of social distance between groups in the future, to the extent that adolescents are the harbingers of trends in the general population. Previous studies suggest that, at the very least, adolescents’ experience with an interracial friendship may influence their racial attitudes (Damico, Bell-Nathaniel, and Green 1981; Ellison and Powers 1994; Emerson, Kimbro, and Yancey 2002). The Contact Hypothesis, as theorized by Allport in 1954, suggests that racial attitudes are directly correlated to the degree of intimate contact between members of different racial groups. Thus, although any friendly contact between race- and ethnic-group members promotes

2002).

Do Race and Ethnicity Matter among Friends? 559

positive group attitudes, it may be that intimate friendships are key in encouraging positive race and ethnic relations.

Our study differs from previous work in a number of ways. First, there is almost no research that compares intraethnic, interethnic, and interracial friendship activities using a nationally representative sample of youths. Second, we not only focus on whites and blacks but also include Hispanics and Asians. We are also careful about differentiat- ing between friends that respondents consider to be their “best friends” and those who they list as higher-order friends. Finally, we allow for the possibiIity that, although friendship activities may be a measure of friendship intimacy, the frequency and meanings attached to these specific activities may themselves vary by race and ethnicity.

BACKC ROU N D Little is known about patterns of friendship between adolescents of different racial or ethnic backgrounds, and the theoretical underpinnings of this research are unclear (Hal- linan and Smith 1985). Studies based on nationally representative samples that consider patterns of interracial friendship suggest that a substantial proportion of adolescents form interracial friendships and that factors at several levels (i.e., region, community, school, classroom, and individual) influence adolescents’ formation of these relationships (for an example, see Hallinan and Williams 1989).

A number of studies suggest that the racial composition of schools has important consequences for students that extend beyond their immediate relationships. Students who attend racially integrated schools have more positive feelings about other racial groups than those of students who attend segregated schools. Students in integrated schools also have more-extensive interactions with other racial groups than those of their counterparts in segregated schools (for a review of this literature, see Schofield and Sagar 1983). Not only does attending a racially integrated school influence racial attitudes and behavior in childhood and adolescence, it also appears to influence patterns of close interracial friendship in adulthood (Ellison and Powers 1994; Sigelman et al. 1996; Emerson, Kimbro, and Yancey 2002). Undoubtedly, part of the effect of school racial composition on interracial friendship in adulthood is explained by the higher odds of experiencing or witnessing an interracial friendship or romance during childhood or adolescence (DuBois and Hirsch 1990).

For instance, a recent study by Sigelman and colleagues (1996) reveals that relative group size has a significant impact on both casual contact (i.e., conversations) and close friendship between blacks and whites. As the proportion of blacks in a neighborhood increases, so does the percent of whites that have a close interracial friendship. Among youths Hansel1 and Slavin (1981) find that changing classroom structures that increase interracial contact actually increases the frequency of interracial friendships. Context and the opportunity to interact have significant consequences on the odds of developing interracial friendships.

However, these studies typically focus on the formation of friendships between whites and blacks and neglect Hispanics and Asian Americans (DuBois and Hirsch 1990). One may surmise that the relative infrequency of white-minority friendships serves as a sign of the distance between minority groups and whites. Moreover, there is little research that compares interethnic friendships with interracial friendships (for some exceptions, see Emerson, Kimbro ,and Yancey2002; Kao and J oyner2002). Because previous research


focuses on interracial friendships between blacks and whites, it does not attempt to examine whether interethnic friendships (within a given racial group) differ from interracial friendships in frequency or quality when compared with same-ethnic friendships.

Cultural Explanations

Cultural explanations stress that group membership is socially constructed. Membership in racial and ethnic groups is a case in point. Both types of memberships are defined externally. Yet, whereas ethnic-group membership is based on cultural and national differences, racial-group membership is based partly on physical and geographic differences Furthermore, in the United States racial-group membership is sometimes associated with differences in status. The association between ethnic-group membership and status may be less apparent. Still, the line between both of these concepts is fuzzy (Cornell and Hartmann 1998). Thus, studies of interracial versus interethnic friendships can address theoretical concerns about the salience of race versus ethnicity and provide measure- ments of the relative distance between racial and ethnic groups.

For example, if Chinese-Japanese friendships were just as likely as Chinese-Chinese friendships (after controlling for racial composition at school), then the relative distance between Chinese and Japanese adolescents would be considered insignificant (as far as friendship formation is concerned). However, if Mexican-Cuban friendships were less common than Mexican-Mexican or even Mexican-white friendships, this pattern would signal the greater distance between Mexican and Cuban adolescents (compared with that between Mexican-Mexican or Mexican-white youths).

Given the relative homogeneity of language and cultural practices of Hispanic ethnics when compared with those of Asian ethnics, one might expect greater cultural affinity between disparate Hispanic ethnic groups than there is between Asian ethnic groups. If there is greater proximity between the Hispanic ethnic groups, one might expect little variation in friendship activities between intraethnic friendships and interethnic friendship among Hispanics. In contrast, because of the greater differences between Asian ethnic groups, one might expect a greater distance between these group members, which would be manifested in lower friendship rates. Hence, among Asian ethnic groups interethnic friendships would share fewer activities than would intraethnic friendships (when compared with those among Hispanic ethnic groups). However, in a recent paper Kao and Joyner (2002) find that this is not the case. According to the paper Hispanic ethnics are as likely as Asian ethnics to choose intraethnic friends, after controlling for the racial and ethnic composition of schools. Still, we may find a closer proximity between Hispanic ethnic groups when accounting for the number of activities shared by friends.

Following the convention of previous studies, we use the term race to depict non- Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic blacks, Hispanics, and Asians (Hirschman, Aka, and Farley 2000; Harris and Sims 2002; Harris 2003). Though Hispanics are not a racial group, they are a panethnic group that includes members of different ethnic groups. Since cultural differences are more prominent among Hispanics and Asians, we use the term ethnicity in reference to subgroups comprising these racial groups only (for instance Korean American or Cuban American).


Racial and Gender Differences in Friendship Quality

Psychologists have examined whether race and gender affect the relative quality of friendships, but these studies generally do not explore how interracial friendships may differ from intraracial friendships. Often, this research uses a version of the Network of Relationships Inventory (NRI) scale to examine various facets of friendship quality; these include reliable alliance, enhancement of worth, affection, companionship, instru- mental help, intimacy, nurturance of the other, conflict, and satisfaction (Phillipsen 1999; for another example, see Way and Chen 2000). Our study is not directly comparable to this literature, because scales comparable to the NRI are not available in Add Health. However, our measures tap into the amount and type of shared activities among friends. These are the only available measures in Add Health that measure friendship activities.

From the psychological literature there is some evidence that Asian American youths have less friendship support than do African American or Latino youths (Way and Chen 2000). However, much of the psychological research on friendship quality does not use nationally representative samples. It is possible that ethnicity affects the norms and meanings attached to friendship activities .For instance, native-born white youths and their parents may be more likely to invite friends from school over to their house than are their Asian or Hispanic counterparts. Asians and Hispanics are more likely to have immigrant parents who may not be accustomed to hosting friends at home. There is little research in this area, but we believe that we need to take this possibility into account. Hence, in our analyses section we analyze whites, blacks, Hispanics, and Asians separately to account for this possibility. Moreover, previous psychological research has not examined how friendship quality is affected by the racial and ethnic composition of friends. Can the stigma of crossing ethnic and racial lines prove detrimental to friendship activities? For instance, is it harder for a white youth to bring home her best friend if she is Hispanic than if she is white?

HYPOTHESES

Based on our review of the literature on the formation of interracial friendship, we expect the following:

H , : Friendships between adolescents of different races will involve fewer shared

H,: Friendships between adolescents of different ethnicities will involve fewer shared

H, : Because race and ethnicity are meaningful boundaries, we expect first-listed

activities than will friendships between adolescents of the same race.

activities than will friendships between adolescents of the same ethnicity.

(best) friends to be more homophilous than higher-order friends.

SAMPLE

The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) collected data from a representative sample of adolescents who were in grades seven through twelve during the 1994-1995 school year (Bearman, Jones, and Udry 1997). For each of the 134 schools sampled, Add Health distributed in-school questionnaires to all students who were present on the day of administration during one 45- to 60-minute class period.The


in-school questionnaire, a self-administered instrument, included questions pertaining to adolescents’ social background, their health, their school activities, their problem behavior, and their general affect, among other things.

For each participating school Add Health obtained a roster of its students and then assigned an identification number to each student. These rosters enabled students to identify their friends in the course of completing the in-school questionnaire. At the end of the class period, these rosters were collected and then destroyed. Using these identification numbers, we have been able to directly determine the race and ethnicity of adolescents’ friends.

More than 90,000 adolescents completed the in-school questionnaire. Although the questionnaire allowed students to nominate as many as five friends of each sex, our study focuses on same-sex best friends. Of those who completed a questionnaire 57 percent of the adolescent males and 64 percent of the adolescent females nominated such a friend. About four-fifths of the male and the female adolescents with a same-sex best friend provided his or her identification number using the student roster. Our sample is restricted to the 35,541 males and females who reported their race and ethnicity and whose best friend also reported their race and ethnicity.

MEASURES

Race and Ethnicity

We have divided sample members and their friends into four mutually exclusive racial groups: white, black/African American, Hispanic, and AsianIPacific Islander. We have further divided Hispanics into four ethnic groups: Mexican/Mexican American or Chicano/ Chicana, Cuban, Puerto Rican, and Central/South American. We have divided Asians into six ethnic groups: Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Asian Indian, Korean, and Vietnam- ese. For these analyses we have omitted the category “Other Hispanic” and “Other Asian” because of the difficulty in distinguishing same-ethnic friendships for these two residual categories-one would not be able to discern whether an “Other-Asian and Other-Asian” dyad was intraethnic or interethnic. We have had the same difficulty with the category “Central/South American,” but unfortunately, Add Health did not collect more fine-tuned ethnic measures.

Interracial and Interethnic Friendships

We have limited our analysis of friendships to those nominated by students as same-sex best friends. We have divided friendships into three categories: (1) same ethnicity and race; (2) same race but different ethnicity; and (3) different race and ethnicity. A friendship between two whites would fall into the first category. A friendship between a Chi- nese and a Korean or a Cuban and a Puerto Rican would fall into the second category. And a friendship between a Hispanic and a black would fall into the third category.

Racial and Ethnic Composition of Schools

We have used the entire in-school sample to determine the proportion white, black, His- panic, and Asian American in each school. We believe school composition is the best


measure to estimate the opportunity for interracial or interethnic friendships. Further- more, it is likely that group boundaries at school are decisive in how youths choose their friends. We have also included measures of the proportion of same ethnics in school. This measure is actually the proportion of those of the same race who are also same ethnics; we were unable to use the simple measure proportion of same ethnicity in school because of multicollinearity problems between the proportion who were same race and the proportion who were same ethnicity.

Friendship Activities

We have used five dichotomous items and their sums to depict the activities of youths’ best friendships (and higher-order friendships): (1) you went to his or her house in the last seven days; (2) you met him or her after school to hang out or go somewhere in the last seven days; (3) you spent time with him or her last weekend; (4) you talked with him or her about a problem in the past seven days; and ( 5 ) you talked with him or her on the telephone in the last seven days. Although our items about shared activities are not comparable to the NRI scale, they do measure the extent of shared activities in the past week, which serves as an indicator of intimacy. These measures are specific to the friend in question and are the only measures we have of friendship activities in Add Health.

DESCRIPTIVE RESULTS

Table 1 presents race and ethnicity of best friends by race and ethnicity of respondents. The groups included are (1) whites; (2) blacks; (3) Mexicans; (4) Cubans; ( 5 ) Puerto Ricans; (6) Central/South Americans; (7) Chinese; (8) Filipinos; (9) Japanese; (10) Asian Indians; (11) Koreans; and (12) Vietnamese. Add Health additionally included the category “Chicanos/Chicanas,” but this category is distinct as a politically charged label more than as a specific ethnic group distinct from Mexicans. Therefore, we combined Mexi- cans and ChicanodChicanas into one group. Moreover, we have not included “Other Hispanics” or “Other Asians” because we could not distinguish between their intraethnic and interethnic choices. Specifically, groups 3 through 6 have been labeled “Hispanics,” and groups 7 through 12 have been labeled “Asians”; these figures have been shaded to indicate the larger “racial” categories.

The numbers that fall on the diagonal represent intraethnic friendships. Noticeably, all groups, including Asian and Hispanic subgroups, disproportionately favor same- ethnic friends. The second preference for Asians and Hispanics fluctuates between whites and any of the same-race but different-ethnic counterparts. The same-race nomi- nations are located in the two shaded areas of the table. Every Asian subgroup nominated each other at rates higher than or equivalent to those expected given the composition of our sample, with the exception of Asian Indians, who did not nominate Vietnamese students. However, Kao and Joyner (2002) have discovered that panethnic tendencies are due exclusively to the clustering of ethnic groups within schools; once school racial and ethnic composition are taken into account, there is little evidence of panethnic tendencies.

FRIENDSHIP ACTIVITIES

Next we turn to the number and kinds of shared friendship activities. Here, we are most interested in whether the activities enjoyed by best friends (first-listed friend) are

TABL

E 1.

R

AC

E/ET

HN

ICIT

Y O

F SA

ME-

SEX

BEST

FR

IEN

D, B

Y R

AC

E/ET

HN

ICIT

Y O

F R

ESPO

ND

ENT

(IN

PR

OP

OR

TIO

NS

)

Rac

eIE

thni

city

of R

espo

nden

ts

His

pani

cs

Asi

ans

Frie

nd’s

Rac

e/

Cen

tral

/ A

sian

E

thni

city

N

Pr

op.

Whi

te

Bla

ck M

exic

an C

uban

PR

SA

C

hine

se F

ilipi

no J

apan

ese

Indi

an

Kor

eanV

ietn

ames

e 5

Tot

al

Prop

ortio

n 1.

Whi

te

2. B

lack

3.

Mex

ican

4.

Cub

an

5. P

uert

o R

ican

6.

Cen

tral

/Sou

th A

m.

7. C

hine

se

8. F

ilipi

no

9. J

apan

ese

10. A

sian

Indi

an

11. K

orea

n 12

. Vie

tnam

ese

30,1

93

20,6

42

4,63

0 1,

933

380

429

934

229

448

104

118

213

133

,679

,1

52

,064

,0

13

,014

,0

32

,008

.0

15

,003

,0

04

.007

.0

04

;s .2

46

0

,014

.S

O

.045

.0

26

.179

.1

81

.022

,0

24

,020

.0

78

.010

.0

25

5 ,6

86

.153

.0

65

.013

,0

15

.031

.0

07

,014

.0

03

.004

.0

07

.004

Q

.9

18

,059

.2

41

,092

,3

71

,271

,3

32

,147

,2

02

,557

.2

71

0

n P ,Q %

.001

,0

00

. A C

.0

03

.002

.

.004

,0

03

.

.003

,0

02

. : 5 G

Not

e: B

old

num

bers

repr

esen

t int

raet

hnic

frie

ndsh

ips.

Sam

e-ra

ce n

omln

atlo

ns a

re lo

cate

d in

the

two

shad

ed a

reas

of t

he ta

ble.

Z

P

w


comparable among intraethnic, interethnic, and interracial best friends. Can it be that friends who manage to cross racial boundaries experience more distant friendships than those who do not? To answer this question we have analyzed the characteristics of friendships by comparing the activities same-ethnic best friends shared with those shared by different-ethnic and different-race best friends.

Table 2 presents rates of participation in five activities with the nominated “best friend,” as well as the overall sum of the frequencies of these activities, by race of respondent and by whether the nominated best friend is intraracial or interracial. Though these descriptive tabulations are unweighted, we have limited the sample to those respondents who have been assigned an in-school weight. For Asians and Latinos we have further distinguished between those friendships that are interethnic and those that are intraethnic. The activities are (1) went to friend’s house in the last week; (2) met friend after school in the last week; (3) spent time with friend last weekend; (4) talked about a problem last week; and ( 5 ) talked on the phone last week. Overall, we have found that among whites and blacks, those who had a same-race best friend reported more shared activities than did students with different-race friends. Moreover, they were more likely to have engaged in any of the listed activities last week than were their counterparts who had an interracial best friend.

Asian youths with same-ethnic best friends also reported more activities than did their counterparts with different-ethnic or different-race best friends. The tendency for ethnically homophilous Asian friends to share more activities is most apparent in items where there is face-to-face contact, especially at a friend’s house.

Only Hispanics did not follow the pattern of reporting more activities with same-ethnic friends. Latino youths who reported a different-race friend reported the most number of activities, whereas Latinos with a same-ethnic best friend reported fewer activities. This pattern is also apparent when examining each activity individually. This suggests that the frequency of these activities may be determined by a cultural paradigm that privileges friends relative to significant others. Interestingly, whites generally reported more activities with their best friends (regardless of their race) than did blacks, Hispanics, or Asians. This overall difference is especially apparent in some activities such as “went to friend’s house last week” or “spent time with friend last weekend.” We suspect that the racial differences in reporting may be due to differences in cultural norms for seeing friends outside of school. It may be that Hispanic students who engage in friendships with other coethnics are more likely to live in ethnic communities where family interaction is dominant relative to peer relationships at school (Valenzuela and Dornbusch 1994). In other words, these kids may spend the most time with siblings or other rela- tives who would not be considered “best friends” on the survey but who serve as their closest companion.

Table 3 examines the relationship between friendship order and friend’s relative race and ethnic status by race of respondent. For all race and ethnic groups there is a clear, albeit modest, progression toward heterophily as the friendship order increases. In other words, fifth-listed friends are more likely than first-listed ones to be interethnic or interracial.Among whites we find that 91.5% of best friends are white and that only 8.5% are nonwhite; in contrast, about 88% of fifth-listed friends are white, whereas 12% are nonwhite. For blacks about 85% of first-listed friends are black, compared with 79% of fifth- listed friends. For Hispanics about 52% of first-listed friends are same-ethnic Hispanics,

TABL

E 2.

FR

IEN

DS

HIP

AC

TIV

ITIE

S A

MO

NG

SA

ME

-ETH

NIC

, DIF

FER

EN

T-E

THN

IC,

AN

D D

IFFE

REN

T-R

AC

E BE

ST F

RIE

ND

S B

Y R

AC

E

Whi

te

Bla

ck

His

pani

c A

sian

Sam

e D

iffe

rent

Sa

me

Dif

fere

nt

Sam

e D

iffe

rent

D

iffe

rent

Sa

me

Dif

fere

nt

Dif

fere

nt

Eth

nici

ty

Rac

e R

ace

Rac

e E

thni

city

E

thni

city

R

ace

Eth

nici

ty

Eth

nici

ty

Rac

e ~

Wen

t to

frie

nd’s

hou

se

,464

M

et a

fter

scho

ol

,528

Sp

ent t

ime

toge

ther

,5

11

Tal

ked

abou

t pro

blem

.5

48

Tal

ked

on p

hone

.6

31

Tot

al n

o. o

f ac

tiviti

es

2.68

2 N

19

134

.425

.3

56

,324

.5

15

.396

,3

93

.460

.3

65

,313

.5

12

.470

.4

26

.606

.5

20

,477

2.

518

2.10

6 1.

933

1721

39

56

700

~~

~~~

,353

.3

79

,430

.4

53

,389

.4

16

,454

SO

8 ,4

92

.552

2.

117

2.30

8 19

07

435

.412

,3

39

.301

,3

09

.475

,4

63

.444

,4

50

.395

,3

66

,386

,3

66

.516

,4

16

,503

,4

45

.544

,5

57

,490

.5

30

2.34

1 2.

141

2.12

4 2.

100

1389

58

7 15

3 44

0

W


TABLE 3. FRIENDSHIP ORDER A N D RELATIVE ETHNIC A N D RACIAL STATUS BY RACE

Whites Blacks Hispanics Asians

First-listed friends Same cthnicity Different ethnicity Different race N

Second-listed friends Same ethnicity Different ethnicity Different race N

Third-listed friends Same ethnicity Different ethnicity Different race N

Fourth-listed friends Same ethnicity Different ethnicity Different race N

Fifth-listed friends Same ethnicity Different ethnicity Different race N

.9175

,0825 20855

-

,9097

,0903 21902

-

.9022

.0978 20636

-

.9060

,0940 18802

-

,8953

,1047 16825

-

.8497

A503 4656

-

3389

.1611 4853

-

.a236

.1764 4518

-

3296

.1704 3973

-

3103

.1897 3400

-

,5111 .1116 ,3723 3731

,4843 .1231 .3926 3925

.461

.1229

.4119 3571

.4448

.1264

.4287 3037

.4238

.1197 ,4565 2598

.4975

.1297

.3729 1180

.4733

.1285 ,3982 1253

,4484 .1541 ,3975 1220

.3878 ,1013 S109

918

.4177

.1389

.4434 936

and 40% of fifth-listed friends are same ethnics. For Asians about 50% of first listed friends are coethnics, and about 40% of fifth-listed friends are coethnics.

Figure 1 examines the percentage of youths who reported 0, 1, 2, 3,4, or 5 shared activities in the past week with their five listed same-sex friends. Overall, we can see that friendship order is correlated with the number of friendship activities. The closer the friend (according to the respondent), the more activities shared in the past week; hence, we expect that the greater the number of activities, the closer the friendship. From this relationship we surmise that the level of intimacy between best-friend dyads can be rea- sonably measured by the number of activities shared in the past week. Although this measure is not often used by psychologists to gauge friendship quality, we believe it is a measure of the intensity of contact.

MULTIVARIATE ANALYSES

In order to accurately estimate the number of differing activities among interracial, interethnic, and interracial friendships (controlling for the effects of context and background characteristics), we have used multivariate analyses. These models include only those who were assigned an in-school weight. Our models have been estimated in STATA


1st listed 2nd listed 3rd listed 4th listed 5th listed

Frlendshlp Order

FIGURE 1. NUMBER OF FRIENDSHIP ACTIVITIES IN THE LAST WEEK BY FRIENDSHIP ORDER

to correct for design effects. These models take into account the clustering of individuals within schools. Furthermore, they apply the school weight to ensure that the sample is representative of schools in the United States (see http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/ faqstweighting).

Table 4 presents the effects of friend’s race and ethnicity on the number of activities friends shared in the past week. We have also controlled for gender, age, parental education, generational status, and the racial and ethnic composition of schools. The variable “female” has been coded 1 if the respondent was female and 0 otherwise. Age is a linear variable measured in years. Parental education is also a linear variable, which ranges from less than high school (=lo) to graduate school (=18). Generational status measures the immigrant status of the respondent. First-generation youths are those who are foreign-born. Second-generation youths are those who are native-born but have foreign- born mothers. Third-generation (and beyond) youths are those who are native-born who have native-born mothers (see Kao and Tienda 1995). We have used these measures as a proxy for assimilation into the United States as we believe youths whose families have lived in the U.S. for a longer time may be more likely to have an interracial friend. In auxiliary analyses we computed models without these controls, and the effects of part- ner’s race and ethnicity on the number of activities were not noticeably different.

We have estimated separate models for whites, blacks, Hispanics, and Asians. For the white and black models the baseline comparison group is same-race friend. Hence, in the models of white respondents, the comparisons are between whites who have black, Hispanic, or Asian best friends and those who have white friends. For the Hispanic and Asian models we have also distinguished between same-ethnic and different-ethnic friends, and the omitted groups are the same-ethnic friendships. For instance, in the best-friend model for Hispanics, the black coefficient represents the number of activities Hispanic respondents had with black friends in comparison with those had with Hispanic intraethnic friendships (Mexican-Mexican for example). In addition, we have compared

TABL

E 4.

ES

TIM

ATE

S O

F E

FFEC

TS O

F F

RIE

ND

'S R

ACE

OR

ETH

NlC

lTY

ON

FR

IEN

DS

HIP

AC

TIVI

TIES

: BE

ST F

RIE

ND

S A

ND

ALL

FR

IEN

DS

D

0

Inte

rcep

t Pa

rtne

r's r

ace

Whi

te

Bla

ck

His

pani

c A

sian

A

siad

His

pani

c (o

wn

ethn

ic)

Asi

anIH

ispa

nic

(diff

eth

nic)

Fe

mal

e

Pare

nt's

educ

atio

n A

ge

Less

than

hig

h sc

hool

H

igh

scho

ol g

radu

ate

Som

e co

llege

C

olle

ge g

radu

ate

or b

eyon

d

Firs

t Se

cond

T

hird

and

bey

ond

Pn. o

wn

race

Pn

. ow

n et

hnic

ity

Frie

ndsh

ip o

rder

1s

t lis

ted

2nd

liste

d 3r

d lis

ted

4th

liste

d 5t

h lis

ted

Gen

erat

iona

l sta

tus

Scho

ol ra

cial

com

posi

tion

R2

N

-1.4

5**

-

-0.4

4***

-0

.09

-0.1

9'

-0.5

1***

0.

30""

'"

-0.0

7 -

0.23

***

0.19

***

-0.2

8*

-0.0

3 -

-0.3

4'

0.13

20

866

-1.2

4***

-0.2

7'

-0.1

2 -0

.17 -

-0.2

7***

0.

23**

*

0.01

0.25

**

0.32

***

-

-0.1

8 -0

.36*

-

-0.1

6

0.08

46

56

-0.5

0

0.30

*

NIA

-0

.11

-0.1

2

0.21

-0

,42*

**

0.20

***

-

-0.0

1 -

0.44

**

0.32

*

-0.0

2 0.

20* -

-0.2

4 -0

.30

0.08

37

31

XJ

ru c)

His

pani

cs

Asi

ans

CD

Bes

t A

ll B

est

All

Bes

t A

ll B

est

All

5 W

hite

s B

lack

s

Frie

nd

Frie

nds

Frie

nd

Frie

nds

Frie

nd

Frie

nds

Frie

nd

Frie

nds

-0.1

9

-0.1

4 -0

,96*

**

0.15

N

IA

-

-0.0

8 -1

,05*

**

0.20

***

0.34

'

0.10

0.

28**

-

-0.4

6**

-0.1

2 -

0.37

-0

.13

0.16

11

80

0.05

0.

21**

-0.2

2+

-0.0

4 -

0.59

-0

.34'

W

Not

e: N

ativ

e A

mer

ican

s as

frie

nds

are

incl

uded

in th

e m

odel

, but

the

resu

lts a

re n

ot p

rese

nted

. * p

< .0

5, **

p <

.01,

*** p

< .0

01, +

p

< .0

1.

570 THE SOClOLOGlCAL QUARTERLY Vol. 45/No. 312004

models that include only “best friends” with those that include “all friends.” Overall, the results are consistent with the importance of friend’s race on the number of activities they engaged in during the past week. For whites having a black best friend is significantly associated with fewer activities during the week. This pattern holds in best-friends-only models and in models that include all friends (controlling for friendship order). Whites who had any Asian friend, best or not, also reported fewer friendship activities. There is no difference between whites that nominated other whites and whites that nominated Hispanic friends.

Boys reported more activities than did girls, a result that is due to the kinds of friendship activities which Add Health asked about. In auxiliary tabulations we have found that boys were more likely to see their friends outside of school, either after school or on the weekends. Older adolescents tended to share more activities. Presumably, both being male and being older is also associated with less parental control; hence, these adolescents had more opportunity to see their best friends. In addition, higher levels of parental education are associated with more friendship activities. Also, first-generation youths reported fewer activities than did their first- and second-generation counterparts. Finally, as we have found in the descriptive table, the number of activities decreases with friendship order, although there is little distinction between those who are fourth and fifth listed.

Among blacks, friend’s race is not statistically significant, except for those who reported having a Hispanic friend in the “all friends” models. However, all of the signs for all interracial friends are negative. For Hispanics the pattern is slightly different. His- panics with a white best friend reported the highest number of activities, followed by those with intraethnic friendships. Hispanics with an Asian or black best friend reported fewer activities, but these coefficients are not statistically significant. In the “all friends” models we have found that Hispanics with Asian or black friends reported fewer activities with that friend (controlling for friendship order). Hispanics with white friends are no different from those with other Hispanic friends. Finally, among Asians with best friends, only those with black best friends reported fewer activities; otherwise, there are no significant effects (although the sign for whites is negative and the sign for Hispanics is positive). The pattern is similar for Asian respondents in models that include all of their friends.

Overall, we have found two persistent patterns. The first is that first-listed friendships (best friends), which typically encompass more frequent face-to-face interaction, tend to be more racially homophilous than higher-order friendships. Second, we have consis- tently found that whites, Hispanics, and Asians who had black best friend or any black friend were less likely to engage in activities with them. These results suggest that there is a greater distance between blacks and all other groups, suggesting that not all interracial interactions are similar.

CONCLUSION

Our study is one of the first to examine the variation in interracial- and intraracial- friendship nomination patterns and activities among white, black, Hispanic, and Asian adolescents using a nationally representative sample. Unlike most surveys that ask about racial characteristics of friends (i.e., how many of your friends are white, black, His- panic, Asian, etc.), which tends to prompt an overrepresentation of diverse friendship


networks, Add Health simply asked youths to identify their five closest friends. In addition, previous studies that examined friendship activities and support did so with only a small unrepresentative sample.

Overall, our descriptive analyses support the fact that interracial friendships are the exception rather than the norm. Once adolescents manage to cross the racial barrier in forming their friendships, interracial friendships tend to be characterized by fewer shared activities in a typical week than those of intraracial friendships. Our analyses of friendship activities and friendship order suggest that these measures are valid indica- tors of friendship intimacy. We have also found that interracial friendship are least likely to occur among best friends (first-listed friends) and are more likely to occur among higher-order friends.

The relationship between race of friends and friendship activities is strongest for whites, both in the descriptive and analytic tabulations. We have also found evidence of this pattern for black and Asian respondents who had different-race best friends in the descriptive tabulations but have also found that among blacks only those who nominated whites as friends reported fewer activities relative to those who nominated black friends. In contrast, Hispanic youths actually reported more activities with their white best friends in both descriptive and analytic tabulations. We have found no evidence of any differentiation between interethnic and intraethnic friendships in the number of shared activities. We have also found a consistent pattern among whites, Hispanics, and Asians respondents with black friends-these relationships tend to be associated with fewer activities, even after controlling for friendship order

Although friendship activities are an indicator of friendship intimacy, this index also varies significantly by race, gender, parent’s education, and immigrant status. We have found in the descriptive tabulations that Asians and Latinos reported fewer activities with their friends than did whites. Males reported more activities, which, we believe, is attributable less parental control over their after-school and weekend activities (and to the fact that our measures favor face-to-face interaction). Moreover, there may be significant variation by parental education, as youths with better-educated parents tended to share more activities with friends. Finally, cultural beliefs about the importance of friends and the appropriate types of activities shared with friends may matter, as our findings suggest first-generation youths are less likely to report shared activities with friends.

Despite the fact that schools are perhaps the most racially and ethnically diverse institutional environments that adolescents will experience in their lifetimes, race and ethnic boundaries persist. Our results suggest that, although interracial friendships are not uncommon, both white and minority youths still overwhelmingly prefer to choose friends from their ethnic or racial group. Moreover, once they cross racial boundaries, their friendships are likely to suffer from fewer shared activities, which signals less intimacy and greater distance even among best friends.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research has been supported by Grant 1 R01 HD38704-01A1 from the NICHD to the authors and by the University Research Foundation of the University of Pennsylva- nia. This research uses data from Add Health, a program project designed by J. Richard Udry, Peter S. Bearman, and Kathleen Mullan Harris and funded by grant Pol-


HD31921 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, with cooperative funding from seventeen other agencies. Special acknowledgment is due to Ronald R. Rindfuss and Barbara Entwisle for their assistance in the original design. Persons interested in obtaining data files from Add Health should contact Add Health, Carolina Population Center, 123 W. Franklin Street, Chapel Hill, NC 27516-2524 (www.cpc. unc.edu/addhealth/contract.html). Special thanks must go to Sona Kim for her research assistance.

NOTE

1. Tables released by the 2000 U.S. Census Bureau dated February 25,2002 (http://www.census. gov/populationiwwwicen2OOOiphc-t08.html) showed that of 16,092,668 fourteen- to seventeen- year-olds 10,231,289 were non-Hispanic whites.

REFERENCES

Allport, Gordon W. 19.54. The Nature of Prejudice. Boston: Beacon Press. Bearman, Peter, Jo Jones, and J. Richard Udry. 1997. The National Longitudinal Study of Adoles-

cent Health: Research Design. http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projectsladdhealthlfaqslweighting. Cornell, Stephen, and Douglas Hartmann. 1998. Ethnicity and Race: Making Identities in a Chang-

ing World. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Damico, Sandra Bowman, Afesa Bell-Nathaniel, and Charles Green. 1981. “Effects of School

Organizational Structure on Interracial Friendships in Middle Schools.” Journal of Educa- tional Research 74(6):388-393.

DuBois, David L., and Barton J. Hirsch. 1990. “School and Neighborhood Friendship Patterns of Blacks and Whites in Early Adolescence.” Child Development 61%-536.

Ellison, Christopher G., and Daniel A. Powers. 1994. “The Contact Hypothesis and Racial Atti- tudes among Black Americans.” Social Science Quarterly 75(2):385-400.

Emerson, Michael O., Rachel Tolbert Kimbro, and George Yancey. 2002. “Contact Theory Extended: The Effects of Prior Racial Contact on Current Social Ties.” Social Science Quar- terly 83(3):745-761.

Hallinan, Maureen T., and Steven S. Smith. 1985. “The Effects of Classroom Racial Composition on Students’ Interracial Friendliness.” Social Psychology Quarterly 48:3-16.

Hallinan, Maureen T., and Richard A. Williams. 1989. “Interracial Friendship Choices in Second- ary Schools.” American Sociological Review 54:67-78.

Hansel], Stephen, and Robert E. Slavin. 1981. “Cooperative Learning and the Structure of Inter- racial Friendships.” Sociology of Education 54:98-106.

Harris, David. 2003. “New Approaches to the Measurement of Race and Ethnicity: Beyond Cen- sus 2000.” Working paper.

Harris, David, and Jeremiah Joseph Sims. 2002. “Who Is Multiracial? Assessing the Complexity of Lived Race.” American Sociolugical Review 67(4):614-627.

Hirschman, C., R. Alba, and R. Farley. 2000. “The Meaning and Measurement of Race in the U.S. Census: Glimpses into the Future.” Demography 37(3):381-393.

Kao, Grace. 2000. “Group Images and Possible Selves among Adolescents: Linking Stereotypes to Expectations by Race and Ethnicity.” Sociological Forum 15:407430.

Kao, Grace, and Kara Joyner. 2002. “Do Asian and Hispanic Adolescents Practice Panethnicity?” Unpublished manuscript presented at the 2002 Annual Meetings of the Population Associa- tion of America.

Kao, Grace, and Marta Tienda. 1995. “Optimism and Achievement: The Educational Performance of Immigrant Youth.” Social Science Quarterly 761-19.

Do Race and Ethnicity Matter among Friends? 5 73

. 1998. “Educational Aspirations among Minority Youth.” American Journal of Education

Phillipsen, Leslie C. 1999. “Associations between Age, Gender, and Group Acceptance and Three Components of Friendship Quality.” Journal of Early Adolescence 19(4):438464.

Schofield, Janet Ward, and H. Andrew Sagar. 1983. “Desegregation, School Practices, and Student Race Relations.” Pp. 58-102 in The Consequences of School Desegregation, edited by Chris- tine H. Rossell and Willis D. Hawley. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Sigelman, Lee, Timothy Bledsoe, Susan Welch, and Michael W. Combs. 1996. “Making Contact? Black-White Social Interaction in an Urban Setting.” American Journal of Sociology

Valenzuela, Angela, and Sanford Dornbusch. 1994. “Familism and Social Capital in the Academic Achievement of Mexican Origin and Anglo Adolescents.” Social Science Quarterly 75:18- 36.

Way, Niobe, and Lisa Chen. 2000. “Close and General Friendships among African American, La- tino, and Asian American Adolescents from Low-Income Families.” Journal of Adolescent Research 15(2):274-301.

106~349-384.

101:1306-1332.

DO RACE AND ETHNICITY MATTER AMONG FRIENDS?

Documents

Transcript of DO RACE AND ETHNICITY MATTER AMONG FRIENDS?