Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Apr 8.
Published in final edited form as: Adv Child Dev Behav. 2019 May 27;57:169–194. doi: 10.1016/bs.acdb.2019.04.003

Intersecting experiences, motivating beliefs: The joint roles of class and race/ethnicity in the development of youths’ sociopolitical perceptions and participation

Amanda L Roy 1, Marbella Uriostegui 1, Melissa Uribe 1
PMCID: PMC8028119  NIHMSID: NIHMS1684215  PMID: 31296315

Abstract

Positioning our analyses within two theoretical frameworks, system justification (SJ) theory and critical consciousness (CC), we examine relationships between social class and endorsement of SJ and CC beliefs and behaviors within a sample of low-income, Latinx and Black youth living in Chicago. We operationalize social class using five indicators: income-to-needs ratio (INR), subjective social status (SSS), financial strain, violence exposure, and neighborhood income. We find that for Black youth, higher INR is related to a greater likelihood of rejecting the status quo. Comparatively, living in a higher income neighborhood is negatively related to and being exposed to violence is positively related to the likelihood of engaging in social change behaviors. A different pattern emerged for Latinx youth where, higher perceived status was positively associated with accepting the status quo and greater exposure to violence was negatively related to youths’ perceived ability to make a difference in the world around them.

Keywords: critical consciousness, system justification, social class, youth, Black, Latinx

Researchers have long been dedicated to understanding and supporting child and youth development in the context of poverty. However, too often this work positions youth as passive victims, while failing to recognize them as aware, agentic, future citizens. In recent years there has been increasing attention paid to the important role that youth, particularly those who have been marginalized because of class or race/ethnicity, play in determining their own future and the futures of their communities (e.g. Cammarota, 2011; Ginwright, & James 2002; Gutiérrez, 2008; Kirshner, 2007; Watts & Flanagan, 2007). Moreover, a burgeoning body of evidence suggests that the same circumstances that produce marginalization may also act to shape how youth see the world and subsequently motivate their desire to change it (e.g. Roy, Raver, Masucci, & DeJoseph, 2018). However, additional work is needed to better understand which specific experiences associated with economic marginalization work to shape youths’ societal perceptions and participation. This work fills this gap by examining the complex ways that aspects of class are related to youths’ sociopolitical perceptions and participation and how these relationships differ across racial/ethnic groups among a sample of low-income, Black and Latinx youth living in Chicago.

We conceptualize youths’ societal perceptions and participation using two theoretical frameworks that have been used to describe the ways that youth make sense of the world around them: system justification theory and critical consciousness. System justification (SJ) theory, or “the process by which existing social arrangements are legitimized, even at the expense of the personal or group interest” (Jost & Banaji, 1994) provides a framework for understanding why members of disadvantaged groups may become accepting of their disadvantaged position. System justification captures social and psychological needs to support the status quo and see it as good, fair, natural, desirable and even inevitable. Critical consciousness (CC), described by some as a counterpoint to SJ, provides a framework for understanding the process by which marginalized individuals come to critically reflect on the sociopolitical systems that perpetuate structures of inequality and engage in action to change them (Freire, 1973).

Acknowledging that low-income, youth of color are embedded in intersecting systems of oppression (Santos & Toomey, 2018), we take a broad approach to the operationalization of class and examine the joint roles of class and race/ethnicity on youth outcomes. The majority of research on poverty and child and youth development has focused on objective indicators of socioeconomic status (SES), such as income, education, and employment. However, an increasing number of scholars have called for conceptualizations of economic standing that move beyond this narrow focus to include measures of financial strain, subjective perceptions of social standing, contextual resources, and stressors that co-occur with poverty (Roy & Raver, 2014; Raver, Roy, & Pressler, 2015). We heed this call by leveraging rich, multi-source, longitudinal data to operationalize youths’ experiences of class across these multiple domains. We then examine relationships between these multi-faceted aspects of class and youths’ reports of system justification and critical consciousness, to consider how experiences of economic deprivation and inequality may shape sociopolitical perceptions and participation. Finally, we consider whether these relationships are the same for Black and Latinx youth, recognizing that unique histories of discrimination and oppression may differentially shape how youth see the world.

Social Class and Societal Perceptions

The phrase ‘social class’ has been used interchangeably by researchers with terms like stratification, economic status, and socioeconomic position (Diemer, Mistry, Wadsworth, López, & Reimers, 2013). Social class can be defined as denoting power, control, and advantage over resources present in society. Socioeconomic status (SES) refers to an individuals’ position within the power hierarchy via objective factors like income, wealth, educational attainment, and occupational prestige (Diemer & Ali, 2009). However, an increasing number of researchers have called for the use of more nuanced, multi-faceted measures of social class that better capture the complexity of the construct. This includes the use of measures like the MacArthur Subjective Social Status (SSS) measure, which captures an individuals’ perception of his/her social class relative to others in society (Liu, Ali, Soleck, Hopps, & Pickett, 2004), measures of financial strain which assess the extent to which a lack of resources produces psychological distress, stressors that co-occur with experiences of poverty such as violence, and contextual measures of SES (e.g. neighborhood, school) which capture the broader contexts in which poverty is experienced (Roy et al., 2015).

In this study we operationalize social class using five measures that capture this diversity of experience. These include a measure of lifetime household income-to-needs ratio, youth-reported SSS, youth-perceived family-level financial strain, youth experienced violence, and an objective measure of neighborhood income. These indicators vary in the degree to which they capture objective vs subjective experiences of class, tap into stress-related experiences, and reflect the economic level of the contexts that youth are embedded in. It may be that these unique nuances of class have different implications for how youth see the world around them.

Theories of Youth Sociopolitical Perception and Participation

System justification.

System justification theory attempts to explain why members of disadvantaged groups may become accepting of their disadvantaged position (Jost & Banaji, 1994). It captures social and psychological needs to support the status quo and see it as good, fair, natural, desirable and even inevitable. Jost and Hunyady (2002) explain that rationalization of the status quo, internalization of inequality, relations among ego, group, and system justification motives, and reduction of ideological dissonance are some of the underpinnings of system justification among members of a disadvantaged group.

Several hypotheses exist as to how or why members of disadvantaged groups come to rationalize the status quo. One such hypothesis poses that people will rationalize the status quo by judging likely events to be more desirable than unlikely events, regardless if the events are initially defined as attractive or unattractive (Kay, Jimenez, & Jost, 2002). In addition, Haines and Jost (2000) argue that members of a marginalized group are likely to rationalize the status quo by providing pseudo-explanations for power differences between groups that will (1) increase the use of stereotypes to rationalize differences, and (2) lead members of disadvantaged groups to express more positive affect concerning their situation. This hypothesis stresses that system justification serves as a way for members of disadvantaged groups to cope with and feel better about their social standing. Similarly, others have demonstrated the role of perceived powerlessness as a factor underlying system justifying beliefs among the disadvantaged (van der Toorn et al., 2015).

Critical consciousness.

Theory and research on critical consciousness (CC) provides a second framework for understanding youths’ societal perceptions. CC can be defined as the ability of marginalized individuals to critically reflect on the sociopolitical systems that perpetuate structures of inequality (Freire, 1973). CC or sociopolitical development facilitates the capacity to overcome sociopolitical oppression and combat inequitable distribution of resources and access to opportunity (Freire, 1993), which in turn leads to healthier mental outcomes (Watts & Flanagan, 2007).

CC is composed of three mechanisms: critical reflection (e.g, carefully analyzing structures of inequality), political efficacy (e.g., the perceived ability to affect social and political change), and critical action (e.g., individual or collective action to alter the system). Critical reflection is further comprised by two subcomponents; perceived inequality, and egalitarianism. Perceived inequality refers to the critical examination of social inequities, such as ethnic-racial, gendered, and socioeconomic limitations on educational as well as occupational opportunity (Diemer & Rapa, 2016). Egalitarianism refers to the belief that all social groups are equal, and deserve equal opportunity to advancement. Similarly, political efficacy is also composed of two subcomponents; internal and external political efficacy (Watts, Diemer & Voight, 2011). Internal political efficacy is the perceived capacity to affect sociopolitical change through individual or collective action, while external political efficacy refers to the perception that sociopolitical agencies are responsive to one’s interests and needs (Kahne & Westheimer, 2006). Finally, critical action refers to engaging in specific behaviors or activities, either individually or collectively, with the goal of changing perceived injustice.

Class and Racial/Ethnic Differences in Youths’ Perceptions and Participation

Prior theory and empirical work offers some insight into how youths’ sociopolitical perceptions and participation may vary by class and race/ethnicity. System justification theory posits that members of disadvantaged groups internalize cultural values and stereotypes that oppress them, and has been associated with outgroup favoritism (Jost & Burgess, 2000), identification with the aggressor (Wyer & Srull, 2014) and false consciousness (Neville, Coleman, Falconer, & Homes, 2005). System justification is associated with members of a marginalized group ignoring or minimizing underlying social systems (e.g., racism) or blaming members of their same group for social injustices (Shedd, 2015). Research by Jost and colleagues (Jost, Pelham, Sheldon, & Ni, 2003) reports some evidence supporting a dissonance-based argument that marginalized groups are the least likely to question, challenge, reject or change the systems that marginalize them. Their findings include: (1) low-income and African American respondents were more likely than others to support hindrances on citizen rights to criticize the government, (2) low-income Latinos were more likely to trust the U.S government than high-income Latinos, (3) low-income participants were more likely than high-income participants to believe that large differences in income are necessary to foster motivation, and (4) low-income and African-American participants were more likely than others to believe that economic inequality is legitimate.

Class and racial/ethnic differences in CC development have also begun to be examined. Recent work has found higher levels of county-level income inequality (Godfrey & Cherng, 2016) and youths’ reports of exposure to violence (Roy et al., 2018) to be linked with higher rates of critical action behaviors among low-SES and racial/ethnic minority youth. Diemer and Rapa (2016) examined the patterns by which distinct dimensions of CC may lead minority youth toward distinct forms of political action. Egalitarianism was found to be a predictor of expected voting for Latina/os, but not for African Americans. Moreover, egalitarianism was found to be negatively correlated with critical action (e.g., protests) for Latina/os, such that Latina/o’s who reported higher levels of egalitarianism reported lower participation in protests. Perceived inequality (i.e., critical reflection) was found to be a significant predictor of critical action for both groups, in addition to predicting expected voting for the Latina/o group only. Perceived inequality was predictive of expected social action for both groups, and generally more predictive of disparate forms of political action for African American youth than for Latino/a youth. The negative relationship between perceived inequality and expected voting for Latina/os may be explained by issues of citizenship and disenfranchisement, as Latina/os are more likely to be first or second generation immigrants than African Americans.

The Current Study

The current study contributes to this growing body of research by examining relationships between social class, broadly defined, and youths’ sociopolitical perceptions and participation among a sample of low-income, African American and Latinx youth living in Chicago. In addition, we test whether these relationships differ for African American and Latinx youth. This work contributes to the existing literature in several key ways. First, we take a broad approach to the operationalization of social class using longitudinal, multi-modal measures that capture multiple aspects of class. Specifically, we include measures of lifetime household income-to-needs ratio and neighborhood income averaged across five prior waves of data collection and youths’ reports of subjective social status, exposure to violence, and financial strain collected the year before outcomes were assessed. This approach acknowledges the nuanced, intersecting ways that class shapes individual experience and allows us to examine which of these experiences is the most salient for the development of youths’ sociopolitical perceptions and participation. Second, bridging two theoretical frameworks, we consider multiple dimensions of youths’ sociopolitical perceptions and participation as outcomes thus allowing us to consider interrelationships between them and yet recognizing them as distinct constructs. Finally, this work was conducted in the city of Chicago; a particularly salient context for exploring these issues given its high rates of racial/ethnic segregation and unequal distribution of poverty (Quillan, 2012).

Method

Sample and Procedures

We capitalize on longitudinal data (collected at six waves between 2004 and 2017) from a sample of predominantly African American and Latinx adolescents living largely in high-poverty, Chicago neighborhoods. Youth were originally recruited into the Chicago School Readiness Project (CSRP) as part of a socioemotional intervention trial implemented in Chicago Head Start preschool programs in two cohorts between 2004 and 2006 (Raver et al., 2009; Raver et al., 2011). Children and families were assessed when children were in preschool (Wave 1, N=602), kindergarten (Wave 2, N=398), third (Wave 3, N=505), fifth (Wave 4, N=491), ninth/tenth (Wave 5, N=469), and tenth/eleventh (Wave 6, N = 437) grades. In waves 1-4, data collection spanned a two year period so that the two cohorts of youth were assessed when they were in the same grade; in waves 5-6 data collection took place at one point in time when the two cohorts of youth were in different grades. At waves 5 and 6 all measures were collected using computerized assessments and delivered to participants in their schools.

The analytic sample for this study consists of 396 youth who identified as either African American or Latinx and had valid data on at least one of the four outcome measures collected at wave 6. The majority of youth in the study sample were female (56%) and African American (73%; Latinx = 27%). On average, youth were 16 years-old (SD = .84) at the wave 6 assessment. Averaging across all waves of data, the average income-to-needs ratio (INR) for the sample was 0.83 (SD = 0.65), indicating that the majority of youth lived in households whose income and family size placed them below the national poverty line (defined as having an income-to-needs ratio equal to or less than 1) for the majority of their lives.

Measures

All outcome measures of sociopolitical perceptions and participation were collected from youth at the wave 6 assessment. Three measures of social class, SSS, financial strain, and exposure to violence, were collected from youth at wave 5. Income-to-needs and neighborhood income were calculated at each wave and averaged across waves 1-5 for these analyses.

Sociopolitical perceptions and participation.

We use four measures of sociopolitical perceptions and participation in these analyses: system justification, perceived inequality, political efficacy, critical action. Perceived inequality, political efficacy, and critical action are all elements of critical consciousness.

System Justification.

Youth indicated their endorsement of system justifying beliefs by indicating their agreement or disagreement with nine items used by Kay and Jost (2003) to measure system justification (α = .89). Items were rated from 0= “Strongly Disagree” to 5= “Strongly Agree”. Example items include “In general, American society is fair”, “The U.S is the best country to live in” and “Most laws and policies in the U.S benefit most people”. Item responses were averaged.

Perceived inequality.

Three items taken from the Perceived Inequality subscale of the Critical Consciousness Scale (α =.87; CCS; Diemer, McWhirter, Ozer, & Rapa, 2015) were used. The CCS is used to measure youths’ critical awareness and analysis of societal inequalities, including race, gender, and/or class based discrimination in access to quality education and opportunities. Questions were rated on a Likert scale from 1-5 (e.g., 1= “Strongly Disagree” 5= “Strongly Agree”), and include the following: “Poor children have fewer chances to get a good high school education”, “Certain racial or ethnic groups have fewer chances to get ahead”, and “Poor people have fewer chances to get ahead”. Item responses were averaged.

Political efficacy.

Four items were taken from the Political Efficacy sub-scale of the Critical Consciousness Scale (α = .83; Diemer et al., 2015). Youth responded on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1= “Strongly Disagree” to 5= “Strongly Agree”. Example items include “It is important to fight against social and economic inequality” and “I can make a difference in my community”. Item responses were averaged.

Critical action.

Youth responded to five yes/no items taken from the Sociopolitical Action subscale of the Critical Consciousness Scale (Diemer et al., 2015). Some items were altered slightly to make them relevant to adolescents’ experiences with social media. These questions were chosen to reflect a range of sociopolitical involvement (e.g. “Have you posted on social media about a social justice or political issue?” to “Have you worked on a political campaign?”) and content that was germane to current events covered on local and national news media at that time (e.g. “Have you participated in a gay rights, pro-environment or social justice group?”). Additional items included “Have you participated in a discussion about a social or political issue, such as immigration or climate change?” and “Have you joined in a protest march, political demonstration, or political meeting?”. Questions reflected behaviors engaged in the prior six months. Responses were averaged to create a measure of the average number of behaviors engaged in.

Social class.

We include five measures of social class in these analyses.

Lifetime income-to-needs ratio.

Income-to-needs ratio (INR; Moore, Daniel, Gauvin, & Dubé; 2009; Noss, 2012) compares a family’s income to the minimal economic resources required for a family of that size. The INR is computed by dividing the total family income by the Federal Poverty Threshold for a given year and family size. The INR is a more precise measure of SES in that it accounts for family members requiring economic resources. An INR of .50 or lower reflects that the family is experiencing extreme poverty, an INR between 1 and 2 reflects low-income to near-poor, and an INR greater than 4 is reflective of affluence. Our measure is based on caregiver’s reports of family income and household size assessed at waves 1 through 5. INR was calculated at each wave and then averaged across waves for individuals who had at least four waves of valid data.

Subjective social status.

At wave five youth completed the MacArthur Subjective Social Status-Youth version (Goodman, et al., 2000). Like its adult counterpart, this instrument includes a visual depiction of a ladder with ten rungs. Youth were directed to “Imagine that this ladder pictures how American society is set up. At the top of the ladder are the people who are the best off – they have the most money, the highest amount of schooling, and the jobs that bring the most respect. At the bottom of the ladder are the people who are the worst off – they have the least money, little or no education, no job or jobs that no one wants or respects. Now think about your family. Please tell us where you think your family would be on the ladder.” Youths responses range from one to ten.

Financial strain.

At wave 5 youth responded to four yes/no items taken from the Child Food Security Survey Module (Connell, Nord, Lofton, & Yadrick, 2004) and a measure of adolescent’s perceptions of economic stress (Mistry, Benner, Tan, & Kim, 2009). Items included, “Did your family not have enough money to buy things your family needed or wanted?” and “Were your parents upset of worried because they did not have enough money to pay for things?”. Item responses were averaged.

Lifetime neighborhood income.

Youths’ residential census tracts from waves 1 through 5 were matched with measures of median household income within a census tract obtained from the American Community Survey 2006-2010 (for waves 1, 2, 3, and 4) and 2011-2015 (for wave 5) five-year estimates (American Community Survey, 2006-2010; American Community Survey, 2011-2015). Measures of neighborhood income at each wave were then averaged across waves for youth with a minimum of four waves of valid data. The measure was divided by 10 to avoid small estimates

Violence exposure.

Youth completed a version of the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (Brener, Collins, Kann, Wareen & Williams, 1995) which assesses challenges and strengths more likely to be experienced by adolescents. Youth responded to seven items on a “yes” “no” dichotomy that examined exposure to violence. Some examples include “Have you watched or heard fights between adults in your home?”, “Have you been hit, kicked, or hurt by another kid?”, and “Have you been in a physical fight”.

Covariates.

Demographic variables were collected from primary caregivers at baseline and are used in path models. Youth gender was dummy coded such that females were coded as 1 and males were coded as 0. Age is reported in years. Race/ethnicity was coded so that African-American/Black is 1 and Latinx is 0.

Analytic Plan

Our primary questions were addressed by estimating a series of path models run in MPlus. To examine relationships between indicators of social class and youths’ sociopolitical perceptions and participation, a model was fit in which directional paths led from each of the five indicators of social class to each of the four outcomes. Youth gender and age were included as covariates in the model. Model fit was assessed using traditional fit indices (Hu & Bentler, 1999), including the comparative fit index (CFI; with good fit indicated by values > .95), the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA; with good fit indicated by values < .08), and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR; with good fit indicated by values < .08).

In order to test whether the estimated paths were equivalent for African American and Latinx youth, a multiple-group path analysis was run where race/ethnicity was used as a grouping variable so that the model was estimated separately for African American and Latinx youth. In the initial iteration all paths were estimated freely and no constraints were specified. In a second model all paths were constrained to be equivalent across groups and nested models were compared using a chi-square test.

Missingness ranged from 0-7% across all variables with the exception of neighborhood income where 16% of cases were missing. Analyses used full information maximum likelihood (FIML) to estimate statistical parameters from data with missing values, allowing retention of the complete sample.

Results

As a first step, we ran correlations between all predictors and outcomes to examine relationships within and between constructs separately for African American and Latinx youth (Table 1). Interestingly, although some statistically significant correlations did emerge, none of the correlations between indicators within a construct were particularly large. In fact the largest correlations were found in the Latinx sub-sample between financial strain and exposure to violence (r = .36) and political efficacy and critical action (r = .38).

Table 1.

Correlations between indicators of class and sociopolitical opinions and behaviors for Latinx and Black youth

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Latinx (N = 106)
1  Income-to-needs 1.00
2  SSS .180* 1.00
3  Financial strain −.155 −.117 1.00
4  Violence exposure .015 .068 .357** 1.00
5  NB income .236** −.213* .189* .033 1.00
6  System justification −.004 .307** .018 −.094 .072 1.00
7  Perceived inequality .013 .036 −.203* −.005 −.226** −.098 1.00
8  Political efficacy −.069 .029 .011 −.240** .055 .051 .091 1.00
9  Critical action .003 −.071 .025 −.016 −.086 −.115 .088 .383** 1.00
Black (N = 290)
1  Income-to-needs 1.00
2  SSS .036 1.00
3  Financial strain −.038 −.169** 1.00
4  Violence exposure .203** −.050 .226** 1.00
5  NB income .038 .029 −.040 .103* 1.00
6  System justification −.114* .136* −.131* −144** .034 1.00
7  Perceived inequality .218** −.088 .071 .053 .014 −.261** 1.00
8  Political efficacy .051 −.041 −.030 .020 −.031 −.029 .121* 1.00
9  Critical action −.037 −.056 −.025 .145** −.108* −.114* .071 .238** 1.00
Open in a new tab
*

p < .05

**

p < .01

The path model for the full sample fit the data well, [(χ2(6, N=396) = 12.64); RMSEA = .05 (90% CI= [.003, .094]); CFI = .93; SRMR = .03] (Figure 1). Income-to-needs ratio was negatively related to system justification (β = −.10, p < .05) but positively related to perceived inequality (β = .19, p < .01). SSS was positively related to system justification (β = .17, p < .01). Violence exposure was positively related to (β = .13, p < .05) and neighborhood income was negatively related to (β = −.11, p < .05) critical action.

Figure 1. Path model for full sample (N = 396).

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Note: All paths adjust for youth gender and age; Only statistically significant paths (p < .05) are depicted; Standardized estimates are presented

The unconstrained, sub-group analyses also provided an adequate fit to the data [(χ2(12, N=396) = 25.39); RMSEA = .08 (90% CI= [.03, .12]); CFI = .87; SRMR = .03]. Constraining the paths to be equivalent across Latinx and African American youth resulted in a statistically significant worsening of model fit (Δχ2(34) = 50.47, p < .05.), indicating that the paths are not equivalent across the two groups. Figures 2 and 3 depict significant paths for Latinx and African American youth respectively. Among Latinx youth, higher SSS was related to more system justifying beliefs (β = .38, p < .01) while higher levels of exposure to violence was related to lower political efficacy (β = −.29, p < .01). In contrast, among African American youth, income-to-needs ratio was negatively related to system justification (β = −.11, p < .05) but positively related to perceived inequality (β = .23, p < .01). At the same time, neighborhood income was negatively related to (β = −.13, p < .05) and violence exposure was positively related (β = .19, p < .05) to critical action.

Figure 2. Path model for Latinx sub-sample (N = 10).

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Note: All paths adjust for youth gender and age; Only statistically significant paths (p < .05) are depicted; Standardized estimates are presented

Figure 3. Path model for Black sub-sample (N = 290).

Figure 3.

Open in a new tab

Note: All paths adjust for youth gender and age; Only statistically significant paths (p < .05) are depicted; Standardized estimates are presented

Discussion

The evidence presented here contributes to a growing body of work demonstrating that the same intersecting systems of marginalization that low-income, youth of color are embedded in can also shape the ways they perceive society and subsequently motivate their desire to change it (Ginwright, Cammarota, & Noguera, 2005; Cammarota, 2011; Ginwright, & James 2002; Gutiérrez, 2008). Two major theories on marginalized communities and societal perceptions suggest that disadvantaged youth either justify social inequality (i.e., system justification) or critically analyze the distribution of power and act to change their economic and social conditions (i.e., critical consciousness). However, because few studies have quantitatively examined aspects of each theory simultaneously, questions remain as to the extent which these perspectives are opposite poles of the same construct or whether these perspectives are mutually-exclusive beliefs that can be held simultaneously within individuals. Additionally, the contextual precursors related to youths’ societal perspectives and participation are largely unknown. By examining relationships between social class, broadly defined, and youths’ system justifying and critical consciousness beliefs and behaviors among a sample of low-income, Black and Latinx youth we make several important contributions to the literature demonstrating that (1) system justifying and critical consciousness perceptions are not equivalent, (2) experiences of social class also vary within this predominantly disadvantaged sample, (3) experiences of social class do shape youths’ societal perceptions and participation, and (4) these relationships differ for Latinx and Black youth.

Correlations among indicators of SJ and CC reveal that these constructs are not equivalent and the relationships between them differ for Latinx and Black youth. Among Latinx youth the only significant relationship between societal perceptions is between political efficacy and critical action. Youth who felt empowered to make a difference in their committee were more likely to be engaged in critical action behaviors. Although we also see a similar pattern among Black youth, additional relationships also emerge. Specifically we see that Black youth with more SJ beliefs are less likely to perceive inequality or engage in critical action beliefs. In addition, Black youth who report higher levels of perceived inequality also report more political efficacy. It may be that for Black youth, dimensions of SJ and CC are capturing a common underlying construct of societal perceptions and participation where rejection of the status quo, perceiving inequality, and engaging in critical action are all common elements. For Latinx youth endorsing one set of beliefs seems to be less related to other perceptions or behaviors, potentially suggesting that intersections between these dimensions may be more complex or contextually-bound. Although none of these correlations are particularly large, additional work should continue to explore these complexities.

Correlations between indicators of social class paint a similarly complex picture. Interestingly, although these are all conceptually-related indicators, we find that they are largely distinct rather than interrelated. However, some statistically significant, albeit relatively modest, correlations did emerge and for the most part, these relationships differ for Black and Latinx youth. The one relationship between indicators of social class that was similar for both Black and Latinx youth was between violence exposure and financial strain; reports of higher violence exposure were associated with more financial strain. This finding fits with our assumption that these two indicators both capture stressful experiences associated with disadvantage. Among Black youth financial strain was also associated with lower subjective social status; this suggests that for Black youth, seeing your family struggle financially informs how you position yourself within the larger socioeconomic distribution. Interestingly, among Black youth we also found positive correlations between violence exposure and both income-to-needs ratio and neighborhood income. This result supports previous research that finds Black youth report witnessing violence in their schools, neighborhood or home and receiving physical abuse at a higher rate than Latinx and White youth across each level of income (Crouch, Hanson, Saunders, Kilpatrick, & Resnick, 2000).

Unique correlations between indicators of social class were also seen among the Latinx sub-sample. Interestingly, among Latinx youth we find that several of our multi-dimensional indicators of social class correlate in expected directions. That is, our objective measure of lifetime household income-to-needs ratio is positively correlated with lifetime neighborhood income (at the census tract level) and youth-reported SSS. Youth who have lived in higher income households throughout their lives have also, on average, lived in higher income neighborhoods, and perceive their socioeconomic status as higher. However, we also find that Latinx youth who live in higher income neighborhoods also report lower subjective social status and more financial strain. It could be that, among Latinx youth, neighborhood income is capturing a dimension of relative economic standing as youth compare themselves to those around them. Latinx youth and their families may face additional barriers due to citizenship and immigration status that is not captured in more objective forms of social class. Many immigrant and first-generation Latino parents take on lower pay jobs (even if they have advanced degrees in their home countries) (Catanzarite, 2000), which consequently may not afford them stability and other necessities such as health insurance. As such, Latinx youth living in higher income neighborhoods may be more likely to interpret their own situations in relation to those around them and perceive increased strain in their families or position themselves lower in the economic distribution.

Our primary analyses tested relationships between indicators of social class and youths’ sociopolitical perceptions and participation. Importantly, we find that these relationships differ for Latinx and Black youth. This is not surprising given that differential experiences with discrimination and oppression may shape how youth experience social class and see the world. Focusing our attention first on the sample of Black youth, we found that among this largely disadvantaged sample, higher income–to–needs ratio was associated with lower system justification and higher perceived inequality. Although theory and research on system justification has found that system justifying beliefs exist across the economic distribution, we find that more affluent Black youth are less likely to justify the system and more likely to perceive inequality. In this case, it may be that having greater income may also be tied to unique racialized experiences. That is, research consistently finds Black individuals report high levels of discrimination in the workplace (Deithc, Barsky, Butz, Chan, Brief, & Bradley, 2003) and having a higher income does not insulate Black youth from being subjected to racist and discriminatory behaviors and attitudes (Comer, 1995). Given that the items for system justification ask about “laws and policies,” it may be that experiences associated with having a higher income may also lead to greater exposure to discriminatory experiences in one’s life and awareness of discriminatory experiences in the larger Black community (Chaney & Robertson, 2013), experiences which may raise critical awareness of inequities in the world around them.

We also found that Black youth who had higher neighborhood incomes reported engaging in less critical action, while higher violence exposure was associated with more critical action behaviors. It may be that for Black youth living in higher income communities, the need to engage in critical action may not feel as salient because the lived consequences of inequality may not be as proximal. Moreover, the fact that higher income youth are more likely to perceive inequality but those living in higher income communities are less likely to act fits with prior research that has found inconsistencies between critical thought and action (Diemer & Li, 2011). Another possibility may be that, as some scholars argue, inaction on part from youth of color may in actuality be an endorsement of healthy cynicism (i.e., distrust and critical analysis) towards the government (Gordon & Taft, 2011; Taft, 2006). A qualitative study with youth activists found that working-class and poor youth of color report an “internalized hopelessness and cynicism” as they are already aware of the chronic structural issues caused by living in impoverished, racially isolated conditions such as violence (Gordon & Taft, 2011, pg. 1509). However, our results indicate that violence exposure was a catalyst for critical action. It may be that violence exposure may engender higher critical engagement because of the immediate and dangerous effect it may have on youth and their communities.

We found a different pattern of results among our Latinx sample. In contrast with our Black sample where we found that youth with higher income-to-needs reported lower levels of SJ, we found that Latinx youth with higher levels of subjective social status reported higher levels of SJ. Cultural differences may explain, in part, why Latinx youth endorse system justifying ideologies while Black youth do not. Some work has found that Latinx mothers tend to attribute income inequality to individual responsibility (Godrey & Wolf, 2016), a perspective that may be passed from parents to youth (Henry & Saul, 2006). It is also important to note that these findings differ not only across racial/ethnic group but also by objective versus subjective experiences of class. For Latinx youth, whose families may face additional barriers due to citizenship and immigration status, perceived status may be a more robust predictor of youths’ societal perceptions.

Additionally, we found that for Latinx youth, higher violence exposure was associated with lower political efficacy, or belief in one’s ability to make a difference in the world around them. Again, this in contrast with findings from our Black sample where we found that youth were more likely to engage their communities in critical action when faced with higher levels of violence. It is possible that citizenship status may contribute to the contradicting results between sub-groups. That is, where Black youth and their families have more established lives in the US and their racialized history (e.g. slavery, Jim Crow era) is more explicitly studied as part of US history, many Latinx first- and second- generation take time to acculturate their identity and place in the new country. Moreover, some scholars have suggested that lower political efficacy among Latinx youth may be attributed to their generational and citizenship status and ability to partake in these behaviors (i.e., voting) (Diemer & Rapa, 2016). As such, Latinx youth who experience violence in their families and communities may experience this stressor as disempowering when experienced in this broader context of race and citizenship. In contrast, for Black youth, who in some ways issues of race and oppression are more explicitly a part of the cultural narrative, experiences of violence may be a catalyst for action.

Limitations

There are a number of limitations to consider when interpreting these results. First, our ability to draw conclusions about causality is limited. Although we do capitalize on longitudinal data and, as such, are confident that our indicators of social class precede our measures of societal perceptions, we are not able to youths’ societal perceptions at earlier waves. Future studies should capitalize on longitudinal or experimental research designs to better estimate causal relationships between indicators of social class and societal perceptions over time. Second, although we explored varied indicators of social class and social perceptions, we cannot ignore that other unmeasured factors undoubtedly play a role in the relationship between youths’ social class and development of societal perceptions. Future research should explore other individual, cultural, and contextual factors that may influence societal perception and consider potential mediating processes such as psychological well-being. Third, we test these relationships among a sample of Black and Latinx youth living in high-poverty households in Chicago. This greatly limits the generalizability of our results. Future studies should continue to explore these relationships in different contexts and among more economically diverse samples to better understand the antecedent and consequences associated with youths’ development of societal perception. Finally, although we use multiple indicators to better reflect the complexity of social class, our measures are not exhaustive and limited by differences in sampling strategy. For example, we fail to capture families’ access to non-material goods and services (i.e., familial support or cultural wealth) which may play a critical role in informing social class. Scholars investigating how poverty is experienced should pay greater attention to asset- or strength-based processes and resources found in family practices and in underserved communities to better understand the lived reality of families living in the margins.

Conclusion

Notwithstanding the noted limitations, our analysis on social class and societal perceptions among Black and Latinx youth addresses several critical gaps in the literature. First, our analysis of varied indicators of social class highlights that these experiences, although often related, are also distinct and should not be equated in research. Future research should continue to consider how poverty is perceived, felt, and analyzed by marginalized youth. In the same vein, researchers should continue to integrate both subjective and objective indicators of class. Second, this study examined the ways that social class may shape the way that marginalized youth come to see the world. Whereas many of the studies on youths’ societal perceptions have investigated how perceptions shape youth outcomes, comparatively few have examined factors that may foster societal perceptions among marginalized youth. Thus, our study provides important insight into relationships between class, race, and youths’ societal perceptions. Finally, our exploration of complementary theories on societal perception across different racial/ethnic and social class groups revealed a clearer picture of differences among African American and Latinx youth and how they understand the role of social structures and their responsibility in changing or maintaining oppressive systems. Given today’s sociopolitical context, including recent trends of youths’ leading roles in social justice movements (i.e., Black Lives Matter; DACA), understanding how youth come to understand society and become empowered to play an active role in shaping it is paramount to the promotion of both youth and societal well-being.

Chapter References:

  1. Brener ND, Collins JL, Kann L, Warren CW, & Williams BI (1995). Reliability of the youth risk behavior survey questionnaire. American Journal of Epidemiology, 141(6), 575–580. 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117473 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Cammarota J (2011). From hopelessness to hope: Social justice pedagogy in urban education and youth development. Urban Education, 46(4), 828–844. doi: 10.1177/0042085911399931 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Catanzarite L (2000). Brown-collar jobs: Occupational segregation and earnings of recent-immigrant Latinos. Sociological Perspectives, 43(1), 45–75. [Google Scholar]
  4. Chaney C, & Robertson RV (2013). Racism and police brutality in America. Journal of African American Studies, 17(4), 480–505. [Google Scholar]
  5. Comer JP (1995) Racism and African American adolescent development. In: Willie CV, Rieker PP, Kramer BM, Brown BS (eds) Mental health, racism, and sexism. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 151–170 [Google Scholar]
  6. Connell CL, Nord M, Lofton KL, & Yadrick K (2004). Food security of older children can be assessed using a standardized survey instrument. The Journal of Nutrition, 134(10), 2566–2572. 10.3945/jn.111.139378 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Crouch JL, Hanson RF, Saunders BE, Kilpatrick DG, & Resnick HS (2000). Income, race/ethnicity, and exposure to violence in youth: Results from the national survey of adolescents. Journal of Community Psychology, 28(6), 625–641. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Deitch EA, Barsky A, Butz RM, Chan S, Brief AP, & Bradley JC (2003). Subtle yet significant: The existence and impact of everyday racial discrimination in the workplace. Human Relations, 56(11), 1299–1324. [Google Scholar]
  9. Diemer MA, & Ali RS (2009). Integrating social class into vocational psychology: Theory and practice implications. Journal of Career Assessment, 17(3), 247–265. 10.1177/1069072708330462 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Diemer MA, & Li CH (2011). Critical consciousness development and political participation among marginalized youth. Child Development, 82(6), 1815–1833. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Diemer MA, Mistry RS, Wadsworth ME, López I, & Reimers F (2013). Best practices in conceptualizing and measuring social class in psychological research. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13(1), 77–113. 10.1111/asap.12001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Diemer MA, McWhirter EH, Ozer EJ, & Rapa LJ (2015). Advances in the conceptualization and measurement of critical consciousness. The Urban Review, 47(5), 809–823. doi: 10.1007/s11256-015-0336-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Diemer MA, & Rapa LJ (2016). Unraveling the complexity of critical consciousness, political efficacy, and political action among marginalized adolescents. Child Development, 87(1), 221–238. 10.1111/cdev.12446 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Freire P (1973). Education for critical consciousness. New York: Continuum. [Google Scholar]
  15. Freire P (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum. [Google Scholar]
  16. Ginwright S, Cammarota J, & Noguera P (2005). Youth, social justice, and communities: Toward a theory of urban youth policy. Social Justice, 32(3), 24–40. [Google Scholar]
  17. Ginwright S, & James T (2002). From assets to agents of change: Social justice, organizing, and youth development. New Directions for Student Leadership, 2002(96), 27–46. 10.1002/yd.25 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Godfrey EB, & Cherng HYS (2016). The Kids are All Right? Income Inequality and Civic Engagement among Our Nation’s Youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(11), 2218–2232. 10.1007/s10964-016-0557-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Godfrey EB, & Wolf S (2016). Developing critical consciousness or justifying the system? A qualitative analysis of attributions for poverty and wealth among low-income racial/ethnic minority and immigrant women. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 22(1), 93. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Goodman E, Adler NE, Kawachi I, Frazier AL, Huang B, & Colditz GA (2001). Adolescents Perceptions of Social Status: Development and Evaluation of a New Indicator. Pediatrics, 108(2), e31–e31. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Gordon HR, & Taft JK (2011). Rethinking youth political socialization: Teenage activists talk back. Youth & Society, 43(4), 1499–1527. [Google Scholar]
  22. Gutiérrez KD (2008). Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(2), 148–164. 10.1598/rrq.43.2.3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Haines EL, & Jost JT (2000). Placating the powerless: Effects of legitimate and illegitimate explanation on affect, memory, and stereotyping. Social Justice Research, 13(3), 219–236. 10.1023/A:1026481205719 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Henry PJ, & Saul A (2006). The development of system justification in the developing world. Social Justice Research, 19(3), 365–378. [Google Scholar]
  25. Hu LT, & Bentler PM (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling: A multidisciplinary journal, 6(1), 1–55. doi. 10.1080/10705519909540118 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Jost JT, & Banaji MR (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1), 1–27. 10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Jost JT, & Burgess D (2000). Attitudinal ambivalence and the conflict between group and system justification motives in low status groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 293–305. doi. 10.1177/0146167200265003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Jost J, & Hunyady O (2003). The psychology of system justification and the palliative function of ideology. European Review of Social Psychology, 13(1), 111–153. doi. 10.1080/10463280240000046 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Jost JT, Pelham BW, Sheldon O, & Ni Sullivan B (2003). Social inequality and the reduction of ideological dissonance on behalf of the system: Evidence of enhanced system justification among the disadvantaged. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1), 13–36. 10.1002/ejsp.127 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Kay AC, Jimenez MC, & Jost JT (2002). Sour grapes, sweet lemons, and the anticipatory rationalization of the status quo. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(9), 1300–1312. doi. 10.1177/01461672022812014 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Kay AC, & Jost JT (2003). Complementary justice: effects of” poor but happy” and” poor but honest” stereotype exemplars on system justification and implicit activation of the justice motive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 823–837. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.823 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Kahne J, & Westheimer J (2006). The limits of political efficacy: Educating citizens for a democratic society. PS: Political Science and Politics, 39, 289–296. doi. 10.1017/S1049096506060471 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Kirshner B (2007). Introduction: Youth activism as a context for learning and development. American Behavioral Scientist, 51(3), 367–379. 10.1177/0002764207306065 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Liu WM, Ali SR, Soleck G, Hopps J, & Pickett T Jr (2004). Using social class in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51(1), 3. [Google Scholar]
  35. Mistry RS, Benner AD, Tan CS, & Kim SY (2009). Family economic stress and academic well-being among Chinese-American youth: The influence of adolescents’ perceptions of economic strain. Journal of Family Psychology, 23(3), 279. 10.1037/a0015403 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Moore S, Daniel M, Gauvin L, & Dubé L (2009). Not all social capital is good capital. Health & Place, 15(4), 1071–1077. 10.1016/j.healthplace.2009.05.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Neville HA, Coleman MN, Falconer JW, & Holmes D (2005). Color-blind racial ideology and psychological false consciousness among African Americans. Journal of Black Psychology, 31(1), 27–45. 10.1177/0095798404268287 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Noss A (2013). Household income: 2012. United States Census Bureau, US Department of Commerce, 12(2). [Google Scholar]
  39. Quillian L (2012). Segregation and poverty concentration: The role of three segregations. American Sociological Review, 77(3), 354–379. 10.1177/0003122412447793 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Raver CC, Jones SM, Li-Grining C, Zhai F, Metzger MW, & Solomon B (2009). Targeting children’s behavior problems in preschool classrooms: A cluster-randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77(2), 302–316. 10.1037/a0015302 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Raver CC, Jones SM, Li-Grining C, Zhai F, Bub K, & Pressler E (2011). CSRP’s impact on low-income preschoolers’ preacademic skills: self-regulation as a mediating mechanism. Child Development, 82(1), 362–378. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01561.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Raver CC, Roy AL, & Pressler E (2015). Struggling to stay afloat: Dynamic models of poverty related adversity and child outcomes. In Amato P, Booth A, McHale S, & Van Hook J (Eds.), Diverging destinies: Families in an era of increasing inequality. New York: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  43. Roy AL, & Raver CC (2014). Are all risks equal? Early experiences of poverty-related risk and children’s functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 28(3), 391–400. DOI: 10.1037/a0036683 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Roy AL, Raver CC, Masucci MD, & DeJoseph D (in press). If they focus on giving us a chance in life we can actually do something in this world: Poverty, inequality and youths’ critical consciousness. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Santos CE, & Toomey RB (2018). Integrating an Intersectionality Lens in Theory and Research in Developmental Science. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 161, 7–15. doi. 10.1002/cad.20245 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Shedd C (2015). Unequal city: Race, schools, and perceptions of injustice. Russell Sage Foundation. [Google Scholar]
  47. Taft J (2006). I’m not a politics person: Teenage girls, oppositional consciousness, and the meaning of politics. Politics & Gender, 2, 329–352. [Google Scholar]
  48. Van der Toorn J, Feinberg M, Jost JT, Kay AC, Tyler TR, Willer R, & Wilmuth C (2015). A sense of powerlessness fosters system justification: Implications for the legitimation of authority, hierarchy, and government. Political Psychology, 36(1), 93–110. doi. 10.1111/pops.12183 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Watts RJ, Diemer MA, & Voight AM (2011). Critical consciousness: Current status and future directions. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2011(134), 43–57. 10.1002/cd.310 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Watts RJ, & Flanagan C (2007). Pushing the envelope on youth civic engagement: A developmental and liberation psychology perspective. Journal of Community Psychology, 35(6), 779–792. 10.1002/jcop.20178 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Wyer RS Jr, & Srull TK (Eds.). (2014). The Content, Structure, and Operation of Thought Systems: Advances in Social Cognition (Vol. 4). Psychology Press. [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES