American Politics Research 2012 Wilkinson 1532673X12464546

American Politics Research http://apr.sagepub.
com/
Taking a New Perspective to Latino Racial Attitudes: : Examining the Impact of Skin Tone on Latino Perceptions of Commonality with Whites and Blacks
Betina Cutaia Wilkinson and Emily Earle American Politics Research published online 5 December 2012 DOI: 10.1177/1532673X12464546 The online version of this article can be found at: http://apr.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/12/04/1532673X12464546
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for American Politics Research can be found at: Email Alerts: http://apr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://apr.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
>> OnlineFirst Version of Record - Dec 5, 2012 What is This?
Downloaded from apr.sagepub.com at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on June 22, 2013
464546
merican Politics Research Wilkinson and Earle The Author(s) 2011 Reprints and permission: http://www. sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
APRXXX10.1177/1532673X12464546A
Taking a New Perspective to Latino Racial Attitudes: Examining the Impact of Skin Tone on Latino Perceptions of Commonality with Whites and Blacks
American Politics Research XX(X) 136 The Author(s) 2012 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1532673X12464546 http://apr.sagepub.com
Betina Cutaia Wilkinson1 and Emily Earle1
Abstract Recent research has taken note of the steadfast growth of the Latino population in the United States by examining Latino attitudes toward those commonly identified as nonimmigrants, Whites and Blacks. Extant literature on Latino racial attitudes explores the determinants of Latinos perceptions of commonality with Whites and Blacks, yet it has greatly overlooked the impact that skin tone, a key differentiating factor of Latinos, has in explaining these attitudes. Using the 2006 Latino National Survey, we develop models that examine the extent that skin tone explains Latinos commonality with Whites and Blacks. We find that self-reported skin tone considerably explains Latinos attitudes toward Whites and Blacks with light-skinned Latinos sensing greater commonality with Whites and less commonality with Blacks than dark-skinned Latinos. We also find that skin tone moderates the relationship between linked fate with Latinos and closeness with Whites and the relationship between social contact and closeness with Blacks and Whites.
1
Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, USA
Corresponding Author: Betina Cutaia Wilkinson, Wake Forest University, C306 Tribble Hall, Winston-Salem, NC 27109, USA Email: wilkinbc@wfu.edu
American Politics Research XX(X)
Keywords Latinos, skin tone, racial attitudes, commonality The growing presence of the Latino population in the United States has motivated scholars to broaden their research on racial attitudes beyond Blacks and Whites to encompass other minority groups such as Latinos. Recent studies have examined not only Black and White attitudes toward Latinos, now the largest ethnic group of immigrants, but also Latinos attitudes toward nonimmigrants, particularly African Americans and Whites. These studies provide significant insight into the social and political identity of Latinos in the United States, how Latinos perceive themselves in comparison to groups with more or less power, and future race relations. Nonetheless, extant research has not reached a consensus on Latinos views toward Blacks and Whites. Due to their comparable socioeconomic background and experiences with discrimination, Latinos may perceive that they have more in common with Blacks than with Whites, as suggested in the rainbow coalition theory (Meier & Stewart, 1991; Kaufmann, 2003). However, Latinos may not side with other minorities since Latinos and African Americans comparable socioeconomic struggles and status may actually prompt them to be economic and political competitors (Meier & Stewart, 1991; McClain & Stewart, 2002; McClain et al., 2006; Gay, 2006). The resulting tension and competition among minorities may then incite Latinos to identify with Whites. Notwithstanding, what is certain is that affinity, commonality, and linked fate with other Latinos considerably augment Latinos sense of commonality with African Americans (Kaufmann, 2003; McClain et al., 2006; Sanchez, 2008). In addition, Latinos who are native born, who have experienced discrimination (Nteta & Wallsten, 2007; Sanchez, 2008), and who have social contact with Blacks (Wilkinson, 2009) perceive greater commonality with African Americans. Still, one variable that has not been fully considered in analyzing Latino attitudes toward African Americans and Whites is Latinos perceptions of their skin tone. It is common knowledge that Latinos differ in skin tone, but the implications of variation in skin tone on Latino attitudes toward other groups have been relatively unexplored in the racial and ethnic politics literature (but see Barreto & Sanchez, 2008; Wilkinson, 2009). Latinos racial identification (Kaufmann, 2003) and national origin (Kaufmann, 2003; Sanchez, 2008) indirectly address Latinos wide array of skin tones in that Latinos who identify as Black or Puerto Rican are more than likely dark skinned than Latinos who identify as White or Argentine. In a recent study of
Wilkinson and Earle
Figure 1. Perceptions of Latinos own skin tone

Source: 2006 LNS (Fraga et al., 2006)
Latinos perceptions of commonality, Sanchez (2008) directly calls for future studies to use the 2006 Latino National Survey (LNS) to assess the relationship between Latinos skin color and attitudes toward African Americans (439). This study considers that research question directly. Based on data from the 2006 LNS,1 in Figure 1 we report the distribution of Latinos self-reports of their skin tone. Clearly there is considerable variation in how Latinos see themselves. However, a large plurality of Latinos perceive their skin tone as being neither very dark nor very light, and a substantial number classify themselves as light and very light skinned.2 Only 11% of Latino respondents classify themselves as being dark or very dark skinned. In this article we recognize the considerable variance in Latinos skin tone. We contend that in order to gain a comprehensive understanding of Latinos racial attitudes we need to examine the impact of their skin tone on their perceptions of commonality with Whites and Blacks, as well as how the relationships between skin tone and linked fate and social contact reconcile Latinos attitudes. The fact that Latinos wear their skin tone every day influences how others respond to them (Gergen, 1967) and how they view themselves (Bonilla-Silva, 2004), and this can fundamentally shape their racial attitudes.
We argue that Latinos skin tone is associated with their social and economic power and self-perceptions, thereby affecting their attitudes toward those who have a significant amount of power (Whites) and those who have less (Blacks). Using the 2006 LNS, we develop models that test the relationship between Latinos skin tone and perceptions of commonality with African Americans and Whites. Moreover, we consider the extent to which skin tone strengthens the relationships between social contact and commonality, on one hand, and linked fate and commonality, on the other. We find some support for our hypotheses. Skin tone explains Latinos commonality with Blacks and Whites even when accounting for leading predictors of Latino perceptions of closeness with Whites and Blacks. Variation in Latinos skin tone leads to distinct attitudes toward Blacks and Whites in that light-skinned Latinos sense greater commonality with Whites than dark-skinned Latinos, and light-skinned Latinos identify less with African Americans than dark-skinned Latinos. We also find that skin tone moderates the relationship between linked fate with Latinos and closeness with Whites and the relationship between social contact and closeness with Blacks and Whites. Two notable findings are that the effect of linked fate on Latinos commonality with Whites increases among dark-skinned Latinos, and the impact of social contact with Blacks on Latinos identification with Blacks heightens among dark-skinned Latinos. These findings call into question whether previous studies adequately explain the effects of linked fate with Latinos and social contact on Latinos closeness to African Americans and Whites. In addition, our conclusions strongly suggest that skin tone is one of the missing pieces of the puzzle that assists in explaining more thoroughly Latinos identification with Blacks and Whites. Taking skin tone into account when studying Latinos racial attitudes takes a critical first step toward more thoroughly understanding future race relations among the three groups.
Review of Skin Tone Literature

This section outlines leading research regarding skin tone, social and economic power, and racial attitudes. Relying on research from the fields of psychology, sociology, and political science, we provide a general overview of research on skin colors influence on individuals social and economic power and skin tones relationship with interracial attitudes.
Skin Tone and Attractiveness, Social Power

Skin color stratification holds a lengthy and firm presence in American communities, influencing the ways in which people view themselves and other
Wilkinson and Earle
individuals (Breland, 1998). Whereas light skin color has historically been associated with White ancestry, social prestige, and the professional class (Collier-Thomas & Turner, 1994), dark skin color has often been degraded (Lincoln, 1967). Some earlier research suggests that ones attitudes and consciousness about racial discrimination are related to ones own skin color (Ozzie, 1973). This might be explained by the fact that all individuals are forced to wear their skin and reveal their racial background every day, causing them to experience the racial prejudices and difficulties associated with their phenotype (Gergen, 1967). While Whites are often unsure of the proper ways in which to speak, act, and come to terms with their whiteness (Giroux, 1997), many darker skinned individuals internalize their feelings about their dark skin and view light skin color as the ideal (Hall, 1995). Although Americans value egalitarianism in specific areas of life, they often manifest attitudes regarding skin color and social power that are incongruous with this ideology (Smith, 1981). While many people try to ignore the politics of skin color, skin color discrimination does exist within the United States, and many political organizations can base themselves on such discrimination (Hoschchild & Weaver, 2007). Furthermore, category-based skin tone bias exists (Maddox & Chase, 2004), with skin tone holding great significance and complexity in both racial categorization and subdimensional racial categorization (Maddox & Gray, 2002). Although it is important to note that certain subcategorizations may rival it, differences in racial judgments and representations in social environments are strongly stimulated by variation in skin tone, as darker skin tones hold greater salience and manipulation in terms of the formation of race-related perceptions (Maddox & Chase, 2004). Furthermore, no matter their classification, preconceived notions about an object will affect the way people perceive the lightness of the object (Levin & Banaji, 2006). Consequently, no matter their indistinctness, individuals will say that White faces appear to be lighter than Black faces (Levin & Banaji, 2006). While internalized by all, the effects of skin tones on racial identity development and perceptions of attractiveness strongly differentiate Blacks with lighter skin from those with darker skin (Breland, 1998). In a dominantly White society that places a strong emphasis on looks and correlates aptitude with beauty, African Americans with lighter skin tone are perceived to be more attractive and more capable, experiencing lower levels of discrimination and antagonism from Whites than African Americans with darker skin tone (Breland, 1998; see Hall, 1998). Notably, it has been found that darker African Americans experience more racial prejudice than their lighter counterparts though whether darker Blacks are more prone to be identified as Black is debatable (Edwards, 1973; Hoschchild & Weaver, 2007).
Skin Tone and Economic Power

Historically, skin color has been a salient issue in societal relations within the United States (Neal & Wilson, 1989). Today, it is still a significant factor in terms of ones lifestyle, level of success, and social atmosphere (Hall, 1995). Skin color affects the life chances and life outcomes of many racial groups, including African Americans and Mexican Americans (Hill, 2000; Hunter, 2002). As established in previous decades, individuals with lighter skin tone tend to hold a higher socioeconomic status in comparison to those with darker skin color (Edwards, 1973; Hoschchild & Weaver, 2007). Empirical evidence from a more recent study of young African-American children even shows dark-skinned children consistently favor individuals with lighter skin, associating high status and high occupation levels with lighter phenotypes (Averhart & Sigler, 1997). Moreover, most likely as a result of labor market discrimination, individuals of Mexican descent who have darker skin tone and appear more indigenous experience greater economic disadvantages when compared to individuals of Mexican descent who have light skin and appear to be European (Telles & Murguia, 1990). Notably, Blacks endure more discrimination in the work force when compared with Mexican Americans despite the fact that both racial groups experience more discrimination than Whites (Verdugo & Verdugo, 1984).
Skin Tone and Latinos

Several works specifically examine the impact of skin tone on Latinos behavior and attitudes. Some research indicates that at some ages, Latino children adopt pro-White/anti-Latino biases (Bernat & Balch, 1979, 1981). Other research suggests that Latino children do not have biased attitudes in favor of Hispanics or other racial groups though Latino children adopt a slight preference for Whites over Blacks and Asians (Stokes-Guinan, 2011). In a study of American Hispanic students and university students in Chile, students in both countries held preferences for subgroups with lighter rather than darker skin tones (Uhlmann, Dasgupta, Elgueta, Greenwald, & Swanson, 2002). This may shed light on the fact that immigrants from Latin America may carry negative stereotypes of dark skin color to the United States (see Uhlmann, et al., 2002; Dulitzky, 2005; McClain et al., 2006). Few studies have examined the impact of Latinos self-reported skin tone on racial attitudes. Stokes-Guinan (2011) concludes that Latino childrens self-reported skin tone is not correlated with their racial attitudes. However,
Wilkinson and Earle
using the 2006 Latino National Survey, Barreto and Sanchez (2008) find that skin tone does shape Latino attitudes toward African Americans. Latinos with dark skin tones and origins in countries with a large black population (p. 26) are more predisposed to perceiving competition with Blacks (Barreto & Sanchez, 2008).
Theoretical Arguments
The extant literature on skin tone has increased our understanding of the impact of skin tone on power, behavior, and attitudes of various racial groups and yet has paid little attention to the question of whether Latinos skin tone contours their attitudes toward other racial/ethnic groups. Furthermore, while the literature on perceptions of commonality has made some progress in examining power struggles and interracial attitudes among Whites, Blacks, and Latinos, existing research has not been able to examine whether skin tonewhat many would say clearly distinguishes Latinos from each other influences what they think of Whites and African Americans (see Sanchez, 2008). In this article, we attempt to fill this gap in the literature by exploring the effects that self-perceptions of skin tone have on Latinos perceptions of commonality with Whites and Blacks. Why explore Latinos self-reported skin tone? We recognize that examining Latinos self-perceptions of skin tone is distinct from exploring Latinos actual skin tone. Though this may seem as a downfall to our study, we perceive it as a discernible strength. Measuring Latinos self-reported skin tone can provide more insight than a report of ones actual skin tone. For instance, asking individuals to state their skin tone provides them an opportunity to reflect on their skin tone, thereby allowing them to illustrate a type of attitude they may have about skin tone (see Hoschchild & Weaver, 2007; also see Masuoka, 2011) and reveal how they perceive their life chances and social positions. Furthermore, Latinos self-perception of skin tone can significantly impact how they view others, given that the ways in which individuals perceive themselves influence their understanding of shared characteristics and/ or circumstances with others. For example, some individuals may appear to be dark skinned but identify as light skinned. The fact that they perceive themselves as light skinned makes them more prone to identify with Whites than Blacks. Hence, examining the effect of self-identified skin tone assists in explaining prejudices and behavior that relate significantly to racial attitudes but are seldom addressed directly in the political science literature. Given that identifying as a Latino is an ethnicity and not a race, and Latinos are given the opportunity to identify with a race per the U.S. Census,
some may argue that race is a better or equally good predictor in explaining Latinos attitudes as skin tone. Nonetheless, we contend that skin tone and race are not the same. Skin tone provides a more distinct description of Latinos and a better gauge for self-perceptions and attitudes toward others. First, variation in skin tone leverages explanatory power above and beyond what is obtained with racial identification. When individuals are probed regarding their skin tone, respondents are able to provide a more detailed answer that more accurately describes what they look like. However, racial identification is a social construct that significantly narrows the accuracy that individuals can provide about their physical features. Furthermore, skin tone is a more distinct description of Latinos since variation in skin tone exists even within racial categories: some Latinos are darker in skin tone than African Americans and others are as light or lighter than self-identified Whites. Second, skin tone is also a more suitable indicator for understanding racial attitudes, since individuals skin tone structures how others respond to them, which in turn affects how individuals perceive themselves and behave in the world (see Ozzie, 1973; Hall, 1995). Our theory is based on the premise that skin tone is associated with distinct levels of Latinos sociopolitical power and self-perception thereby shaping Latinos attitudes toward others. Individuals socioeconomic, political opportunities and struggles impact how they perceive themselves affecting how they view others, particularly in terms of shared characteristics and circumstances (Stokes-Brown, 2006). Hence, leading determinants of Latinos commonality with Blacks and Whites such as social contact, perceptions of discrimination and commonality, linked fate, and affinity with other Latinos only partially explain Latino attitudes toward Whites and Blacks, while skin tone plays an important underlying role in Latino racial attitudes. Examining the variation of Latinos skin tone sheds light on Latinos distinct levels of social and economic power. Though Latinos as a group have less power than Whites (Garcia & Sanchez, 2007; Fraga et al., 2010), lightskinned individuals in Latin America and in the United States are less likely to experience discrimination and yet are more likely to have more social and economic influence and be perceived as attractive than dark-skinned individuals (Telles & Murguia, 1990; Hill, 2000; Hunter, 2002; Uhlmann et al., 2002; Bonilla-Silva, 2004; Hochschild & Weaver, 2007). In a study of the racial structure of the United States, Bonilla-Silva (2004) finds that Latino groups who are mostly White (i.e., Argentines, Chileans, Costa Ricans, and Cubans) have significantly higher per capita incomes, education, and White collar occupations than groups comprising mostly dark-skinned Latinos (Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and Dominicans).
Wilkinson and Earle
The wide array of socioeconomic levels and discrimination experiences encountered by Latinos of differing skin tones is also experienced by African Americans and Asian Americans, groups whose members also possess a wide array of skin tones (Bonilla-Silva, 2004). Individuals with a dark skin tone (including but not limited to Latinos, Asian Americans, and Blacks) perceive and experience more discrimination as well as more social and economic struggles than light-skinned individuals (Edwards, 1973; Breland, 1998; Hunter, 2002; Levin & Banaji, 2006). These reactions by society and the resulting shared experiences and struggles of those who compare in physical appearance increase the likelihood that they identify with a certain racial group (see Edwards, 1973; Bonilla-Silva, 2004; Stokes-Brown, 2006). Hence, in line with Dawsons (1994) assertion that race and the common experiences individuals have due to their race significantly dictates Blacks behavior and attitudes, we posit that the shared experiences and social status that Latinos have with Whites or Blacks of comparable skin tone shape their perceptions of commonality with Whites and African Americans. Thus, we hypothesize that: Skin tone hypothesis: Light-skinned Latinos perceive greater commonality with Whites than dark-skinned Latinos, and light-skinned Latinos perceive lesser commonality with African Americans than dark-skinned Latinos. Furthermore, we argue that the relationship between leading determinants of Latino racial attitudesparticularly social contact, linked fate with other Latinosand perceptions of commonality with Blacks and Whites are contingent upon Latinos varying levels of skin tone. The social contact hypothesis asserts that direct contact with a minority group augments the likelihood that individuals perceive the group in a positive way and decreases the hostility that exists between the two groups (Sigelman & Welch, 1993; Ellison & Powers, 1994; Welch & Sigelman, 2000; Rocha & Espino, 2008). The hypothesis has been tested extensively in the literature on racial attitudes to increase our understanding of complex race relations among Blacks, Whites, and Latinos. Regarding Latinos sense of commonality with Blacks, social contact with Blacks results in greater perceptions of commonality with them (Nteta & Wallsten, 2007; Wilkinson, 2009). We argue that this relationship applies for Latino attitudes toward African Americans and Whites, but skin tone is the missing piece to the puzzle. Latinos self-reported skin tone moderates the relationship between social contact and commonality. In particular, social contact with a racial group heightens Latinos commonality with members of that group but the
10
level of individuals skin tone dictates how much of an estimated effect social contact has on perceptions of commonality. When individuals share comparable physical characteristics (i.e., skin tone), they can also share similar experiences and levels of power that tighten the bond among individuals (see Dawson, 1994). This bond then increases the strength of the relationship between social contact and commonality. These expectations lead to the following hypotheses: Skin tone and social contact with Whites hypothesis: The impact of social contact with Whites (through friends, coworkers, and group participation) on Latinos commonality with Whites increases among light-skinned Latinos. Skin tone and social contact with Blacks hypothesis: The effect of social contact with Blacks (through friends, coworkers, and group participation) on Latinos commonality with Blacks heightens among dark-skinned Latinos. Besides the relationship between social contact and sense of commonality, we contend that skin tone conditions the relationship between linked fate with other Latinos and commonality with African Americans and Whites. Sanchez (2008) asserts that the more Latinos perceive their sociopolitical realities as linked with other Latinos the more predisposed they are to see that their status as linked with other racial and ethnic groups (p. 431-432). But, to what extent does this relationship apply for attitudes toward two distinct groups such as Whites and Blacks? McClain et al. (2006) conclude that Latinos with a strong sense of group identity are less predisposed to adopt negative stereotypes of African Americans yet are more prone to perceive commonality with Blacks. There is very little research regarding the effect of linked fate with Latinos on perceptions of commonality with Whites. In order to better understand the extent that linked fate with other Latinos contours Latino attitudes toward other groups, we must take Latinos skin tone into consideration. The realities and experiences of those with a dark skin tone diverge from those with a lighter skin tone (Kaufmann, 2003; Bonilla-Silva, 2004) and the resulting shared struggles and status of individuals who compare in skin tone create a considerable connection between these individuals (see Dawson, 1994). This connection then heightens the impact that linked fate with Latinos has on commonality with Blacks and Whites. Hence, we hypothesize as follows. Skin tone and linked fate with Latinos hypothesis: The relationship between linked fate with Latinos and commonality with Blacks is
Wilkinson and Earle stronger among dark-skinned Latinos. Likewise, the effect of linked fate with Latinos on Latinos commonality with Whites is stronger among light-skinned Latinos.
11
Data and Variables

In this section, we lay out the contours of our models examining the effect of self-perception of skin tone on Latinos commonality with Whites and African Americans. The quantitative data used in this article come from the 2006 LNS,3 a national survey of 8,636 Latinos with a sizable number of Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and Cubans. This data set is extremely useful to this study since it is one of the few national surveys with significant samples of foreign-born and native-born Latinos who are interviewed by bilingual interviewers, providing respondents the opportunity to answer questions in the English or Spanish language. Moreover, unlike many national surveys, the LNS includes numerous issues that delve deeply into the complexities of Latino racial attitudes, touching upon group consciousness, conflict, immigration, and discrimination. The data set also covers Latinos in 15 states and in the DC metropolitan area allowing for stand-alone data for the states permitting for statistically sound analysis for each data set, with a random selection of respondents from a sample of Latino households in the jurisdictions covered within the states. In this article, we use the national data so we weight the sample in all of our models so that it is proportionate to the Latino population in the United States.4
Dependent Variable: Commonality

In this study we present two general measures of Latino commonality: perceptions of commonality with Whites and perceptions of commonality with African Americans. The LNS includes questions that explore Latinos commonality with Whites and Blacks on two dimensions: economic (e.g., employment opportunities, education level, and income) and political (e.g., political power and representation, and government services). The general commonality measures for Whites and Blacks are each composed of an additive index of economic and political commonality for each racial group. There are several reasons why we choose to do this. First, the racial dynamics that exist among Latinos, Blacks and Whites can be often characterized as struggles for economic as well as political power (see Segura & Rodrigues, 2006; Telles, Sawyer, & Rivera-Salgado, 2011). Second, Latinos are obtaining more political power and attention at the local, state, and national levels every day, which has significant implications for interracial attitudes and race relations.
12
A third reason why we created an additive measure is that very few differences existed in Latino responses to their economic and political commonality for each racial group. Fourth, the correlation coefficients for Latinos economic and political commonality for each racial group indicated fairly strong correlations (White economic and political commonality: 0.510; Black economic and political commonality: 0.441), and the Cronbachs score for the general commonality with Blacks measure (0.609) and the general commonality with Whites measure (0.673) reveal that it is appropriate to create additive scales for commonality with Whites and Blacks using economic and political commonality variables. Finally, after estimating separate models for Latinos economic and political commonality with each racial group, we find that the results for each type of commonality are strongly comparable. Hence, general commonality with Whites and African Americans measure Latinos perceptions of economic and political commonality with these two groups. The survey question that measures perceptions of economic commonality is: Thinking about issues like job opportunities, educational attainment, or income, how much do Latinos/Hispanics have in common with other racial groups in the United States. Would you say Latinos/Hispanics have a lot in common, some in common, little in common, or nothing at all in common with . . . [African Americans, whites]? Political commonality with other racial groups is examined by asking: Now Id like you to think about the political situation of Latinos in society. Thinking about things like government services and employment, political power and representation, do Latinos/ Hispanics have a lot in common, some in common, little in common, or nothing at all in common at all with . . . [African Americans, whites]? General commonality with Whites is an additive measure of employment and political commonality with Whites on a scale from 0 (nothing at all in common with Whites regarding job opportunities, educational attainment, income, government services, employment, political power, and representation) to 6 (a lot in common with Whites regarding socioeconomic and political clout). General commonality with Blacks is measured in the same way.
Independent Variable: Skin Tone

The primary explanatory variable in this study is respondents perception of their own skin tone. The wording of the question used to measure individuals selfperception of skin tone is as follows: Skin color can be described based on skin tone or complexion shades. Using a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 represents very dark and 5 represents being very light, where would you place yourself on that scale? In our study, this variable ranges from 0 for respondents who perceive
Wilkinson and Earle
13
their skin color to be very dark to 4 for those who perceive their skin color to be very light.5 Hence this is a measure of skin lightness. There are a few issues that need to be addressed when measuring skin tone. First, individuals perceptions of their own skin tone may differ from perceptions of skin tone by other observers. Some individuals may perceive themselves as having a darker or a lighter skin tone than the skin tone perceived by others. In this article we contend that respondents self-perception of skin tone is a more central predictor of commonality with other groups than how others perceive respondents skin tone since individual selfperceptions increase our understanding of how individuals view themselves and, in turn, how they view and think of others. Second, we do not consider here how individuals perceptions of others skin tone shapes political behavior or evaluations. Although there is a developing literature investigating how the evaluation of political actors is influenced by individuals perception of those actors skin tone, this study does not fall into that area of research.
Other Independent Variables

Besides self-reported skin tone, we include leading determinants of Latino perceptions of commonality with African Americans and Whites and several other independent variables in our models. As noted in previous research, Latinos commonality with African Americans and Whites may be shaped by their commonality with other Latinos (Sanchez, 2008), experiences with discrimination (Nteta & Wallsten, 2007; Sanchez, 2008), linked fate with other Latinos (McClain et al., 2006; Sanchez, 2008; Barreto & Sanchez, 2008), and social contact (McClain et al., 2006; Wilkinson, 2009). We include all of these variables in our models in order to gauge the impact of skin tone on Latinos racial attitudes while controlling for the effects of these variables.6 Latinos commonality with other Latinos is an essential precursor for establishing a meaningful relationship with another group. As Latinos socioeconomic and political realities become more linked with other Latinos, they are more likely to view their status as connected with another racial or ethnic group (Sanchez, 2008, pp. 431-432). Commonality with other Latinos has been found to increase both Latinos commonality with African Americans (Kaufmann, 2003; Nteta & Wallsten, 2007; Sanchez, 2008) and with Whites (Nteta & Wallsten, 2007). We do not pose a directional hypothesis for this predictor of Latinos attitudes but include it in our models assessing views toward Whites and Blacks seeing that it has been found to explain both attitudes adequately. Given that the correlation between Latinos economic and political commonality with other Latinos is fairly strong (0.488) and that the
14
influence of these perceptions with other Latinos have comparable impacts on Latinos sense of commonality with Whites and Blacks, we create a general measure of Latinos internal commonality by creating an additive index of economic and political commonality with other Latinos.7 Linked fate with other Latinos may also augment Latinos solidarity with African Americans (McClain et al., 2006), over and above the effects of commonality with other Latinos. Linked fate and commonality are normally treated as conceptually distinct (Sanchez & Morin, 2011), in that linked fate predicts group consciousness (McClain et al., 2006), whereas commonality is itself a measure of group consciousness. The two constructs are empirically distinct in the LNS data as well. The correlation between linked fate with Latinos and our index measuring commonality with Latinos is of moderate magnitude (0.28). We measure linked fate with Latinos on a scale from 0 (no linked fate) to 3 (a lot of linked fate).9 Perceived discrimination is also a common predictor of Latinos perceptions of commonality with other groups. Not only can experiencing discrimination be the basis for solidarity with a group who shares an outsider status (Kaufmann, 2003), it can also assist in uncovering the extent that outsider status structures Latino attitudes toward Blacks and Whites. We suspect that Latinos who have experienced discrimination perceive greater commonality with Blacks than those who have not encountered discrimination. This variable is measured as a combination of Latinos perceived discrimination at work, by police, and in restaurants, stores, and in their neighborhood into a single scale where 0 represents no perceived discrimination and 1 represents discrimination at work, by police, and in restaurants, stores, and in their neighborhood).10 Similar to commonality, linked fate and discrimination experiences, social contact can also shape Latinos sense of commonality with African Americans and Whites. While we know that social interaction with Blacks develops Latino/Black solidarity, social contact can also impact Latinos attitudes toward Whites in the same way. Since individuals do not live in an isolated world, we explore social contact in a variety of settings: having Black/White friends,11 Black/White coworkers,12 and participation in a majority Black/ White social, political, or civic group.13 Friendship with Blacks is measured on a scale from 0 to 2 where 0 represents other/no Black friends, 1 denotes mixed Black friends, and 2 represents mostly Black friends. Having Black coworkers ranges from 0 (other/no Black coworkers) to 2 (mostly Black coworkers). Finally, participation in a Black social, political, or civic group is measured on a 3-point scale where 0 represents other/participation in a group with no Blacks, 1 denotes participation in a mixed Black group, and 2 represents
Wilkinson and Earle
15
participation in a mostly Black group. Measures of social contact with Whites are assessed in the same way. In addition to the prevailing determinants of Latinos perceptions of commonality with Whites and Blacks, the analyses include four sets of control variables. The first set of variables test for the likelihood that commonality is associated with political and demographic characteristics. Given that Latinos commonality with Blacks and Whites may derive from a general set of political beliefs and Latinos who identify as Democrats perceive greater commonality with Blacks (Sanchez, 2008), we estimate the effects of partisan identification in all of our models. We measure this variable on a 3-point scale ranging from 1 (identify as a Democrat) to 0 (other/do not care/identify as an Independent) to 1 (Republican). The demographic variables (age, gender, education, and household income) permit us to estimate the likelihood that Latinos attitudes toward Blacks and Whites come from a relative positionthat is, that younger, female, less educated, and lower income Latinos sense more in common with African Americans (Kaufmann, 2003; Sanchez, 2008) and less in common with Whites than older, male, and higher status Latinos. Age is measured in terms of number of years. Gender is coded 1 for women and 0 for men. Education is coded using a 7-point scale ranging from 0 (no high-school degree) to 6 (postgraduate degree). Household income is measured as a 7-point scale ranging from 0 (income less than $15,000 per year) to 6 (income of greater than $65,000 per year). The second set of control variables assess whether Latinos social integration into the United States contours their attitudes toward Blacks and Whites. Native-born Latinos and those who have spent considerable time in the United States may be more aware of discrimination and social inequalities, and, thus, adopt greater affinity with minority groups (Kaufmann, 2003). In addition, Latinos English proficiency may affect their perceptions of commonality with other groups (see Kaufmann, 2003; Sanchez, 2008); hence, the language that Latinos choose to answer the survey questions is able to measure this. Time in the United States ranges from 0.5 to 91 years and nativity is measured on a scale from 0 (U.S. born) to 1 (foreign born). Answering the survey in English is measured from 0 (answer in Spanish) to 1 (answer in English). The last set of control variables measures Latinos national origin. Latinos ties to a country in Latin America are related to their relative socioeconomic status in the United States (Bonilla-Silva, 2004) and sense of commonality with Whites and Blacks (Kaufmann, 2003; Nteta &Wallsten, 2007; Sanchez, 2008). Hence, in order to provide a more comprehensive understanding of Latino/Black and Latino/White solidarity and to explore the extent that status as measured by national origin shapes Latinos racial attitudes, we create
16
dummy variables for those of Mexican, Cuban, and Puerto Rican origins. These three groups differ in socioeconomic power and skin tone, are the three largest national origin groups in the United States and in the 2006 LNS, and are commonly used as dummy variables in research using the same data (Sanchez & Morin, 2011). Descriptive summary statistics for all of the independent variables in our models are found in Table A1 in the Appendix.
Empirical Results
In this section, we examine the impact self-perception of skin tone has on Latinos perceptions of commonality with Whites and African Americans. We begin by providing descriptive information regarding Latinos socioeconomic status and social struggles by self-reported skin tone. Then, we test our hypotheses by estimating models using ordinary least squares (OLS) regression. We recognize that Latinos general commonality with Whites and Latinos sense of commonality with Blacks are measured on a 7-point ordered scales so ordered logit would be the appropriate estimation procedure. However, we have estimated all of our models with both OLS regression and ordered logit statistical techniques and obtained the same results. We report the OLS results for ease of interpretation (Garand, 2010, p. 1115).14
Latinos Socioeconomic Status and Experienced Discrimination by Skin Tone

As noted in Figure 1, there is some variation in perceived skin tone among Latinos. A majority of Latinos seem to place themselves in the middle of the dark to light skin tone scale, yet a substantial number identify as light skinned. However, to what extent do Latinos differ in socioeconomic status and social struggles by skin tone? Table 1 presents some interesting results. Latinos who perceive themselves as very light skinned have higher education and household income levels than those who identify as dark skinned or as neither very dark nor very light in complexion. These findings are similar to those found by Telles and Murguia (1990), Hill (2000), Hunter (2002), Uhlmann et al. (2002), and Hoschchild and Weaver (2007). Moreover, Latinos who identify as very dark in skin tone perceive more discrimination at the workplace and in their neighborhood than others (Hoschchild & Weaver, 2007). Interestingly, Latinos who identify as neither very dark nor very light in skin tone sense slightly greater discrimination by the police and in public places such as restaurants and stores than those who identify as very light or very dark in skin tone.
Wilkinson and Earle
17
The Impact of Skin Tone on Perceptions of Commonality With Whites

In order to test the influence of self-reported skin tone on Latinos commonality with Whites, we specify multivariate models that include independent variables as leading determinants (as dictated by previous research) of Latinos attitudes toward Whites and Blacks, as well as measures for political and demographic characteristics, social integration, and national origin. We recognize that endogeneity may impact the effect of skin tone on commonality with Whites in that skin tone can explain Latino/White solidarity but Latinos commonality with Whites can also shape skin tone. Those who perceive strong commonality with Whites may be more predisposed to self-report a light skin tone. Hence, after conducting a two-stage residual inclusion test, we conclude that there is some but not substantial endogeneity in our model.15,16 Table 2 reports OLS regression results for Latinos commonality with Whites.17 The results in Model 2 strongly support the Skin tone hypothesis: Latinos who identify as light skinned perceive greater commonality with Whites than those who classify themselves as dark skinned. This finding provides robust support the notion that individuals skin tone shapes their attitudes toward others. Not all Latinos are the same and their differences in physical characteristics have strong implications for their attitudes toward Whites and future Latino/White race relations. The results in Models 1 and 2 also suggest that some leading predictors of Latinos commonality with Whites and Blacks explain Latinos attitudes toward Whites even when controlling for the effects of skin tone. Latinos who sense commonality with other Latinos are more likely to feel close to Whites, suggesting that internal commonality may not heighten Latinos minority status and that some Latinos may perceive commonality with a person or a group on an individual basis and not based on race (Wilkinson, 2009). However, experiencing discrimination yields less commonality with Whites as Latinos who perceive no discrimination are less likely to identify with Whites. Two social contact coefficients (having White friends and participation in a White social, political group) provide robust support for the social contact hypothesis. A few demographic, social integration, and national origin measures have coefficients that are statistically significant. Older, less-educated Latinos sense greater commonality with Whites than their younger, more educated counterparts. Interestingly and somewhat in contrast to the education coefficient, Latinos who choose to answer the survey in English sense greater commonality
18
Table 1. Socioeconomic Status and Experienced Discrimination Among Latinos by Self-Reported Skin Tone Very dark (%) Education level 3 None 22 Eight grade or below Some high school 17 3 GED High school graduate 25 Some college 16 4-Year college degree 9 5 Professional, graduate degree N 277 Household income Below US$15,000 24 US$15,000-US$24,999 23 15 US$25,000-US$34,999 10 US$35,000-US$44,999 10 US$45,000-US$54,999 US$55,000-US$64,999 5 Above US$65,000 13 N 207 Experienced discrimination (jobs) No 80 Yes 20 N 274 Experienced discrimination (police) No 86 Yes 14 N 275 Experienced discrimination (neighborhood) No 90 Yes 10 N 275 Experienced discrimination (restaurants, stores) No 85 Yes 15 N 274
Source: 2006 LNS (Fraga et al., 2006). Note. Some columns do not equal 100% due to rounding.
Not very dark nor very light (%) 2 20 16 3 26 20 9 5 3,390 20 23 18 13 8 6 13 2,714 83 17 3,320 85 15 3,339 94 6 3,329 82 18 3,332
Very light (%) 3 20 13 2 24 19 11 8 2,039 20 21 17 12 8 6 17 1,660 84 16 1,994 87 13 2,012 94 6 2,010 86 14 2,015
Wilkinson and Earle

Table 2. OLS Regression Results for Latino Perceptions of Commonality With Whites Model 1 Constant Leading determinants Commonality with Latinos Linked fate with Latinos Perceived discrimination White friends White coworkers White group participation Political, demographic characteristics Partisan identification (Republican = 1) Age Gender (female = 1) Education Household income Social integration Length of time in the United States Nativity (foreign born = 1) English language interview National origin Mexican (SE) 2.08*** (0.16) 0.11*** (0.02) 0.04 (0.03) 0.73*** (0.20) 0.23*** (0.05) 0.02 (0.04) 0.27*** (0.05) 0.01 (0.04) 0.01*** (0.00) 0.06 (0.05) 0.08*** (0.02) 0.01 (0.02) 0.01 (0.00) 0.05 (0.09) 0.19*** (0.08) 0.15** (0.07) Model 2 (SE) 1.92*** (0.17) 0.11*** (0.02) 0.04 (0.03) 0.67*** (0.21) 0.23*** (0.05) 0.02 (0.04) 0.26*** (0.05) 0.00 (0.04) 0.01*** (0.00) 0.07 (0.05) 0.08*** (0.02) 0.01 (0.02) 0.01 (0.00) 0.02 (0.09) 0.18** (0.08) 0.13* (0.07)
19
Model 3 (SE) 1.81*** (0.24) 0.11*** (0.02) 0.13* 0.07 0.65*** (0.21) 0.33*** (0.13) 0.20* (0.11) 0.45*** (0.14) 0.00 (0.04) 0.01*** (0.00) 0.06 (0.05) 0.08*** (0.02) 0.01 (0.02) 0.01 (0.00) 0.02 (0.09) 0.18** (0.08) 0.13* (0.07) (continued)
20
Table 2. (continued)
Model 1 Cuban Puerto Rican Skin tone (4 = very light) Linked fate with Latinos*Skin tone White friends*Skin tone White coworkers*Skin tone White group participation*Skin tone N R2 (SE) 0.33** (0.13) 0.16 (0.11) 5,409 0.07
Model 2 (SE) 0.29** (0.13) 0.15 (0.11) 0.07*** (0.03) 5,252 0.07
Model 3 (SE) 0.28** (0.13) 0.15 (0.11) 0.11* (0.07) 0.03 (0.02) 0.04 (0.04) 0.09** (0.04) 0.08 (0.05) 5,252 0.07
Source: 2006 LNS (Fraga et al., 2006). *p < .10 level. **p < .05 level. ***p < .01 level.
with Whites. In addition, we find that while Latinos with ties to Mexico are less likely to perceive commonality with Whites Cubans are more prone to identifying with Whites. In general, the results Models 1 and 2 in Table 2 reveal that accounting for skin tone does not significantly affect the influence and relationship between commonality with Whites and commonality with Latinos, linked fate with Latinos, perceived discrimination, and social contact with Whites. Nevertheless, the leading determinants of Latino attitudes toward Whites and Blacks as well as skin tone structure Latinos attitudes toward Whites. The impact of linked fate and social contact on Latinos commonality with Whites across levels of skin tone. In addition to testing the influence of skin tone on Latinos attitudes toward Whites and Blacks, we hypothesize that skin tone conditions the effects of social contact and linked fate with other Latinos on Latinos commonality with Blacks and Whites. In Model 3 of Table 2, we present OLS regression coefficients for a model that tests the hypothesis that skin tone strengthens the relationship between social contact
Wilkinson and Earle
21
with Whites (through friendship, coworkers, and membership in a social, political group) and commonality with Whites and linked fate with Latinos and Latino/White solidarity. The model in this table tests the Skin tone and social contact with Whites hypothesis (i.e., that the relationship between social contact with Whites and commonality with Whites strengthens among light-skinned Latinos) and the Skin tone and linked fate with Latinos hypothesis (i.e., that the effect of linked fate with other Latinos and commonality with Whites increases among light-skinned Latinos). The results in Model 3 provide a fair amount of support for our hypotheses. For instance, when examining the coefficient for linked fate with Latinos (a constitutive term for the interaction of linked fate with Latinos and skin tone), we find that there is a positive relationship between linked fate with Latinos and closeness with Whites among dark-skinned Latinos (i.e., when skin tone = 0). This finding somewhat counters the hypothesis that among light-skinned Latinos the effect of linked fate with Latinos on commonality with Whites increases. In order to obtain a better understanding of the interaction coefficient of linked fate and skin tone given that coefficients are not synonymous with effects in models with interactions (Kam & Franzese, 2007, p. 19-21), we created a table (Table A2) illustrating how linked fate with Latinos and skin tone influenced the predicted dependent variable, commonality with Whites. Due to space limitations, Table A2 is in the Appendix of this article.20 From such a table, the researcher can examine how the independent variables which make up the interaction affect the predicted dependent variable (Kam & Franzese, 2007, p. 26). We find that among dark-skinned Latinos, a rise in linked fate with Latinos coincides with an increase in commonality with Whites (from 2.710 to 3.136) yet among light-skinned Latinos, an increase in linked fate results in a slight decline in closeness with Whites (from 3.187 to 3.141). Clearly, for dark-skinned Latinos, linked fate with Latinos heightens their perceptions of commonality with Whites. For light-skinned Latinos, it is not very clear that the more Latinos see their realities as linked with Latinos the greater they perceive their status as comparable to Whites. Hence the relationship between linked fate and commonality with Whites is positive for dark-skinned Latinos but near 0 for light-skinned Latinos. A plausible explanation for this finding is that linked fate with Latinos does not provide a generally robust explanation for Latinos commonality with Whites given the nonsignificant findings in Table 2 when the skin tone and linked fate interaction are absent. With regards to the extent that skin tone moderates the relationship between social contact with Whites and commonality with Whites, we find substantial support for the conditioning effect of skin tone on the relationship
22
between social contact and commonality with Whites though not always in the direction that we suspected. For instance, when examining the coefficient for White friends, we find that having mostly White friends increases Latino/ White solidarity among Latinos who identify as dark skinned (when skin tone = 0). Similarly, among dark-skinned Latinos, participation in a mostly White social, political group heightens commonality with Whites. However, we find robust support for our Skin tone and social contact hypothesis as it pertains to Latinos contact with Whites in the workplace. Having mostly White coworkers depresses Latino/White solidarity among dark-skinned Latinos (when skin tone = 0). Furthermore, the coefficient for the interaction between White coworkers and skin tone is positive and significant suggesting that as skin tone goes up (as one moves from very dark to identifying as very light in the scale) the effect of contact with Whites in the workplace on Latinos sense of commonality with Whites increases among light-skinned Latinos. Hence, skin tone strengthens the relationship between contact with Whites in the workplace and closeness with Whites. In order to obtain a clearer grasp of the interactions for social contact with Whites and skin tone we report the results of Tables A3 to A5 (found in the Appendix). The results of Table A3 convey that among dark-skinned Latinos, an increase in number of White friends (0 = no White friends to 2 = mostly White friends) results in a growth in commonality with Whites (from 2.628 to 3.246) and among Latinos who identify as light skinned, an increase in White friends also coincides with an increase in closeness with Whites (from 3.105 to 3.502). Given that the interaction coefficient was not significant, we are not surprised by these results. The predicted values of commonality with Whites in Table A5 indicate comparable results: for dark-skinned Latinos an increase in White group participation (0 = not participate in group with Whites to 2 = participate in a mostly White group) results in increasing closeness with Whites (2.744 to 3.623) and for light-skinned Latinos an increase in White group participation augments Latino/White solidarity (from 3.221 to 3.525). However, the predicted values for commonality with Whites based on the interaction for White coworkers and skin tone in Table A4 illustrate results in compliance with our hypothesis. For dark-skinned Latinos, an increase in White coworkers (from 0 = no White coworkers to 2 = mostly White coworkers) results in less commonality with Whites (2.777 to 2.421) and among Latinos who identify as light skinned, more White coworkers coincides with more commonality with Whites (3.253 to 3.487). These findings suggest that different types of social contact with Whites impact Latinos attitudes toward Whites differently (Barreto & Sanchez, 2008).
Wilkinson and Earle
23
The Impact of Skin Tone on Perceptions of Commonality With African Americans

Skin tone and leading predictors of Latinos commonality with Blacks influence Latinos identification with Whites. However, to what extent does skin tone affect Latinos sense of commonality with Blacks? In Table 3, we test hypotheses about the impact of skin tone, prominent predictors of Latinos commonality with African Americans and Whites, as well as some political, demographic, and cultural measures on Latinos identification with African Americans. What is more, the third model in this table tests hypotheses associated with conditioning effect of skin tone on the relationship between social contact and linked fate and attitudes toward Blacks. This table reports OLS regression results for models of Latinos commonality with Blacks. Before going further, we must recognize that endogeneity may impact the effect of skin tone on commonality with African Americans in that selfreports of skin tone can explain Latino commonality with Blacks, but Latinos closeness with Blacks can also shape self-reports about individuals skin tone. Those who perceive strong commonality with Blacks may report darker skin tones than those who do not sense commonality. However, after conducting a two-stage residual inclusion test, we conclude that there is no substantial endogeneity in our model.18,19 The results in Model 2 support the Skin tone hypothesis in that Latinos who identify as light-skinned sense less commonality with African Americans than Latinos who report having a dark skin tone at the 0.0668 significance level. Although the skin tone coefficient is not at the 0.05 level of significance, this finding along with the skin tone coefficient in Table 2 exploring Latinos identification with Whites highlight the differences that exist among Latinos as well as the impact that these differences have on racial attitudes. Clearly, we cannot characterize Latinos as a homogenous group with uniform attitudes toward racial groups. Variance in skin tone certainly affects Latinos affinity and identification with others. We suspect that this phenomenon would apply to other racial and ethnic groups besides Latinos. The results in Models 1 and 2 also illustrate that the main determinants of Latinos commonality with African Americans provide robust explanations for Latino attitudes. Latinos who sense strong commonality (Kaufmann, 2003; Sanchez, 2008) and linked fate with other Latinos perceive greater commonalities with Blacks (McClain et al., 2006; Sanchez, 2008). The coefficient for Latinos commonality with other Latinos bolsters the notion that internal commonality increases Latinos perception that they are part of a minority group with little sociopolitical power, thereby augmenting their
24
Table 3. OLS Regression Results for Latino Perceptions of Commonality With African Americans Model 1 Constant Leading determinants Commonality with Latinos Linked fate with Latinos Perceived discrimination Black friends Black coworkers Black group participation Political, demographic characteristics Partisan identification (Republican = 1) Age Gender (female = 1) Education Household income Social integration Length of time in the United States Nativity (foreign born = 1) English language interview National origin Mexican b (SE) 2.47*** (0.16) 0.12*** (0.02) 0.09*** (0.03) 0.29 (0.19) 0.38*** (0.07) 0.04 (0.06) 0.29*** (0.11) 0.03 (0.04) 0.00 (0.00) 0.06 (0.05) 0.01 (0.02) 0.04** (0.02) 0.002 (0.00) 0.30*** (0.09) 0.40*** (0.09) 0.16** (0.08) Model 2 b (SE) 2.53*** (0.17) 0.12*** (0.02) 0.10*** (0.03) 0.28 (0.20) 0.38*** (0.07) 0.04 (0.07) 0.30*** (0.11) 0.04 (0.04) 0.00 (0.00) 0.07 (0.06) 0.00 (0.02) 0.04*** (0.02) 0.00 (0.00) 0.33*** (0.09) 0.39*** (0.09) 0.16** (0.08) Model 3 b (SE) 2.52*** (0.22) 0.12*** (0.04) 0.05 (0.07) 0.29 (0.20) 0.43*** (0.07) 0.01 (0.15) 0.92*** (0.24) 0.04 (0.04) 0.00 (0.00) 0.07 (0.06) 0.00 (0.02) 0.04** (0.02) 0.00 (0.00) 0.321*** (0.09) 0.40*** (0.09) 0.16** (0.08) (continued)
Wilkinson and Earle

Table 3. (continued) Model 1 Cuban Puerto Rican Skin tone (4 = very light) Linked fate with Latinos*Skin tone Black friends*Skin tone Black coworkers*Skin tone Black group participation*Skin tone N R2 b (SE) 0.09 (0.13) 0.25** (0.12) Model 2 b (SE) 0.08 (0.13) 0.24** (0.12) 0.04* (0.03)
25
Model 3 b (SE) 0.08 (0.13) 0.23* (0.12) 0.06 (0.05) 0.02 (0.02) 0.05* (0.02) 0.02 (0.06) 0.25*** (0.08) 5,143 0.10
5,297 0.10
5,143 0.10
Source: 2006 LNS (Fraga et al., 2006). *p < .10 level. **p < .05 level. ***p < .01 level.
solidarity with Blacks. Moreover, these results strongly strengthen the idea that linked fate and commonality with other Latinos are two distinct concepts which individually augment commonality with Blacks. In accordance with previous research, social contact with African Americans (McClain et al., 2006) particularly through friendship and participation in predominantly Black social, political groups enhance Latinos perception of commonalities with Blacks. In addition, there are several demographic, social integration and national origin measures that provide robust explanations for Latino/Black solidarity. Interestingly, Latinos with higher household incomes sense greater commonality with Blacks than those who belong to lower income brackets. One possible explanation for this coefficient is that Latinos in higher income brackets are less likely to perceive Blacks as economic threats and, thus, adopt greater affinity with them than their less wealthy counterparts. Another plausible explanation is that Latinos with higher incomes may identify with Blacks with high levels of income. We also find that foreign-born Latinos and Mexicans perceive less
26
commonality with African Americans than native-born Latinos and nonMexicans. Finally, Latinos who are English dominant and who have ancestral ties to Puerto Rico perceive greater commonality with Blacks than Latinos who are neither Puerto Rican nor dominant enough in the English language to be interviewed in English. It is important to highlight that we conclude that answering the survey in English increases Latinos commonality with Whites (as illustrated in Table 2) and Blacks. It may be that dominance in the English language expands Latinos closeness with individuals whom they perceive as Americans, both Whites and Blacks. Regarding the Puerto Rican coefficient, it is not surprising that Latinos who belong to a subgroup that can compare in physical appearance and background to African Americans perceive greater commonality with Blacks (Kaufmann, 2003; Sanchez, 2008). However, since we control for the effects of skin tone and socioeconomic status in this table, this coefficient can indicate that Puerto Ricans similar experiences as Blacks and/or integration with the local Black community in urban areas such as New York City augments their identification with this racial group. In general, the results in Model 2 illustrate that controlling for the effects of skin tone does not vastly change the influence and relationship between Latinos identification with Blacks and commonality with Latinos, perceived discrimination, linked fate with Latinos and social contact with Blacks. Nonetheless, the leading determinants of Latino attitudes toward Blacks and skin tone account for Latino/Black solidarity. The impact of linked fate and social contact on Latinos commonality with Blacks across levels of skin tone. Thus far we have presented strong evidence that skin tone explains Latinos attitudes toward Whites and Blacks and some evidence that an interaction for skin tone and contact with Whites and an interaction for skin tone and linked fate shape Latino perceptions of commonality with Whites. What about the impact of social contact and linked fate on Latino/Black solidarity across various levels of Latinos skin tone? In Model 3 of Table 3, we present OLS regression coefficients for a model that tests the extent that skin tone conditions the relationship between social contact with Blacks (measured through racial makeup of friendship, coworkers, and group participation) and commonality with African Americans and linked fate with Latinos and Latino/Black solidarity. The model in this table tests the Skin tone and social contact with Blacks hypothesis (the relationship between social contact with Blacks and commonality with Blacks strengthens among dark-skinned Latinos) and the Skin tone and linked fate with Latinos hypothesis (the effect of linked fate with other Latinos and closeness with Blacks increases among dark-skinned Latinos).
Wilkinson and Earle
27
The results in Model 3 provide reasonably strong support for our hypotheses, particularly for Black friendship and Black group participation. First, regarding linked fate, we find that the relationship between linked fate with Latinos and closeness with Blacks does not seem to be conditioned by Latinos self-reported skin tone. Furthermore, the coefficient for the interaction for linked fate and skin tone is positive though not statistically significant, suggesting that linked fate with Latinos does not influence Latinos commonality with Whites among Latinos who identify as light skinned. In order to obtain greater insight as to the extent that skin tone moderates the relationship between linked fate with Latinos and commonality with Blacks and determine support for the Skin Tone and Linked Fate with Latinos hypothesis, we create Table A6 (in the Appendix) displaying how linked fate with Latinos and skin tone influence commonality with Blacks (Kam & Franzese, 2007). We find that among dark-skinned Latinos, a rise in linked fate with Latinos (from 0 = no linked fate to 3 = a lot) coincides with an increase in commonality with Whites (from 3.239 to 3.473). Likewise, among light-skinned Latinos, an increase in linked fate results in a substantial growth in closeness with Blacks (from 3.061 to 3.513). Hence, for dark-skinned and light-skinned Latinos linked fate with Latinos heightens their perceptions of commonality with African Americans. Given that the linked fate with Latinos coefficient in Table 3 (without interactions) clearly illustrates that linked fate has a significantly positive effect on commonality with Blacks by itself, greater linked fate with Latinos may be all that it takes for Latinos regardless of skin toneto feel closer to African Americans. When it comes to the extent that skin tone conditions the effect of social contact with Blacks on Latinos commonality with African Americans, we find significant support for the Skin tone and social contact with Blacks hypothesis. Having Black friends and participating in predominantly Black organizations substantially increases closeness with Blacks among dark-skinned Latinos (when skin tone = 0). The interactions for Black friends and skin tone and Black group participation and skin tone are negative and statistically significant, providing further support for the idea that having comparable skin tone with a racial group heightens the relationship between social contact and ones attitudes toward that group. These results suggest that light skin dampens the positive main effects of Black friendship and Black group participation on Latinos commonality with Blacks, as expected. Hence, though coalitions may not automatically form between Latinos of a dark skin color and Blacks, these coefficients illustrate bright prospects for improved race relations between dark-skinned Latinos and Blacks who are in the same social network.
28
Again, to better gauge the extent that skin tone moderates the relationship between social contact with Blacks and closeness with them, we turn to tables displaying predicted values for closeness with Blacks based on different values of skin tone and social contact with Blacks. The results of Table A7 suggest that among dark-skinned Latinos, a growing number of Black friends (0 = no Black friends to 2 = mostly Black friends) coincides with an increase in closeness with Blacks (from 3.245 to 4.139) and the same results would apply for light-skinned Latinos (commonality with Blacks goes from 3.068 = no Black friends to 3.609 = mostly Black friends). Hence, the relationship is stronger for dark-skinned Latinos than light-skinned Latinos, as suggested by the hypothesis. This finding is supported by the interaction coefficient for Black friends and skin tone ( = 0.045) yielding that having Black friends depresses commonality with Blacks among light-skinned Latinos. However, the predicted values of commonality with Blacks in Tables A8 and A9 (see Appendix) provide strong support for our hypothesis, that is, that social contact with Blacks in the workplace and in groups augment commonality with Blacks among dark-skinned Latinos. For Latinos who identify as dark skinned, an increase in Black coworkers (0 = no Black workers to 2 = mostly Black coworkers) and an increase in Black group participation (0 = not participate in group with Blacks to 2 = participate in a mostly Black group) result in increasing closeness with Blacks (Black coworkers: from 3.434 to 3.510; Black group participation: from 3.412 to 5.2). Among light-skinned Latinos, an increase in Black coworkers and Blacks in ones organization coincide with lower commonality with Blacks (Black coworkers: from 3.256 to 3.147; Black group participation: from 3.235 to 3.097). These interesting results provide robust support for the Skin tone and Social contact with Blacks hypothesis. Taken as a whole, skin tone significantly moderates the relationship between social contact with Blacks and identification with African Americans. Social contact may expand Latinos commonality with Blacks but skin tone helps to explain under what circumstances this relationship holds. Now more than ever we live in a racially and ethnically diverse nation and differences in physical characteristics such as skin tone for Latinos as well as other racial and ethnic groups must be taken into consideration if we are going to accurately explain racial attitudes and race relations.
Discussion and Conclusion

In this article, we have attempted to fill a void in the racial attitudes literature by examining the effect of self-reported skin tone on Latino perceptions of commonality with Whites and Africa Americans. We find some support for
Wilkinson and Earle
29
our hypotheses. Self-perception of skin tone significantly explains Latinos perception of commonality with Whites and Blacks (at a more relaxed significance level) even in the presence of established explanatory factors of Latino attitudes toward Blacks and Whites. Differences in skin tone lead to divergent attitudes toward Whites and African Americans in that light-skinned Latinos sense greater commonality with Whites than dark-skinned Latinos, and light-skinned Latinos are less likely to identify with Blacks than Latinos who identify as dark skinned. Moreover, not only does skin tone condition the relationship between linked fate with Latinos and commonality with Whites but it also moderates the impact of social contact with Blacks and Whites on Latinos closeness with African Americans and Whites (respectively). This study makes strong contributions to the literature examining Latino racial attitudes. First, we have explored what many have suggested is a core determinant of Latino racial attitudes (McClain & Stewart, 2002; McClain et al., 2006; Sanchez, 2008) yet has often been given less attention in research among political scientists. By looking to the racial attitudes literature in sociology and psychology, we have broadened the scope of the theoretical contribution of our study in understanding Latinos attitudes toward Blacks and Whites and hope to set a precedent for future studies in racial politics. Second, this study provides an accurate assessment of skin tones effects on Latino attitudes. Instead of only including skin tone as one of a variety of variables in our models, we assess skin tones relative influence on Latino attitudes by conducting statistical analyses with and without a skin tone variable and examine the impact of Latinos skin tone on racial attitudes while controlling for the effects of factors commonly found to explain Latino perceptions of Blacks and Whites. Furthermore, we examine the extent that skin tone moderates the relationship between prominent predictors of Latino racial attitudes and Latinos perceptions of commonality with Blacks and Whites. Third, we make a significant contribution to the racial attitudes literature through our examination of the relationship between commonality with other Latinos (commonly found to explain Latinos commonality with Blacks as indicated by Sanchez [2008]) and Latinos attitudes toward Whites. Our findings suggest that Latinos who identify pan-ethnically and perceive commonality with other Latinos sense greater commonality with Blacks and Whites. This finding challenges previous suggestions that Latino group consciousness promotes a minority status and greater perceptions of commonality with Blacks in that Latino group consciousness may actually lead to more favorable perceptions of other minority groups and the majority group. Hence, increased group consciousness among Latinos will lead to more positive views of Blacks and Whites possibly leading to more sustained coalitions
30
between Latinos and those who have substantial social and economic power and those who have less. Finally, the findings of our study have strong implications for coalition building among Whites, Blacks, and Latinos in the United States. Perceptions of commonality can be seen as a precursor of coalition formation (Kaufmann, 2003; McClain et al., 2006) among racial/ethnic groups. Hence, we suspect that self-reported skin tone may impact coalition formation among the three groups. Given shared experiences and opportunities (or lack of), dark-skinned Latinos may be more likely to form coalitions with Blacks than light-skinned Latinos and Latinos who identify as light skinned may be more predisposed to coalition formation with Whites than darker Latinos. More specifically given the findings presented above, dark-skinned Latinos who have significant contact with Blacks may be more likely to form political coalitions with African Americans. Also, dark-skinned Latinos who perceive that their fate is linked with other Latinos may be more likely to participate in coalition formations with Whites. However, these are only speculations based on the conclusions made in this study and future research must continue to explore the relationship between self-reported skin tone and these other factors to obtain a more complete understanding of Latinos racial attitudes and relations with Blacks and Whites. Nonetheless, the results of this study strongly indicate that Latinos assessment of their skin tone plays a critical role in developing their attitudes toward others, particularly those who differ in social, economic, and political power. Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful for the comments and suggestions on this article by Jim Garand, Johanna Dunaway, Ping Xu, Gabe Sanchez, anonymous reviewers and panel discussants, participants of the 2012 Southern Political Science Association and 2012 Midwest Political Science Association conferences.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Notes
1. The 2005-2006 LNS is a prominent data set that is extremely useful to our study. It provides a large, representative sample of Latinos (N = 8,636) and includes
Wilkinson and Earle
31
a sample of Latinos from a variety of national origins, socioeconomic statuses, native status, and regions in the United States. Furthermore, this data set includes questions that delve deeply into the complexities of interracial attitudes. 2. See Figure 1 that examines Latinos self-perception of skin tone from 0 (very dark) to 4 (very light) using the 2006 LNS. 3. We acknowledge that the original collectors of these data and Inter- University Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) are not responsible for the use of this data or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses. 4. Though we recognize that an experiment may be a better method to test our hypotheses, experimental data were not available at the time of this study. However, the vast, diverse Latino sample and the complexity of the topics covered by the questions in the LNS provide us an excellent data set to conduct our study. In addition, since we are interested in examining the effect of self-reported skin tone on racial attitudes, the LNS, one of the only national surveys of Latinos examining self-perception of skin tone, provides us numerous opportunities to delve deeply into our research questions. 5. We recognize that this may not be the most effective measure of self-reported skin tone since it can constrain respondents choices decreasing the opportunities that respondents have in providing a detailed assessment of their skin tone. Nonetheless, lack of survey data constrains us to this measure. 6. Of course, we only control for the effects of the other independent variables in the models that do not contain interactions since the inclusion of interactions in models does not allow the authors to control for the effects of other variables (Kam & Franzese, 2007). 7. Cronbachs statistic of 0.65 indicates that the economic and commonality measures can be scaled to create the Latino internal commonality variable. Latinos economic and political commonality with other Latinos is measured in the same way as economic and political commonality with Whites and Blacks. Please direct further questions regarding the internal commonality variable to the authors. 8. The correlation between economic commonality with Latinos and linked fate with Latinos is 0.269 and the correlation between political commonality with Latinos and linked fate is 0.212. 9. Question wording: How much does your doing well depend on other Latinos/ Hispanics doing well? A lot, some, a little or not at all? 10. Question wording: Have you ever been unfairly fired or denied a job or promotion? Been unfairly treated by the police? Been unfairly prevented from moving into a neighborhood because the landlord or realtor refused to sell or rent to you a house or apartment? Been treated unfairly or badly at restaurants or stores? (Yes/No) 11. Question wording: How would you describe your friends? 12. Question wording: How would you describe your coworkers?
32
13. Question wording: Do you participate in the activities of one social, cultural, civic, or political group? How would you describe these groups? 14. The dependent variables in this article are additive measures of Latinos economic and political commonality with Whites and for Blacks. Creation of the general commonality with Whites and general commonality with Blacks variables result in variables that range from 0 to 6 (economic and political commonality with Whites/Blacks). We have estimated all of our models with both OLS regression and ordered logit statistical techniques and obtained the same results. Interested readers can obtain the ordered logit results by contacting the authors. 15. For our model, we suspected endogeneity between our main independent variable, skin tone and our dependent variable, commonality with Whites. In order to address endogeneity we used an estimation method that has been widely used to address endogeneity issues in empirical research in political science research: the two-stage residual inclusion. First, we estimated our instrumental variable. For the instrumental variable, we created a dummy variable for individuals identifying racially as White. We utilized this variable because it is linked to our main independent variable given that light-skinned individuals may be more likely to identify as White than dark-skinned individuals. It is important to note that identifying as White is not highly correlated with the dependent variable in our model (0.093). We ran the first-stage model that consisted of the skin color regressed on the instrumental variable and the other independent variables in the model. Then, we generated the residual. Following the creation of the residual in stage 2 we ran our model with our residual, skincolorresid. In the second stage, our residual was statistically significant denoting some endogeneity. However, our main variable, skin tone, remained positive and statistically significant and the results for our other independent variables were similar in the second stage residual model as in our original model. Consequently, endogeneity does not have a significant impact on the effect of skin tone on commonality with Whites. 16. We recognize that the sample size indicated on the tables is lower than the sample size of the original data set. The numbers decreased since not all respondents chose to answer the questions (such as household income), did not know the answer to the question or said not apply (economic, political commonality with other Latinos) and not all were asked the same questions (such as linked fate with other Latinos). 17. We checked for multicollinearity in both models by obtaining the variance inflation factor scores and did not find any problems. 18. Since we suspect that endogeneity may impact the relationship between selfreported skin tone and commonality with Blacks, we also conduct a two-stage residual inclusion test as mentioned previously. We created an instrumental variable of Black racial identification. The results of the models denote no endogeneity impacting the effect of skin color on commonality with Blacks.
Wilkinson and Earle
33
19. We checked for multicollinearity in both models by obtaining the variance inflation factor scores and did not find any problems. 20. We present Table A2 illustrating commonality with Whites as linked fate with Latinos ranges from 0 to 3 and when skin tone takes the values of 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 in the Appendix of this article.
References
Averhart, C. J., & Sigler, R. S. (1997). Shades of meaning: Skin tone, racial attitudes, and constructive memory in African American children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 67, 363-388. Barreto, M., & Sanchez, G. R. (2008). Social and political competition between Latinos and Blacks: Exposing myths, uncovering new realities. Paper presented at the Latino National Survey Conference, Ithaca, New York. Bernat, G., & Balch, P. (1979). The Chicano racial attitude measure (CRAM): Results of an initial investigation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 7(2), 137-146. Bernat, G., & Balch, P. (1981). Chicano childrens racial attitudes in traditional and assimilative bilingual educational programs. American Journal of Community Psychology, 9, 605-616. Bonilla-Silva, E. (2004). From bi-racial to tri-racial: Towards a new system of racial stratification in the USA. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 27, 931-950. Breland, A. M. (1998). A model for differential perceptions of competence based on skin tone among African Americans. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 26, 294-312. Collier-Thomas, B., & Turner, J. (1994). Race, class, and color: The African American discourse on identity. Journal of American Ethnic History, 13, 5-31. Dawson, M. (1994). Behind the mule: Race and class in African American politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Dulitzky, A. E. (2005). A region in denial: Racial discrimination and racism in Latin America. In A. Dzidzienyo & S. Oboler (Eds.), Neither enemies nor friends: Latinos, Blacks, Afro-Latinos (pp. 39-59). New York, NY: Palgrave-Macmillan. Edwards, O. L. (1973). Skin color as a variable in racial attitudes of Black urbanites. Journal of Black Studies, 3, 473-483. Ellison, C. G. & Powers, D. A. (1994). The contact hypothesis and racial attitudes among Black Americans. Social Science Quarterly, 75, 385-400. Fraga, L. R., Garcia, J. A., Hero, R., Jones-Correa, M., Martinez-Ebers, V., & Segura, G. M. (2006, May 26). Latino National Survey (LNS) [Computer file]. ICPSR20862-v4. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]. doi:10.3886/ICPSR20862.v4
34
Fraga, L. R., Garcia, J. A., Hero, R., Jones-Correa, M., Martinez-Ebers, V., & Segura, G. M. (2010). Latino lives in America: Making it home. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Garand, J. (2010). Income inequality, party polarization and roll call voting in the U.S. Senate. The Journal of Politics, 72, 1109-1128. Garcia, F. C., & Sanchez, G. R. (2008). Hispanics and the U.S. political system: Moving into the mainstream. New Jersey, NY: Pearson Prentice Hall. Gay, C. (2006). Seeing difference: The effect of economic disparity on Black attitudes toward Latinos. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 982-997. Gergen, K. J. (1967). The significance of color in human relations. Daedalus, 96, 390-406. Giroux, H. A. (1997). White squall: Resistance and the pedagogy of whiteness. Cultural Studies, 11, 376-389. Hall, R. E. (1995). The bleaching syndrome: African-Americans response to cultural domination vis-a-vis skin color. Journal of Black Studies, 26, 172-184. Hall, R. E. (1998). Skin color bias: A new perspective on an old social problem. Journal of Psychology, 132, 238-240. Hill, M. E. (2000). Color differences in the socioeconomic status of African American men. Social Forces, 78, 1437-1460. Hoschchild, J. L., & Weaver, V. (2007). The skin color paradox and the American racial order. Social Forces, 86, 643-670. Hunter, M. L. (2002). If youre light youre alright: Light skin color as social capital for women of color. Gender and Society, 16, 175-193. Kam, C. D., & Franzese, R. J., Jr. (2007). Modeling and interpreting interactive hypotheses in regression analysis. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Kaufmann, K. (2003). Cracks in the rainbow: Group commonality as a basis for Latino and African- American Political Coalitions. Political Research Quarterly, 56, 199-210. Levin, D., & Banaji, M. R. (2006). Distortions in the perceived lightness of faces: The role of race categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 135, 501-512. Lincoln, C. E. (1967). Color and group identity in the United States. Daedalus, 96, 527-541. Maddox, K. B., & Chase, S. G. (2004). Manipulating subcategory salience: Exploring the link between skin tone and social perception of Blacks. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 533-546. Maddox, K. B., & Gray, S. A. (2002). Cognitive representations of Black Americans: Reexploring the role of skin tone. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 250-259. Masuoka, N. (2011). The Multiracial option: Social group identity and changing patterns of racial categorization. American Politics Research, 39, 176-204.
Wilkinson and Earle
35
McClain, P. D., Carter, N. M., Soto, V. D., Lyle, M. L., Grynaviski, J. D., Nunnally, S. C., & Cotton, K. D. (2006). Racial distancing in a Southern City: Latino immigrants views of Black Americans. The Journal of Politics, 68, 571-584. McClain, P. D., & Stewart, J. (2002). Can we all get along? Racial and ethnic minorities in American politics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Meier, K. J. & Stewart, J. (1991). Cooperation and conflict in multiracial school districts. Journal of Politics, 53, 1123-1133. Neal, A. M., & Wilson, M. L. (1989). The role of skin color and features in the Black community: Implications for Black women and therapy. Clinical Psychology Review, 9, 323-333. Nteta, T. M., & Wallsten, K. (2007). Two peas in a Pod? Latino attitudes toward African Americans. Paper presented at the 2007 Latino National Survey Junior Scholars Conference, Ithaca, New York. Unpublished manuscript. Ozzie, E. L. (1973). Skin Color as a Variable in Racial Attitudes of Black Urbanities. Journal of Black Studies, 3, 473-483. Rocha, R. R., & Espino, R. (2008). Racial Threat, Residential Segregation, and the Policy Attitudes of Anglos. Political Research Quarterly 20, 1-12. Sanchez, G. R. (2008). Latino group consciousness and perceptions of commonality with African Americans. Social Science Quarterly, 89, 428-444. Sanchez, G. R., & Morin, J. L. (2011). The effect of descriptive representation on Latinos views of government and themselves. Social Science Quarterly, 92, 483-508. Segura, G. M., & Rodrigues, H. A. (2006). Comparative ethnic politics in the United States: Beyond Black and White. Annual Review of Political Science, 9, 375-395. Sigelman, L., & Welch, S. (1993). The Contact Hypothesis Revisited: Black-White Interaction and Positive Racial Attitudes. Social Forces, 71, 781-795. Smith, A. W. (1981). Racial tolerance as a function of group position. American Sociological Review, 46, 558-573. Stokes-Brown, A. K. (2006). Racial identity and Latino vote choice. American Politics Research, 34, 627-652. Stokes-Guinan, K. (2011). Age and skin tone as predictors of positive and negative racial attitudes in Hispanic children. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 33(1), 1-21. Telles, E. E., & Murguia, E. (1990). Phenotype discrimination and income differences among Mexican Americans. Social Science Quarterly, 71, 682-696. Telles, E., Sawyer, M. Q., & Rivera-Salgado, G. (Eds.) (2011). Just neighbors? Research on African American and Latino relations in the United States. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Uhlmann, E., Dasgupta, N., Elgueta, A., Greenwald, A. G., & Swanson, J. (2002). Subgroup prejudice based on skin color among Hispanics in the United States and Latin America. Social Cognition, 20, 198-226.
36
Verdugo, N. T., & Verdugo, R. R. (1984). Earnings differentials among Mexican American, Black and White male workers. Social Science Quarterly, 65, 417-425. Welch, S., & Sigelman, L. (2000). Getting to Know You? Latino-Anglo Social Contact. Social Science Quarterly, 81, 67-83. Wilkinson, B. C. (2009). How outsiders view insiders: Exploring Latinos perceptions of commonality and competition toward Whites and Blacks. Paper presented at the Politics of Race, Ethnicity and Immigration Colloquium (PRIEC), University of California, Irvine.
Bios
Betina Cutaia Wilkinson is an assistant professor of political science at Wake Forest University. Her research interests include racial and ethnic politics, public opinion and Latino political behavior. Emily Earle is an undergraduate student at Wake Forest University.

American Politics Research 2012 Wilkinson 1532673X12464546

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

American Politics Research 2012 Wilkinson 1532673X12464546

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

American Politics Research http://apr.sagepub.

>> OnlineFirst Version of Record - Dec 5, 2012 What is This?

Betina Cutaia Wilkinson1 and Emily Earle1

Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, USA

American Politics Research XX(X)

Wilkinson and Earle

Figure 1. Perceptions of Latinos own skin tone

American Politics Research XX(X)

Review of Skin Tone Literature

Skin Tone and Attractiveness, Social Power

Wilkinson and Earle

American Politics Research XX(X)

Skin Tone and Economic Power

Skin Tone and Latinos

Wilkinson and Earle

American Politics Research XX(X)

Wilkinson and Earle

American Politics Research XX(X)

Data and Variables

Dependent Variable: Commonality

American Politics Research XX(X)

Independent Variable: Skin Tone

Wilkinson and Earle

Other Independent Variables

American Politics Research XX(X)

Wilkinson and Earle

American Politics Research XX(X)

Latinos Socioeconomic Status and Experienced Discrimination by Skin Tone

Wilkinson and Earle

The Impact of Skin Tone on Perceptions of Commonality With Whites

American Politics Research XX(X)

Very light (%) 3 20 13 2 24 19 11 8 2,039 20 21 17 12 8 6 17 1,660 84 16 1,994 87 13 2,012 94 6 2,010 86 14 2,015

Wilkinson and Earle

American Politics Research XX(X)

Wilkinson and Earle

American Politics Research XX(X)

Wilkinson and Earle

The Impact of Skin Tone on Perceptions of Commonality With African Americans

American Politics Research XX(X)

Wilkinson and Earle

American Politics Research XX(X)

Wilkinson and Earle

American Politics Research XX(X)

Discussion and Conclusion

Wilkinson and Earle

American Politics Research XX(X)

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Wilkinson and Earle

American Politics Research XX(X)

Wilkinson and Earle

American Politics Research XX(X)

Wilkinson and Earle

American Politics Research XX(X)

S-ar putea să vă placă și