American Politics Research 2012 Wilkinson 1532673X12464546 (1)

7/28/2019 American Politics Research 2012 Wilkinson 1532673X12464546 (1)

1/37

http://apr.sagepub.com/American Politics Research

http://apr.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/12/04/1532673X12464546The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1532673X12464546published online 5 December 2012American Politics Research

Betina Cutaia Wilkinson and Emily EarleWhites and Blacks

Impact of Skin Tone on Latino Perceptions of Commonality withTaking a New Perspective to Latino Racial Attitudes: : Examining the

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:American Politics ResearchAdditional services and information for

http://apr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://apr.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

- Dec 5, 2012OnlineFirst Version of Record>>

at FLORIDA STATE UNIV LIBRARY on June 22, 2013apr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://apr.sagepub.com/http://apr.sagepub.com/http://apr.sagepub.com/http://apr.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/12/04/1532673X12464546http://apr.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/12/04/1532673X12464546http://apr.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/12/04/1532673X12464546http://www.sagepublications.com/http://apr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://apr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://apr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://apr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://apr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://apr.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/12/04/1532673X12464546.full.pdfhttp://apr.sagepub.com/http://apr.sagepub.com/http://apr.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://apr.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/12/04/1532673X12464546.full.pdfhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://apr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://apr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://apr.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/12/04/1532673X12464546http://apr.sagepub.com/


2/37

American Politics Research

XX(X) 136

The Author(s) 2012

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1532673X12464546http://apr.sagepub.com

APR XX X 10.1177/1532673X12464546AmericanPoliticsResearch Wilkinson andEarle TheAuthor(s) 2011

Reprintsand permission: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

1Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, USA

Corresponding Author:

Betina Cutaia Wilkinson, Wake Forest University, C306 Tribble Hall, Winston-Salem, NC 27109,

USA

Email: [email protected]

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 Wilkinson1 and Emily Earle1

Abstract

Recent research has taken note of the steadfast growth of the Latino popula-tion in the United States by examining Latino attitudes toward those com-monly identified as nonimmigrants, Whites and Blacks. Extant literature onLatino racial attitudes explores the determinants of Latinos perceptions ofcommonality with Whites and Blacks, yet it has greatly overlooked theimpact that skin tone, a key differentiating factor of Latinos, has in explainingthese attitudes. Using the 2006 Latino National Survey, we develop modelsthat examine the extent that skin tone explains Latinos commonality withWhites and Blacks.We find that self-reported skin tone considerably explainsLatinos attitudes toward Whites and Blacks with light-skinned Latinos sens-ing greater commonality with Whites and less commonality with Blacks thandark-skinned Latinos.We also find that skin tone moderates the relationshipbetween linked fate with Latinos and closeness with Whites and the relation-ship between social contact and closeness with Blacks and Whites.

http://apr.sagepub.com/http://apr.sagepub.com/http://apr.sagepub.com/http://apr.sagepub.com/


3/37

2 American Politics Research XX(X)

Keywords

Latinos, skin tone, racial attitudes, commonality

The growing presence of the Latino population in the United States has moti-

vated 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 nonim-

migrants, 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 groupswith 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 mayactually 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 affin-

ity, 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 litera-

ture (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

http://apr.sagepub.com/http://apr.sagepub.com/http://apr.sagepub.com/


4/37

Wilkinson and Earle 3

Latinos perceptions of commonality, Sanchez (2008) directly calls for future

studies to use the 2006 Latino National Survey (LNS) to assess the relation-

ship 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 varia-tion in how Latinos see themselves. However, a large plurality of Latinos per-

ceive 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 per-

ceptions of commonality with Whites and Blacks, as well as how the relation-

ships 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.

Figure 1. Perceptions of Latinos own skin toneSource: 2006 LNS (Fraga et al., 2006)



5/37


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 atti-

tudes toward Blacks and Whites in that light-skinned Latinos sense greatercommonality 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 close-

ness 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 intoquestion 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 eco-

nomic 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 com-

munities, influencing the ways in which people view themselves and other



6/37


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 con-

sciousness 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, caus-

ing 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 categoriza-tion (Maddox & Gray, 2002). Although it is important to note that certain sub-

categorizations 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 forma-

tion 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 Whitefaces appear to be lighter than Black faces (Levin & Banaji, 2006).

While internalized by all, the effects of skin tones on racial identity devel-

opment 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 discrimina-

tion 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 coun-

terparts though whether darker Blacks are more prone to be identified as

Black is debatable (Edwards, 1973; Hoschchild & Weaver, 2007).



7/37


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, individu-

als of Mexican descent who have darker skin tone and appear more indige-

nous 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 thatboth 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 behav-

ior and attitudes. Some research indicates that at some ages, Latino children

adopt pro-White/anti-Latino biases (Bernat & Balch, 1979, 1981). Otherresearch suggests that Latino children do not have biased attitudes in favor of

Hispanics or other racial groups though Latino children adopt a slight prefer-

ence 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,



8/37


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, whilethe 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 examin-

ing 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 per-

ceive 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 seeMasuoka, 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 per-

ceive 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 atti-

tudes 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,



9/37


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 thanAfrican 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 dis-

tinct levels of Latinos sociopolitical power and self-perception thereby shap-

ing Latinos attitudes toward others. Individuals socioeconomic, politicalopportunities and struggles impact how they perceive themselves affecting

how they view others, particularly in terms of shared characteristics and cir-

cumstances (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 dis-tinct levels of social and economic power. Though Latinos as a group have

less power than Whites (Garcia & Sanchez, 2007; Fraga et al., 2010), light-

skinned 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 indi-

viduals (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).



10/37


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 experiencesindividuals 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 com-

monality with Whites than dark-skinned Latinos, and light-skinned

Latinos perceive lesser commonality with African Americans thandark-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 con-

tingent 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 posi-tive 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 puz-

zle. 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



11/37


level of individuals skin tone dictates how much of an estimated effect social

contact has on perceptions of commonality. When individuals share compa-

rable 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 fol-

lowing 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 onperceptions 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 com-

monality 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



12/37


stronger among dark-skinned Latinos. Likewise, the effect of linked

fate with Latinos on Latinos commonality with Whites is stronger

among light-skinned Latinos.

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-bornand native-born Latinos who are interviewed by bilingual interviewers, provid-

ing respondents the opportunity to answer questions in the English or Spanish

language. Moreover, unlike many national surveys, the LNS includes numer-

ous 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 asample 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: per-

ceptions of commonality with Whites and perceptions of commonality withAfrican Americans. The LNS includes questions that explore Latinos com-

monality 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 addi-

tive 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 strug-

gles 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.



13/37


A third reason why we created an additive measure is that very few differ-

ences existed in Latino responses to their economic and political commonality

for each racial group. Fourth, the correlation coefficients for Latinos eco-

nomic and political commonality for each racial group indicated fairly strong

correlations (White economic and political commonality: 0.510; Black eco-

nomic and political commonality: 0.441), and the Cronbachs score for the

general commonality with Blacks measure (0.609) and the general common-

ality with Whites measure (0.673) reveal that it is appropriate to create addi-

tive 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 common-

ality 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 otherracial 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 noth-

ing 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 representa-

tion) to 6 (a lot in common with Whites regarding socioeconomic and politi-

cal 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 self-

perception 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



14/37


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 per-

ceived 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 self-

perceptions 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 behav-ior 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 severalother 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 dis-

crimination (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 estab-

lishing a meaningful relationship with another group. As Latinos socioeco-

nomic 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 atti-

tudes adequately. Given that the correlation between Latinos economic and

political commonality with other Latinos is fairly strong (0.488) and that the



15/37


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 com-

monality 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 moderatemagnitude (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 percep-

tions of commonality with other groups. Not only can experiencing dis-

crimination 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 greatercommonality with Blacks than those who have not encountered discrimina-

tion. This variable is measured as a combination of Latinos perceived dis-

crimination at work, by police, and in restaurants, stores, and in their

neighborhood into a single scale where 0 represents no perceived discrimi-

nation and 1 represents discrimination at work, by police, and in restau-

rants, 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 Americansand 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 cowork-

ers). 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



16/37


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 com-

monality 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 politi-

cal beliefs and Latinos who identify as Democrats perceive greater common-

ality 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/iden-

tify as an Independent) to 1 (Republican). The demographic variables (age,gender, education, and household income) permit us to estimate the likeli-

hood 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 forwomen and 0 formen. Education is coded using a 7-point scale ranging

from 0 (no high-school degree) to 6 (postgraduate degree). Householdincome 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 integra-

tion 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 commonalitywith 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



17/37


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 inde-

pendent 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 socioeconomicstatus and social struggles by self-reported skin tone. Then, we test our hypoth-

eses 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 statusand social struggles by skin tone?

Table 1 presents some interesting results. Latinos who perceive them-

selves 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 neigh-

borhood 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.



18/37


The Impact of Skin Tone on Perceptions

of Commonality With Whites

In order to test the influence of self-reported skin tone on Latinos common-

ality 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 commonal-

ity 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 toself-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 pro-

vides robust support the notion that individuals skin tone shapes their atti-tudes 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 Latinosminority status and that some Latinos may perceive commonality with a per-

son 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 par-

ticipation 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 counter-

parts. Interestingly and somewhat in contrast to the education coefficient,

Latinos who choose to answer the survey in English sense greater commonality



19/37


Table 1. Socioeconomic Status and Experienced Discrimination Among Latinos by

Self-Reported Skin Tone

Verydark (%)

Not very darknor very light (%)

Verylight (%)

Education level

None 3 2 3

Eight grade or below 22 20 20

Some high school 17 16 13

GED 3 3 2

High school graduate 25 26 24

Some college 16 20 194-Year college degree 9 9 11

Professional, graduate degree 5 5 8

N 277 3,390 2,039

Household income

Below US$15,000 24 20 20

US$15,000-US$24,999 23 23 21

US$25,000-US$34,999 15 18 17

US$35,000-US$44,999 10 13 12

US$45,000-US$54,999 10 8 8

US$55,000-US$64,999 5 6 6

Above US$65,000 13 13 17

N 207 2,714 1,660

Experienced discrimination (jobs)

No 80 83 84

Yes 20 17 16

N 274 3,320 1,994

Experienced discrimination (police)No 86 85 87

Yes 14 15 13

N 275 3,339 2,012

Experienced discrimination (neighborhood)

No 90 94 94

Yes 10 6 6

N 275 3,329 2,010

Experienced discrimination (restaurants, stores)

No 85 82 86Yes 15 18 14

N 274 3,332 2,015

Source: 2006 LNS (Fraga et al., 2006).Note. Some columns do not equal 100% due to rounding.



20/37


Table 2. OLS Regression Results for Latino Perceptions of Commonality With

Whites

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

(SE) (SE) (SE)

Constant 2.08*** 1.92*** 1.81***

(0.16) (0.17) (0.24)

Leading determinants

Commonality with Latinos 0.11*** 0.11*** 0.11***

(0.02) (0.02) (0.02)

Linked fate with Latinos 0.04 0.04 0.13*(0.03) (0.03) 0.07

Perceived discrimination 0.73*** 0.67*** 0.65***

(0.20) (0.21) (0.21)

White friends 0.23*** 0.23*** 0.33***

(0.05) (0.05) (0.13)

White coworkers 0.02 0.02 0.20*

(0.04) (0.04) (0.11)

White group participation 0.27*** 0.26*** 0.45***

(0.05) (0.05) (0.14)Political, demographic characteristics

Partisan identification (Republican = 1) 0.01 0.00 0.00

(0.04) (0.04) (0.04)

Age 0.01*** 0.01*** 0.01***

(0.00) (0.00) (0.00)

Gender (female = 1) 0.06 0.07 0.06

(0.05) (0.05) (0.05)

Education 0.08*** 0.08*** 0.08***

(0.02) (0.02) (0.02)

Household income 0.01 0.01 0.01

(0.02) (0.02) (0.02)

Social integration

Length of time in the United States 0.01 0.01 0.01

(0.00) (0.00) (0.00)

Nativity (foreign born = 1) 0.05 0.02 0.02

(0.09) (0.09) (0.09)

English language interview 0.19*** 0.18** 0.18**(0.08) (0.08) (0.08)

National origin

Mexican 0.15** 0.13* 0.13*

(0.07) (0.07) (0.07)

(continued)



21/37


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 identify-

ing with Whites.

In general, the results Models 1 and 2 in Table 2 reveal that accounting forskin 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


(SE) (SE) (SE)

Cuban 0.33** 0.29** 0.28**

(0.13) (0.13) (0.13)

Puerto Rican 0.16 0.15 0.15

(0.11) (0.11) (0.11)

Skin tone (4 = very light) 0.07*** 0.11*

(0.03) (0.07)

Linked fate with Latinos*Skin tone 0.03(0.02)

White friends*Skin tone 0.04

(0.04)

White coworkers*Skin tone 0.09**

(0.04)

White group participation*Skin tone 0.08

(0.05)

N 5,409 5,252 5,252

R2

0.07 0.07 0.07

Source: 2006 LNS (Fraga et al., 2006). *p < .10 level. **p < .05 level. ***p < .01 level.

Table 2. (continued)



22/37


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 hypoth-

esis (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 hypothe-

ses. 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 withLatinos 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 cre-

ated a table (Table A2) illustrating how linked fate with Latinos and skin toneinfluenced 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 per-

ceptions 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



23/37


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 ourSkin tone and social contact hypothesis as it per-

tains 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 inthe 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 = mostlyWhite 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 close-ness 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 cowork-

ers) 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).



24/37


The Impact of Skin Tone on Perceptions

of Commonality With African Americans

Skin tone and leading predictors of Latinos commonality with Blacks influ-

ence 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 asso-

ciated with conditioning effect of skin tone on the relationship between

social contact and linked fate and attitudes toward Blacks. This table reportsOLS 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 self-

reports 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 con-

ducting a two-stage residual inclusion test, we conclude that there is no sub-stantial 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 signifi-

cance, 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 coef-

ficient 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



25/37


Table 3. OLS Regression Results for Latino Perceptions of Commonality With

African Americans


b(SE) b (SE) b (SE)

Constant 2.47*** 2.53*** 2.52***

(0.16) (0.17) (0.22)

Leading determinants

Commonality with Latinos 0.12*** 0.12*** 0.12***

(0.02) (0.02) (0.04)

Linked fate with Latinos 0.09*** 0.10*** 0.05(0.03) (0.03) (0.07)

Perceived discrimination 0.29 0.28 0.29

(0.19) (0.20) (0.20)

Black friends 0.38*** 0.38*** 0.43***

(0.07) (0.07) (0.07)

Black coworkers 0.04 0.04 0.01

(0.06) (0.07) (0.15)

Black group participation 0.29*** 0.30*** 0.92***

(0.11) (0.11) (0.24)Political, demographic characteristics

Partisan identification (Republican = 1) 0.03 0.04 0.04

(0.04) (0.04) (0.04)

Age 0.00 0.00 0.00

(0.00) (0.00) (0.00)

Gender (female = 1) 0.06 0.07 0.07

(0.05) (0.06) (0.06)

Education 0.01 0.00 0.00

(0.02) (0.02) (0.02)

Household income 0.04** 0.04*** 0.04**

(0.02) (0.02) (0.02)

Social integration

Length of time in the United States 0.002 0.00 0.00

(0.00) (0.00) (0.00)

Nativity (foreign born = 1) 0.30*** 0.33*** 0.321***

(0.09) (0.09) (0.09)

English language interview 0.40*** 0.39*** 0.40***(0.09) (0.09) (0.09)

National origin

Mexican 0.16** 0.16** 0.16**

(0.08) (0.08) (0.08)

(continued)



26/37


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 commonal-

ity 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


b(SE) b (SE) b (SE)

Cuban 0.09 0.08 0.08

(0.13) (0.13) (0.13)

Puerto Rican 0.25** 0.24** 0.23*

(0.12) (0.12) (0.12)

Skin tone (4 = very light) 0.04* 0.06

(0.03) (0.05)

Linked fate with Latinos*Skin tone 0.02(0.02)

Black friends*Skin tone 0.05*

(0.02)

Black coworkers*Skin tone 0.02

(0.06)

Black group participation*Skin tone 0.25***

(0.08)

N 5,297 5,143 5,143

R2 0.10 0.10 0.10

Source: 2006 LNS (Fraga et al., 2006). *p < .10 level. **p < .05 level. ***p < .01 level.

Table 3. (continued)



27/37


commonality with African Americans than native-born Latinos and non-

Mexicans. 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 answer-

ing the survey in English increases Latinos commonality with Whites (as illus-

trated in Table 2) andBlacks. 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 sur-

prising that Latinos who belong to a subgroup that can compare in physical

appearance and background to African Americans perceive greater commonal-

ity with Blacks (Kaufmann, 2003; Sanchez, 2008). However, since we controlfor 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 com-

monality with Whites. What about the impact of social contact and linkedfate 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 con-

tact 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 strength-

ens among dark-skinned Latinos) and the Skin tone and linked fate with Lati-

nos hypothesis (the effect of linked fate with other Latinos and closeness with

Blacks increases among dark-skinned Latinos).



28/37


The results in Model 3 provide reasonably strong support for our hypoth-

eses, 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 interac-

tion for linked fate and skin tone is positive though not statistically signifi-

cant, 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 fatewith 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 Latinoscoefficient 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 organizationssubstantially 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 signifi-

cant, 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.



29/37


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 val-

ues of skin tone and social contact with Blacks. The results of Table A7 sug-

gest 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 friendsdepresses 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 commonal-

ity 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 partici-

pate in group with Blacks to 2 =participate in a mostly Black group) result inincreasing 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 accu-

rately explain racial attitudes and race relations.

Discussion and ConclusionIn 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



30/37


our hypotheses. Self-perception of skin tone significantly explains Latinos

perception of commonality with Whites and Blacks (at a more relaxed sig-

nificance 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 Latinoracial 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 onLatino 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 vari-

able and examine the impact of Latinos skin tone on racial attitudes while

controlling for the effects of factors commonly found to explain Latino per-

ceptions 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 find-

ings suggest that Latinos who identify pan-ethnically and perceive common-

ality with other Latinos sense greater commonality with Blacks and Whites.

This finding challenges previous suggestions that Latino group conscious-

ness promotes a minority status and greater perceptions of commonality with

Blacks in that Latino group consciousness may actually lead to more favor-

able 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



31/37


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 find-

ings presented above, dark-skinned Latinos who have significant contact withBlacks may be more likely to form political coalitions with African Americans.

Also, dark-skinned Latinos who perceive that their fate is linked with

Documents

American Politics Research 2012 Wilkinson 1532673X12464546 (1)