Race and Conversational Appropriateness
Creators: name: Sullivan, Jess
Publisher: name: Open Science Framework
Year: 2022
Subjects: subject: Developmental Psychology
subject: Social Psychology
subject: Social and Behavioral Sciences
subject: Psychology
subject: FOS: Psychology

description: Study Information Title: Understanding the impact of race, age, and conversational topic on beliefs about the appropriateness of conversations about race with children Author: Jessica Sullivan, Leigh Wilton, and the students of PS305B Research Questions How do a child’s race, a child’s age, a participant's race, and the contents of conversations about race impact perceptions of the appropriateness of conversations about race? What predicts ratings of appropriateness of conversations about race? Are any of our three conversational approaches or 11 conversational topics deemed inappropriate for particular ages/racial groups, or by individuals from particular racial groups? In particular, this study is the first (to our knowledge) to explicitly study perceptions of conversations with children that connect race to power; we believe it is of value to know whether, in 2022, such conversations are deemed appropriate for young children. In addition, pilot testing found that ‘homogenizing’ messages about race caused several types of reactions. Some disliked this messaging because it wasn’t multicultural or antiracist; some disliked it because it wasn’t essentialist enough. Some liked this messaging because they believe you should ignore/avoid race; others liked this messaging because it highlights the humanity and worth of humans. By studying these 11 conversational topics, we may shed some light on how and why adults deem some conversations about race appropriate. When ratings of appropriateness differ from ratings of personal belief in a particular conversational topic, are there explanations for those differences? Hypotheses How do a child’s race, a child’s age, a participant's race, and the contents of conversations about race impact perceptions of the appropriateness of conversations about race? If it is the case that the target child’s race impacts (a) beliefs about appropriateness of a particular conversational approach and/or (b) beliefs about the desirability of particular conversational topics, then we will find that (a) ratings of appropriateness for particular conversational topics differs by target race and/or that (b) beliefs about the desirability of particular conversational topics will differ by target race. If it is the case that the target child’s age impacts (a) beliefs about appropriateness of a particular conversational approach and/or (b) beliefs about the desirability of particular conversational topics, then we will find that (a) ratings of appropriateness for particular conversational topics differs by target age and/or that (b) beliefs about the desirability of particular conversational topics will differ by target age. If it is the case that the participant’s race impacts (a) beliefs about appropriateness of a particular conversational approach and/or (b) beliefs about the desirability of particular conversational topics, then we will find that (a) ratings of appropriateness for particular conversational topics differs by participant race and/or that (b) beliefs about the desirability of particular conversational topics will differ by participant race. If it is the case that beliefs about appropriateness/desirability of particular conversational approaches differ due to an interaction of the above factors, then we will find significant interactions of target age, target race, and/or participant race on ratings. All hypotheses from above also apply to our 11 conversational approaches. What predicts ratings of appropriateness of conversations about race? If it is the case that ratings are impacted by participant age, participant racial-imperception score (formerly ‘colorblindness’ score), participant gender, or participant experience with children, then these factors will impact ratings of appropriateness. Such predictive factors may interact with conversational approach, target age, or target race. The factors that shape appropriateness perceptions may also appear in participant’s qualitative responses explaining why they rated the conversation as appropriate/inappropriate. As such, qualitative responses will be coded for whether they include mentions of age/race, the 3 conversational approaches, and the 11 conversational topics from our study. Are any of our three conversational approaches or 11 conversational topics deemed inappropriate for particular ages/racial groups, or by individuals from particular racial groups? If it is the case that a particular conversational approach is deemed inappropriate in a particular context, then scores of appropriateness will be below 0 (the midpoint) of the scale. When ratings of appropriateness differ from ratings of personal belief in a particular conversational topic, are there explanations for those differences? These analyses are exploratory in nature; see below. Sampling Plan Existing data We do not have an existing dataset. Registration prior to creation of data: As of the date of submission of this research plan for pre registration, the data have not yet been collected, created, or realized. Explanation of existing data We piloted our conversations in advance; we will report those data as pilot data and use them to establish the efficacy of our interventions. Data collection procedures. Planned sample: We are aiming for an N of 1920 participants. Participants will be recruited so that 50% identify as White and 50% identify as Black. Participants will be recruited: Exclusion criteria: In order to be included in our dataset, participants must be 18+ and consent; they must identify as either White or Black In addition, we will exclude any participant who: Fail our attention check Fail to remember the target race or target age Fail to complete at least 80% of the task Identify that our study was measuring the impact of any two of the three factors on perceptions of appropriateness of the conversation: target race, target age, participant race Sample Size: We are aiming for an N of 1920 participants. Participants will be recruited so that 50% identify as White and 50% identify as Black. Sample size rationale Our design is a 2 [target race] x 2 [target age] x 2 [participant race] x 3 [conversational approach] between-subjects design, resulting in 24 cells. This should yield about 80 participants per cell pre-exclusions; our hope is that this will yield approximately 60-70 participants per cell post-exclusions. Stopping rule Describe what rule we will use to decide whether to continue or stop collecting data. We will stop once we have recruited our 1920 participants; if we have fewer than 50 participants in any cell, we will recruit additional participants for that cell if we can secure funding to do so. Variables Manipulated variables Between subjects: Target race: (Black, White) Target age: (5, 13) Participant race: (Black, White) &lt;- obviously we cannot manipulate this, but we are listing it here to be thorough and clear about our design and independent variables Conversational approach (Homogenizing, Multiculturalism, Antiracist) Within subjects: There are no within-subject manipulations Measured variables Manipulation check (identify target age, race, gender; identify task): failure to identify target age or race is grounds for exclusion Ratings of appropriateness of the parental response (primary DV, Likert scale) Control question (Likert scale; grounds for exclusion) Extent to which you personally agree with the parent’s response (Likert scale) Description of appropriateness rating (qualitative free response) Future conversational topics (11 items, 7 point Likert scale) Race imperception scale (6 items, 7 point likert scale) Demographics (report race, report age, report gender, report parent-status, report experience with children) Design Plan Study type Experimental - Participants are randomly assigned to target race, target age, and conversational focus conditions Blinding Blinding describes who is aware of the experimental manipulations within a study. Mark all that apply. For studies that involve human subjects, they will not know the treatment group to which they have been assigned. Study design Between subjects: Our design is a 2 [target race] x 2 [target age] x 2 [participant race] x 3 [conversational approach] between-subjects design, resulting in 24 cells. Within subjects: None Randomization Participants will be randomly assigned to condition. In addition, the order of items within scales will be randomized Statistical models For all analyses below, we will conduct them once for our conversational approaches (multicultural, antiracist, and homogenizing). These are our primary DVs of interest, and are intended to be the focus of the main paper. In order to provide context and nuance to our findings, and to generate productive future theoretical and empirical directions, we will also conduct additional analyses of our 11 conversational topics. Primary analyses: How do a child’s race, a child’s age, a participant's race, and the contents of conversations about race impact perceptions of the appropriateness of conversations about race? What predicts ratings of appropriateness of conversations about race? First-pass analyses will be conducted separately by conversation type. These analyses will aim to capture the extent to which ratings of appropriateness of particular conversations are impacted by race and age. We will predict ratings of appropriateness from target race, participant race, and target age, and all interactions. We will visualize all interactions in order to understand their direction. In order to conduct pairwise analyses to understand interactions, we will conduct Tukey’s HSD, and will calculate Cohen’s d. Our secondary analyses will compare conversations to one another. We will predict ratings of appropriateness from conversation type first in order to assess whether there are particular conversation types that are globally deemed to be more (or less) appropriate for children. Next, we will test for interactions of conversation type and (a) target race; (b) target age; and (c) participant race. We will conduct these analyses separately (i.e. 3 sets of analyses). Next, we will take all significant predictors from above, and assess for higher-level interactions (i.e. 3- and 4-way interactions). Given the difficulty of interpreting higher-order interactions, we will rely on post-hoc analyses and visualization to interpret any such interactions. Secondary Analyses: What predicts ratings of appropriateness of conversations about race? We will predict ratings of appropriateness from race imperception score and our other factors (e.g., parent-status, gender, income, etc…) Analyses will be conducted separately for each conversation type (homogenizing, multicultural, power/privilege). For any conversation type for which there is an effect of race imperception score, we will assess whether this interacts with our three main manipulations of interest (target race, target age, and participant race). To do this, we will conduct 3 separate analyses, and then build a ‘large’ model out of any significant predictors. As a secondary analysis, we will ask whether our race imperception score predicts ratings of appropriateness, depending on conversation topic (e.g., predicting appropriateness score from the interaction of race imperception and conversational topic). We will predict agreement with our 11 conversational topics, as described above in 17.3. We will ask whether target age, target race, and participant race predict agreement with our 11 conversational topics. In order to assess whether seeing conversations that adopt particular perspectives causes changes to beliefs about appropriateness, we will predict ratings of our conversational topics from the conversation condition the participant was in. We will ask what other predictors exist for agreement with our 11 conversational topics (as in 17.3.1 above) Tertiary Analyses: What predicts ratings of appropriateness of conversations about race? The factors that shape appropriateness perceptions may also appear in participant’s qualitative responses explaining why they rated the conversation as appropriate/inappropriate. As such, qualitative responses will be coded for whether they include mentions of age/race, the 3 conversational approaches, and the 11 conversational topics from our study. All responses will be coded by at least 3 individuals. Are any of our three conversational approaches or 9 conversational topics deemed inappropriate for particular ages/racial groups, or by individuals from particular racial groups? We will ask whether any of our conversational approaches are deemed ‘inappropriate’ for particular demographics. To do so, for any cell (out of our 24 cells) where mean ratings fall below 0, we will conduct a single-sample t-test shows that ratings are significantly below 0. Similarly, for all cells (of our 8 race*race*age cells), we will ask whether our 11 conversational topics are ever inappropriate, by conducting single sample t-tests comparing performance to chance. When ratings of appropriateness differ from ratings of personal belief in a particular conversational topic, are there explanations for those differences? Based on our pilot data, we expect ratings of appropriateness to be highly correlated with ratings of agreement with each conversational approach. However, we also expect a subset of our data (probably &lt;10%) to include participants who have a mismatch between their personal beliefs and their beliefs about what is appropriate: they personally agree with a conversational approach (rating &gt;0) but who believe that the approach is not appropriate for their target (rating &lt;0); or, they personally disagree with a conversational approach (rating &lt;0) but believe it is appropriate for their target (&gt;0). These participants, while in the minority, are of substantial theoretical interest; thus, we exploratorily aim to study those participants (i.e. to understand if there are particular patterns that predict whether someone displays such a mismatch). The approach we can take will depend on the number of participants and their properties; however, we hope to ask if these participants are disproportionately coming from one or more of our 24 cells. Transformations We will center and standardize data insofar as it aids in interpretation. For our homogenization score, we will center responses around 0. Follow-up analyses see above Inference criteria Two-tailed; alpha = 0.05 Exploratory analyses We suspect that among individuals who rate a particular conversational approach as (in)appropriate, there are a diversity of reasons why. Exploratory analyses will ask whether there are particular conversational topics that predict appropriateness ratings for each conversation type. For example, we might expect that for individuals who deemed the homogenizing conversation inappropriate, there might be some who would prefer more essentializing content (e.g., connecting race to DNA) while others would prefer conversational topics that are more multicultural. These exploratory analyses will describe any relations that we see, and, if possible, ask whether there are predictors of these relations (e.g., individuals who score highly on the race imperception scale may have different preferences than those who score low).