Contact, Congregations, and Children of Color: The Effects of Interracial Contact in Religious Settings on Whites’ Attitudes towards Transracial Adoption
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On multiple occasions research has substantiated a positive relationship between interracial contact in religious settings and Whites’ attitudes towards interracial marriage, but would the same be true regarding other interracial family relationships? Moreover, would such a relationship hold true for both Protestants and Catholics? This study examines the effects of interracial contact in Protestant and Catholic churches on Whites’ attitudes towards transracial adoption (TRA). Using nationally representative survey data (N = 986), bivariate and multivariate analyses are employed to determine how an increase in the percentage of racial minorities at one’s church affects the TRA attitudes of Whites, while holding relevant social and ideological factors constant. Results indicate that Whites who attend the most uniracial churches are, ceteris paribus, significantly less likely to approve of TRA than Whites who attend churches with only a slightly greater percentage of racial minorities. These effects do not differ for Protestants or Catholics. Further research should be done to determine the extent to which significant social change can be fostered by interracial contact under certain positive conditions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".