The experiences of racism and cultural socialization by Chinese parents in Canada and the United States: The interplay of acute, everyday, and internalized racism.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The present study aimed to gain more understanding of the relationship between racism and cultural socialization among Chinese parents in Canada and the United States. The study examined the interplay of three types of racial discrimination experiences (acute, everyday, and internalized) and the potential differences in their associations with parental cultural socialization. METHOD: = 478) completed a voluntary cross-sectional online survey that contained the Acute and Everyday Racism Scale, the Colonial Mentality Scale (internalized racism), and the modified version of the Cultural Socialization Scale. Structural equation modeling was used to test the hypothesized model. RESULTS: The structural model showed that acute racism was negatively related to internalized racism, while the relationship was positive between everyday racism and internalized racism. Moreover, parents who reported higher levels of internalized racism were less likely to convey cultural messages to their children. In addition, findings indicated that Chinese parents' cultural socialization practices were related to their age, their children's age, annual household income, and place of origin. CONCLUSION: This study contributes to the literature by revealing the experience of Chinese parents living in Canada and the United States. The findings demonstrate the importance of addressing parents' appraisal and internalization of negative racialized experiences when working with Chinese families. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".