Intimate racism against intercultural couples: The harmful role of racism from family, friends and romantic partners on couples' identification, belonging needs, and relationship quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the unconscious nature of implicit prejudice (Banaji & Hardin, 1996; Greenwald & Banaji, 1995) and subtle racism (Sue et al., 2007), people may believe that they cannot be racist if they are interested in dating interculturally. This research program brings the invisible topic of intimate racism within intercultural couples to the foreground. While most research assumes that racism against intercultural couples come from strangers belonging to the majority group, there is virtually no research probing into the deleterious and threatening experience of racism from those that are closest to the couple: one’s intimate partner and close others. Specifically, this research first intends to identify how racism manifests itself from intimate partners and close others against partners in intercultural couples. We are achieving this through qualitative methods that give voice and shape to these overlooked experiences. Second, this research will develop a measure of intimate racism for partners in intercultural couples based on the findings from the qualitative data. Third, this research will unpack the critical role of intimate racism in predicting threatened belongingness needs, identity conflicts and lower relationship quality. We will achieve this through a largescale, quantitative and dyadic study, which will examine the mutual influence of each partner’s intimate racism experiences to their own and to their partner’s outcomes. Both partners in each couple will be tested, and dyadic analyses (APIM) will enable us to examine the mutual influence of each partner’s intimate racism experiences to their own and to their partner’s outcomes. Given that the destructive impact of racism is likely to be amplified when the source is someone close, we expect that intimate racism will predict threatened belonging needs and lower relationship quality. Moreover, given that racism tends to create conflict and division between an individual’s cultural identities, we expect that this would extend to the relationship between one’s couple and cultural identities; greater intimate racism would predict compartmentalization of one’s identities. The current program will expand our representation and understanding of intercultural couples’ experiences with racism in the literature. Second, it introduces the concept of intimate racism, which can be extended to other vulnerable populations (e.g., cultural, sexual, gender and class minorities). This research also sets the stage for experimental and longitudinal studies to determine the causal impact of intimate racism. Our findings will influence helping professionals by providing greater insight into the hardships and conflicts that intercultural couples face in their most intimate spaces. Therapists and social workers would thereby be more able to support and protect partners in intercultural couples against the detrimental impact of intimate racism. Racism is harmful and persistent in our Canadian societies (Satzewich, 2011), and yet intimate racism remains an invisible issue in both scientific and public spheres. It is therefore imperative to shed light on this issue and its impact in order to counter and remedy this phenomenon at all levels of society.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".