   

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

THE ROLE OF MINORITY STATUS IN STUDENT DEVELOPMENT
AND OUTCOMES

presented by

Sycarah Grant

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Doctoral degree in School Psychology
1

 

a Major Professor's Signature
/%,7£ @0ﬂ7
I I

Date

MSU Is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K:lProleoo&Pres/ClRC/DafeDue.indd

 

THE ROLE OF MINORITY STATUS TN STUDENT DEVELOPMENT AND
OUTCOMES

By

Sycarah Grant

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University

in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
School Psychology

2009

ABSTRACT

THE ROLE OF MINORITY STATUS IN STUDENT DEVELOPMENT AND
OUTCOMES

By
Sycarah Grant
This study examined the relationships between racial majority/minority status in schools,
student ethnic identity, school engagement, and mental health among White students.
The purpose was to identify whether or not White students were affected by their
minority status in schools in a way similar to other traditional minorities. The sample
included 182 White students from 6"'-12‘h grade with a free or reduced lunch rate of 70%
or higher. The ﬁndings suggest that White students who are racial minorities within their
school context do not differ from White students who are racial majorities in their school
context in regards to their mental health or school engagement. Findings do suggest,
however, that the development of ethnic identity for White students is important for
positive mental health outcomes and higher school engagement. Due to the dearth of the
literature regarding ethnic identity development for Whites, future research should further

examine these relationships.

Copyright by
SYCARAH GRANT
2009

This dissertation is dedicated to Dr. Jean Baker a wonderful advisor and
mentor. Thank you for believing in me.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Dr. John Kosciulek for volunteering to be my dissertation
chair after my beloved advisor Dr. Jean Baker passed. Thank you for all of your

advice and support.

I would like to thank Dr. Jessica Barnes and Dr. Jason Almerigi for bringing me on
as a research assistant and allowing me to assist in creating the survey, collecting
data, and using it for my dissertation. I would also like to thank the entire

R.O.A.D.S lab in Outreach and Engagement for data collection and management.

I would also like to thank Dr. Dorinda Carter for teaching me everything I know
about ethnic identity development and assisting me with my research endeavors.

Thank you for being a great mentor and friend.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ..................................................................... vii
List of Figures .................................................................... viii
Key to Symbols or Abbreviations ............................................. ix
Chapter One - Introduction ................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem .................................................. 1
Theoretical Framework .................................................... 2
Purpose and rationale ...................................................... 5
Research Questions ......................................................... 6
Chapter Two - Literature Review .............................................. 7
Ethnic Identity ............................................................... 12
Self Esteem ................................................................... 21
School Engagement ......................................................... 27
Chapter Three - Method ........................................................ 32
Data Source and Sample ................................................... 32
Variables and Measures .................................................... 34
Data Analysis ................................................................ 38
Chapter Four — Results .......................................................... 40
Chapter Five — Discussion ...................................................... 47
Majority/Minority Status and Mental Health ............................ 47
Majority/Minority Status and School Engagement ..................... 49
Ethnic Identity, School Engagement, and Mental Health ............. 51
Differences in Ethnic Identity across Majority/Minority Groups. . ...51
The Moderating Role of Ethnic Identity ................................. 55
Majority/Minority Status, Teacher and Peer Support .................. 55
Limitations ................................................................... 56
Implications .................................................................. 57
Future Directions ............................................................ 5 8
Appendices ....................................................................... 61
Appendix A. Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure ................ 62
Appendix B. School Engagement Measure ......................... 63
Appendix C. Mental Health Measure ................................ 65
Appendix D. Teacher Support Measure ............................. 67
Appendix E. Peer Support Measure ................................. 68
References ......................................................................... 69

vi

Table 1.

Table 2.

Table 3.

Table 4.

Table 5.

Table 6.

Table 7.

Table 8.

Table 9.

LIST OF TABLES

Demographic Data ................................................................. 34
Descriptive Statistics on all variables for the Majority Group ............... 41
Descriptive Statistics on all variables for the Minority Group ............... 41
Descriptive Statistics on all variables for the complete sample ............... 41
Correlations among all outcome variables for the Majority Group .......... 42
Correlations among all outcome variables for the Minority group ........... 42
Correlations among all outcome variables for the Total Sample ............. 43
Ethnic Identity Means and Significance Values ................................. 45
Summary of Results ................................................................. 46

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Research Model .............................................................. 6

Figure 2. Detailed Research Model ................................................... 34

viii

KEY TO SYMBOLS OR ABBREVIATIONS

n — Number of participants in the sample
M — Mean

SD — Standard Deviation

ix

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem

The topic of “race” has been a difﬁcult one to tackle within America’s schools. In
many schools with diverse populations, racial tension and discrimination oﬁen exists
(Khmelkov & Hallinan, 1999). School psychologists play a vital role in promoting
positive academic and mental health outcomes of all children and in eliminating
discriminatory practices from schools. Federal legislation such as No Child Left Behind
has also moved toward an “outcomes for all” orientation explicitly indicating that a
child’s demographics (such as their race) should not determine their destiny. The
demographics and contexts of schools have a signiﬁcant impact on child developmental
processes. Yet, the racial and ethnic demographics of a school are often contextual
variables that school personnel fail to address despite its impact on child outcomes.

In addition, throughout history, researchers have neglected to investigate
thoroughly the experiences of White students who are minorities within their schools.
This lack of research comes as no surprise due to the historical normality of “Whiteness”
and the hesitance of researchers to examine historically privileged groups in the United
States in ways that make Whites seem disadvantaged in society (Morris, 2006). The
examination of historically privileged groups was and still is often avoided by researchers
who are primarily interested in examining groups they perceive to be out of the “norm.”
Historically, there have been limited numbers of Whites who were minorities in their
schools. White children constitute 75%—80% of the school aged population (Statistical

Abstracts, 2004) in a school system that is often segregated by race (Reardon & Yun,

2001; Reardon, Yun, & Eitle, 2000). The US. Census Bureau (2002) indicates, however,
that the minority population is rapidly increasing, therefore increasing the probability that
Whites are more likely to now ﬁnd themselves in school contexts in which they comprise
the minority. The presence of existing literature describing negative outcomes for
children who comprise the minority within their school context makes it imperative to
investigate the experiences of White children who will increasingly ﬁnd themselves in
these situations.

This existence of this literature in addition to subsequent research that was
conducted during my tenure in graduate school on the same phenomenon, but with
African American students, made me increasingly interested in the experiences of Whites
who were minorities within their contexts. During phone interviews with African
American students, when referring to the demographic makeup of their schools, they
would often say, “There is one White kid running around the school somewhere.” The
repeat occurrence of statements like these, made me increasingly more interested in the
experiences of these students.

Theoretical Framework

Historically, Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Theory (1979) has been used to
investigate the inﬂuence of contexts on the school outcomes of traditional minorities such
as African Americans. A wealth of this research stemmed from the 1954 Brown v.
Board of Education Supreme Court decision to desegregate America’s schools. Research
from the 1960’s and 1970’s indicated the importance of considering the context and
minority status for African American children when examining achievement, ethnic

identity development, self-esteem, and peer relationships (Anderson & Foster, 1964;

Grossack, 1965). More recent work has indicated that the ethnic makeup of a school is a
contextual factor that may influence the level of school engagement, particularly if an
individual represents a minority population within the school. If such students do not feel
comfortable within their school context, they may not identify with school and ultimately
may experience school failure (Johnson, Crosnoe, & Elder, 2001 ). Other research
indicates that persons who are minorities in their context may also experience low self
concept because of the discontinuity between their identity or ethnicity and their context
(Rhodes, Roffman, Reddy, & F redriksen, 2004).

The inﬂuence of ethnic identity on the relationship between schools and
children’s development has also been examined by researchers. When studying ethnic
identity within the context and its relationship to school outcomes, researchers have
found that the higher the individual’s ethnic identity, the better they perform in school
(Supple, Ghazarian, Frabutt, Plunkett, & Sands, 2006). Ethnic identity has also been
found to be a buffer against declining grades for all ethnicities (Altshcul, Oyserman, &
Bybee, 2006; Supple, Ghazarian, F rabutt, Plunkett, & Sands, 2006). A positive ethnic
identity may also moderate the ability of adolescents to cope with daily stress and may
encourage emotional resilience (Quintana et al, 2006). For example, research has found
that the development of a strong positive ethnic identity boosts self esteem and
psychological well being, and is a protective factor against discrimination by the majority
culture (Carlson, Uppal & Prosser, 2000; Carter, 2005; Kiang, Yip, Gonzales-Backen,
Witkow & Fuligni, 2006; Phinney, 1990; Phinney, Cantu & Kurtz, 1997; Pyant, &

Yanico, 1991).

Researchers have expressed the importance of the microsystem (interactions in
schools) in the functioning of those who constitute the minority, speciﬁcally those of
African American descent (e.g. Delpit, 1995; F ordham & Ogbu, 1986). Although much
work has been conducted on African Americans, a group that comprises the minority
within their macrosystem (larger society) and microsystem (interactions in schools); little
work has been done on the inﬂuence of the macrosystem in which White individuals
receive privilege and a microsystem where they comprise the minority and how this
difference inﬂuences school outcomes (Spencer, 2006). The relatively little research that
has been conducted on this population has been qualitative in nature using ethnographic
methods to investigate these phenomena (Morris, 2006; Perry, 2002).

Qualitative researchers have taken the lead in examining the unique phenomenon
of White students who comprise the minority within their school setting (Morris, 2006;
Perry, 2002). These investigations have provided important information about race,
privilege, class, and inequality. These researchers indicate that White youth attending
schools in which they are the minority have a set of unique challenges that contribute to
their school and mental health outcomes. For example, many White youth in these
settings suffer socially with their peers due to cultural differences that may lead to
rejection (Morris, 2006; Perry, 2002). In addition, research by Morris (2006) in low
income schools has indicated a lack of teacher support for these students from African
American and White teachers. African American teachers often considered these
students middle class and therefore felt that they did not need their assistance. White
teachers on the other hand considered these students “trailer trash” and decided to place

more of their attention on the African American students who they felt did not have a

lack of intelligence, but did lack economic opportunity (Morris, 2006). Such thinking
also impacts White students in low income schools who may develop a sense of shame
and failure due to their family’s inability to obtain the American dream that is thought to
be so readily available to them (Derman-Sparks & Ramsey, 2006). Rhodes, Roffman,
Reddy, and Fredriksen (2004) also state that European Americans who are minorities
within their schools are at increased risk for maladjustment. Results from this study
indicated that these individuals experience the lowest self esteem and the sharpest
declines in self esteem across middle school.
Purpose and Rationale

It is important to investigate how the aforementioned risk factors for White
students are associated with the privilege they receive within the broader society. Delpit
(1995) discusses schools as institutions that reward those who participate in the culture of
power. Although this privilege exists, little is known about the impact it has on Whites
within settings in which they may be socially or academically disadvantaged by their
race. Critically investigating how this concept transacts with risk factors across
demographic contexts can provide a deeper understanding of how the development of
academic and mental health outcomes are affected by a variety of sociocultural factors
(Carlson, Upal, & Prosser, 2000).

As shown in Figure 1, the purpose of the proposed investigation is to examine the
relationships between racial majority/minority status, student ethnic identity, school

engagement, and mental health among White students.

Figure 1. Research Model

     
   
 
   
      
 
   
 

School
Engagement

Majority/
Minority
Status

Mental
Health

Research Questions

The research questions of interest in this study are as follows:

I.) What is the relationship between racial majority/minority status, school
engagement, and mental health for White students?

2.) What is the relationship between ethnic identity, school engagement, and
mental health for White students?

3.) How, if at all, docs ethnic identity differ for White students who attend
predominantly White schools versus White students who attend schools in
which they are the minority?

4.) How does the ethnic identity of White students moderate how racial

majority/minority status is related to school engagement, and mental health?

CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW

Conceptual Framework

“If you want to understand something, try and change it.” These are the words of Kurt
Lewin whose research heavily inﬂuenced the literature by suggesting that researchers
need to understand not only the person they are researching, but the environment in
which they are embedded. Lewin’s (1935) ﬁeld theory proposes that human behavior is a
function of both an individual’s personal characteristics and the social context they are
embedded in. Lewin’s research paved the way for researchers to study the person-
environment phenomenon.

Urie Bronfenbrenner is perhaps the most well known researcher to study the
interactions between individuals and their environments. Bronfenbrenner’s (1979)
Ecological Systems Model stressed the importance of context on the development and
functioning of children. Recently, the model has been renamed the Bioecological
Systems Model to incorporate and stress the importance of an individual’s biology in
their development. Bronfenbrenner’s theory consists of four contextual interactions that
inﬂuence development. The ﬁrst is the microsystem, which consists of the child’s
interactions within the immediate environment such as their family, schools, and
neighborhoods. The mesosystem consists of connections between immediate
environments, such as home-school relationships. The exosystem is composed of
interactions of external environmental settings that indirectly affect development, like the
availability of community resources. Lastly, the macrosystem includes the interactions

between global society and the larger cultural context of society and communities. These

different systems are said to act in conjunction with one another to impact child
development and behavior. Therefore, a change in one of the systems inadvertently
affects the rest of the systems. Thus, if we are to study a child’s deve10pment, it is
important to investigate the multiple systems in which they are embedded (Berk, 2000).
Although inextricably related, of particular interest to this study is the impact of
conﬂicting macro (larger societal values and beliefs) and micro systems (interactions
within the school environment) on the development of White children.

Macrosystem. European Americans have advantage and privilege in US. society
due to their racial group membership (McIntosh, 1989). Therefore, the macrosystem, or
interactions between larger societal cultural values and beliefs, is drastically different for
Whites than it is for minorities embedded in this system. One advantage or privilege
Whites receive in relationship to the macrosystem is a sense of cultural belonging and
acceptance. White settlers constructed societies that reﬂected their beliefs and cultures.
These became codiﬁed into laws that continue to inﬂuence contemporary society (Webb,
Metha, & Jordan, 2003). This cultural backdrop is 'invisible' to many Whites who see it
as normative. This ease and familiarity with the dominant culture is an asset for Whites
who more readily access services and resources than those from minority cultures. This
familiarity with the dominant culture can lead to White privilege; or a set of advantages
that individuals who are White, or are perceived to be White, beneﬁt from because the
dominant societal framework extends advantages to them. McIntosh (1989) describes
White privilege as, “. .. an invisible package of unearned assets which I can count on
cashing in each day, but about which I was ‘meant’ to remain oblivious” (p.10). An

example of this privilege is dominant cultural capital. Whites ﬁt into the mainstream or

dominant culture by virtue of subscribing to the European culture passed down by their
families. Delpit (1995) discusses the cultural capital that White children gain through
their families as “codes of power” that replicate the dominant social structures in society.
Therefore, White children ﬁt more readily into mainstream social institutions, such as
schools, that share their backgrounds and cultural perspectives. Because of their comfort
within these institutions, Whites can leverage resources that enhance their adaptation and
well-being. It is important to look at the development of Whites within this broader
context in which they are privileged. Oﬁentimes this privilege is not acknowledged as a
life course asset although it has implications for school experiences and the development
of a sense of self (Spencer, 2006). This study seeks to investigate whether or not this
privilege is evident across all educational settings, including those settings in which
White children comprise the minority.

Microsystem. Throughout history, Whites have been predominately segregated
from minority groups in schools. Recent research indicates that 6% of Whites are
minorities within the school context (Reardon, Yun, & Eitle, 2000). Additionally, Whites
account for 80% of school segregation (Goldsmith, 2004). These statistics indicate that
in the majority of cases, the microsystem level of interactions are generally congruent
with that of the larger society or macrosystem. Many of these youth beneﬁt from
embodying the cultural capital valued in interactions with their peers and teachers. White
students often go to some of the best schools, have low drop out rates, graduate from
college, and score high on standardized tests (Blau, 2003).

Although the majority of Whites currently attend de-facto racially segregated

schools, as time progresses and society becomes more diverse, more and more White

children may ﬁnd themselves in school settings in which they are the minority. Many
researchers have investigated the impact of being a minority within the school setting, but
much of this research has been conducted on African American students and other
traditional minorities (e.g., Altschul, Oyserrnan & Bybee, 2006; Carter, 2005; Lee, Noh,
Yoo, & Doh, 2007; Phinney, 1990; Roberts et al, 1999). For example, Bronfenbrenner’s
theory has been signiﬁcantly utilized to investigate the experiences of African American
students who constitute the minority in the macrosystem of society. Research conducted
has investigated the outcomes related to African American children’s majority or
minority status within their school Microsystem (e.g., Carter, 2005; F ordharn & Ogbu,
1986; Ogbu, 2003). The results of this line of research indicate that if children do not
develop strategies to navigate the majority culture in their school, they may suffer from
negative academic and mental health outcomes. Little research exists; however, using
this theory to examine the relationship between Caucasians who are currently still the
majority in society’s macrosystem and their majority or minority standing within their
school microsystems (Spencer, 2006). The relatively little research that has been
conducted on this population has been qualitative in nature using ethnographic methods
to investigate these phenomena (Morris, 2006; Perry, 2002).

The qualitative research on this phenomenon indicates that Whites encounter both
privileges and disadvantages in these contexts. Although Whites were in the minority in
their school settings they still beneﬁted from stereotypes that they are high status and
have high self discipline. They were also placed in higher academic tracks due to
positive perceptions of ability and achievement. Black students also often sought

academic help from White students. Lastly, Whites received less disciplinary action than

10

African Americans within the school (Morris, 2006; Perry, 2002).

Although Whites beneﬁted from the structure of school, they also experienced a
number of disadvantages. One of the disadvantages was a lack of teacher support. White
teachers within the school often expressed that they thought of the students as “trailer
trash” that did not need their support often believing the students were still in the urban
areas because there was no hope for their family’s advancement in society. This may be
due to the perception of advantage for Whites within the broader society. Many believed
that the presence of African American students in urban schools was due to the lack of
opportunity. This thinking also put Whites at risk for developing a sense of shame and
failure due to their family’s inability to obtain the American dream that is thought to be
so readily available to them (Derman-Sparks & Ramsey, 2006). White students also did
not receive as much teacher support from Aﬁican American teachers who thought of the
White students as “middle class” and not needing their assistance. In addition to a lack of
teacher support, many Whites found it hard to ﬁt in with their peers. Because of the
dominance of African American culture, expressions of Whiteness were challenged
within the peer context. Many White students were teased for acting too stereotypically
White (e.g. speaking standard English or liking rock music.) Those Whites that were
accepted by their peers displayed a “non-White” identity (e. g. spoke slang or listened to
hip hop music) (Morris, 2006). Research suggests that members of low status groups try
to improve their status in a number of ways including trying to leave their group by
attempting to “pass” as members of the dominant group but with negative psychological
consequences (Phinney, I990). Lastly, Whites who report being in the minority state that

they feel their schools are lacking warmth (Finn & Voelkl, 1993).

11

In addition to the advantages and disadvantages White students received in these
school settings, White students also experienced the challenging of their belief systems
regarding race. Perry (2002) found that at predominately White schools, White students
did not really see themselves as a belonging to a racial group. However, at schools in
which they were the minority, they were more aware of their Whiteness and how it
created advantages for them and disadvantages for others. Additionally, she found that
their identities became more complex and visible the more they interacted with students
of color. A study by Hartigan (1999) on Whites within urban Detroit indicated that
Whites recognized that they belonged to a racial group, yet saw themselves more similar
to urban Blacks than suburban Whites. Morris (2006) states that this may be due to the
lack of a critical mass, indicating that they may not have had a great enough number of
other Whites through which they could separate themselves from others. This inability to
separate on the basis of race promoted critical thinking about race and encouraged

interactions with students of color.

Ethnic Identity
Contexts inﬂuence many processes of adolescent identity formation. The
contexts that children are embedded in provide a foundation for the developmental tasks
children encounter as they progress through life (Spencer, 2006). One such process is the
development of ethnic identity. This section will address the deﬁnition, underlying
theories, developmental theories, and the inﬂuence of context on the development of

ethnic identity.

12

Deﬁnition

From the beginning of research on race and ethnicity, researchers have debated
the difference between the two. For the purpose of this study, ethnicity will be used to
encompass meanings of race. Race is a term that is often used to distinguish between
groups of individuals based on physical characteristics and broad categorizations of
ethnic origins. In addition, researchers ﬁnd greater differences within races than they do
between races (Zuckerman, 1990). Other studies have found that ethnicity is highly
correlated with race across racial groups (Singh, 1977). The importance of race in
contextual research is to capture society’s reaction to individuals based on physical
characteristics that inﬂuence an individual’s development of identity (Phinney, 1996).
This study will use Phinney’s (1996) deﬁnition of ethnicity, which refers to “broad
groupings of Americans on the basis of both race and culture of origin.” (pg. 919).

Ethnic identity is the “expression of loyalty, commitment, and belongingness
towards one’s own ethnic group which is produced by the exploration, resolution, and
afﬁrmation of one’s ethnicity” (Bemal, Knight, Ocampo, Garza, & Cota, 1993).
Although there are many different deﬁnitions of ethnic identity in the literature, most
authors agree that ethnic identity becomes more solidiﬁed as children get older and that
adolescence is a critical period in which this identity develops (Phinney, 1990; Quintana
et al, 2006; Yip, Seaton, and Sellers, 2006).
Underlying Theories

Due to the multidimensional and dynamic nature of ethnic identity, several

theories underlie its developmental processes. The theories that underlie the process of

13

exploration, resolution, and afﬁrmation of ethnic identity are ego identity and social
identity theories.

Ego identity theory is the developmental theory that informs thinking about how
school social contexts could differentially affect children based on minority or majority
racial status. Ego identity theory contributes to the development of two aspects of ethnic
identity: exploration and resolution. Erikson (1968) suggested that it is through our
exploration of ethnicity that we come to a resolution about our identity and that each part
of the process contributes uniquely to identity development. The context in which
individuals explore their identity has an impact on its development. The ﬁrst stage of
development is identity diffusion, where an individual has neither explored nor
committed to their identity. The second stage, identity foreclosure, is the commitment to
an identity without exploration. Moratorium, the third stage, is the exploration of identity
without the commitment to it. Last is identity achievement (or resolution) in which an
individual makes a solid commitment to their identity following sufﬁcient exploration
(Marcia, 1966). The strong and secure sense of self associated with identity achievement
is more likely to be achieved with age (Phinney, Cantu, Kurtz, 1997). The last aspect of
ethnic identity, afﬁrmation, is grounded in social identity theory (Tajfel, 1981). This is
an individual’s perception of his or her social world and his or her place in it. Therefore,
a person’s identity development is dependent on the positive or negative attributions one
develops based on social comparisons (Umana-Taylor & Shin, 2007). Further, negative
perceptions by others of an individual’s group do not necessarily lead to a negative self
evaluation. Individuals may have their own perceptions of their group despite the views

of others (Phinney, Cantu and Kurtz, 1997). Therefore, the development of self concept

14

in White students who are minorities within their school setting may differ depending on
the importance they place on other’s perceptions. Social identity theory highlights the
inﬂuence of the individual in assigning meaning to their social context.

Many researchers, when studying ethnic identity development, do not look at the
stages of ethnic identity per se, but the individual’s current state of ethnic identity
development (Phinney, 1990). The components that are most often studied are: self
identiﬁcation as a member of a group, a sense of belonging to the group, attitudes about
their membership in the group, and involvement in their ethnicity (i.e. cultural practices).
(Phinney, 1990).

Developmental Theories

Despite the majority of society being White, there has been a dearth of research
conducted on the ethnic identity development of this group. For this reason, many
researchers call for more research on the development of ethnic identity in this population
(Phinney, 1992). In Phinney’s (1990) review of the ethnic identity literature, out of 70
studies, none of them examined the ethnic identity development of Whites, although it
has been conceptualized. Racial identity research, however, provides some insight into
this development.

According to the prevailing research on racial identity development, the
development of White racial identity is the process of coming to terms with one’s
dominant place in society and determining how one uses that status. Individuals progress
through a series of stages of identity development leading toward the integration of a
healthy sense of one’s own race and the place of race in society.

The ﬁrst model of White identity development was proposed by Hardiman

15

(1982). Hardiman’s model of White Identity Development has ﬁve stages through which
individuals’ progress. The ﬁrst stage is naiveté. During this stage it is proposed that
Whites have a lack of awareness of racial differences and no understanding of the social
meaning of race. The second stage is acceptance. During this stage Whites accept
racism and begin to feel that they are superior to those of other races. Hardiman explains
that this stage is not avoidable because of the racist nature of society. White youth who
progress through this stage with internalized feelings of racial superiority and power can
experience detrimental effects including: hindered critical thinking ability, unrealistic
perceptions of themselves based on a false sense of superiority, and internal guilt and
moral conﬂict (Derman-Sparks & Ramsey, 2006). The third stage is resistance. In this
stage Whites question the White dominant stance, become anti-racist, and may feel
shame and embarrassment for belonging to the White race. This latter effect, that of
“White Guilt,” has been addressed by researchers interested in White youth’s racial
identity development and the consequences for children’s mental health. Denevi (2001)
reﬂects on how White youth, when faced with the full implications of their racial identity,
will feel not only guilt, but embarrassment and shame. The fourth stage is redeﬁnition.
This is when Whites begin to clarify what “White” is. They take responsibility for their
Whiteness and create a new deﬁnition of Whiteness. The ﬁfth and ﬁnal stage,
internalization, is when individuals integrate their new found consciousness about race
into all aspects of their life.

The most common identity model used for Whites is Janet Helm’s model of
White Racial Identity Development (WRID). Her model consists of six statuses with

each status building on the previous one. This model is different that Hardiman’s in that

16

individuals are able to skip statuses, or move forward and backward through statuses.
The ﬁrst status is contact. This is when Whites are unaware of racism and their
participation in its maintenance, but come into contact with one outside of their own race.
The second status, disintegration, arises from a racial dilemma in which an individual has
to choose between their own racial group and humanism. The third status is
reintegration. This status resolves the negative feeling following the racial dilemma by
idealizing ones own racial group and having no tolerance for others. The fourth status,
pseudoindependence, is the deceptive tolerance of other racial groups while maintaining
an intellectualized commitment to their own. The ﬁfth stage is immersion/emersion in
which Whites search to redeﬁne Whiteness and understand White privilege. Lastly, is
autonomy, in which the individual makes a decision to let go of the privileges that come
with being White (Hardiman, 2001). These identity models are important to consider
when investigating White students who may be the minority within their school context.
The particular stage that a student is in could determine how they respond to their context
and conversely, how the context affects their well being. Although important, one
limitation of these racial identity models is that they both look at White identity
development as something that happens in response to overcoming racist attitudes. The
limited amount of research conducted on this population leaves a void in the
understanding of the ethnic identity development of Whites. Additional research should
continue to investigate the development of White identity without regard to assumed

inherent racist attitudes.

l7

Context and Ethnic Identity Development

Inherent in the underlying and developmental theories of ethnic identity
development is the inﬂuence of context. The speciﬁc context of interest in this study is
the interactions within the Microsystem of the child’s school. Particularly, the
demographic makeup of schools and the inﬂuence of belonging to a minority versus
majority ethnic group. The development of a student’s ethnic identity could change
based on the number of students of their ethnicity in their school. For example,
researchers have found that minority groups develop stronger ethnic identities than those
who are in the majority due to the salience of race (Altschul, Oyserrnan & Bybee, 2006;
Lee, Noh, Yoo, & Doh, 2007; Phinney, 1990; Roberts et al, 1999). Additionally, students
who go to racially homogeneous middle schools feel more average and characteristics of
ethnicity are not self deﬁning (Altschul, Oyserrnan & Bybee, 2006). This self perception
varies on a continuum of one feeling like they are an individual to one feeling like an
integral part of a group, due to the social context in which they are embedded (Crocker,
Luhtanen, Blaine, & Broadnax, 1994).

Many studies looking at ethnic identity have also looked at discrimination in
schools rather than the number of or percentage of students in a school of that students
same race. Acts of discrimination are an important catalyst for one’s exploration of their
ethnic identity, and ethnic identity is a protective factor against this discrimination
(Carter, 2005; Quintana et a1, 2006; Wong, Eccles, & Sameroff, 2003). This ethnic
identity provides a way of understanding how students need to assert themselves in

situations in which their identities are threatened (Phinney, 1990). The number or lack

18

thereof of similar students also leads to the exploration or non-exploration of ones racial
group status.

Another result of being a minority within the school setting can be the
development of biculturalism, or the belonging to two different cultures. Individuals can
belong to both cultures if they have either been born into one culture and raised in
another, or born of mixed cultures (LaFromboise, Coleman, & Gerton, 1993).
Researchers believe that living within two cultures leads to negative outcomes, when the
person intemalizes the conﬂicted values of each culture. Those individuals who are born
of one culture (e.g White) and raised in another (e.g. African American) may develop
biculturalism through a number of ways.

The ﬁrst is through assimilation. The assimilation model is when an individual
abandons their culture for the culture of the majority. Hypotheses about this model
indicate that individuals who assimilate suffer from alienation and isolation until they
have been accepted by the dominant culture. These individuals also experience more
stress, anxiety, school failure and substance abuse until they are fully assimilated. Some
major pitfalls of assimilation are the possibility of rejection from the majority or origin
group and the excessive stress that comes along with the process of assimilation
(LaFromboise, Coleman, & Gerton, 1993).

Second is the acculturation model. In this model, the individual becomes
competent in the culture in which they are embedded. This changes an individual’s
cultural attitudes, values, and behaviors. Phinney (1990) attributes a weakening of ethnic

identity development to those who acculturate into another culture. Acculturation differs

19

from assimilation in that those who assimilate no longer identify as their culture of origin
whereas those who acculturate do (LaFromboise, Coleman, & Gerton, 1993).

The third way individuals develop biculturalism is through alternation. The
alternation model exists when an individual understands and is competent in two different
cultures. An example of this would be some African Americans’ ability to code switch or
change the language, syntax, and delivery across different cultural settings. "Ihose who
ascribe to the alternation model are less anxious about the two different cultures they are
navigating because they do not have to choose, unlike those who assimilate or
acculturate, and can maintain positive relationships with both groups at the same time
(LaFromboise, Coleman, & Gerton, 1993).

Fourth is the multicultural model. The multicultural model is a pluralistic
approach in which individuals maintain their own cultural identities (rather than
developing competence in two) and develop group acceptance and tolerance. These
individuals also engage in cross cultural communication and activities. Those who
ascribe to this model ultimately experience personal and emotional growth(LaFromboise,
Coleman, & Gerton, 1993).

Lastly, the fusion model is similar to the melting pot theory. In this theory
individuals are able to combine the cultures of both ethnicities into one new cultural
experience. The underlying assumption of this theory is that no culture is superior to
another (LaFromboise, Coleman, & Gerton, 1993).

Summary. The aforementioned research overwhelmingly indicates that the
context of schools play a vital role in the ethnic identity development of all children.

These school contexts are important in the development of ethnic identity which may

20

have protective effects against the negative contexts students may ﬁnd themselves in.
Though this is the case, there is a dearth of research investigating the impact of context
on the development of ethnic identity for White students who are minorities within their
schools. Quintana et a1 (2006) calls for continued research on the role of contexts on
expression of racial identiﬁcation and attitudes. The current study seeks to contribute to
the literature by investigating these experiences with a population that is grossly under

studied.

Self Esteem

Self-esteem, often termed global self-esteem, is deﬁned as an individual’s sense
of self worth and self-respect (Carlson, Uppal, & Prosser, 2000; Croker & Major, 1989;
Crocker, Luhtanen, Blaine, & Broadnax, 1994). Carlson, Uppal & Prosser (2000) deﬁne
it as “the totality of the individual’s cognitive thoughts and affective emotions regarding
the self” (Pg. 44). Self esteem is said to be inﬂuenced by the process of reﬂected
evaluation regarding how people interpret themselves and the world around them
(Carlson, Uppal, & Prosser, 2000; Crocker, Luhtanen, Blaine, & Broadnax, 1994). Self
esteem is an essential psychological construct to examine because it is related with other
aspects of psychological well being and maladaptive behaviors (Crocker, Luhtanen,
Blaine, & Broadnax, 1994).
Self esteem and Context

Several contextual factors have been shown to inﬂuence the development of self
esteem. Interactions with family members, peers, and society are some of the major

contributors to the development of global self esteem (Carlson, Uppal & Prosser, 2000).

21

Schools are an additional societal contributor to the development of self esteem.
Subsequently, the ethnic make up of schools can signiﬁcantly alter the development of
self-esteem (Busk, Ford, & Shulrnan, 1973).

Schools are supposed to be places where students are able to develop a positive
self-concept (Verkuyten, & Thijs, 2004). However, research indicates that those who are
minorities in their context may experience the opposite effect because of the discontinuity
between their identity or ethnicity and their context (Rhodes, Roffman, Reddy, &
Fredriksen, 2004). Rosenberg’s theory of contextual dissonance analyzes how contexts
inﬂuence children’s self concept (Rosenberg, 1979). This theory centers on the similarity
or dissimilarity of the child’s behavior or expectations with those of their immediate
environment or interactions within their microsystem. These are explored as consonant
and dissonant environments. In relationship to ethnicity and demographics, a consonant
environment is one that reﬂects the same ethnicity and cultural values as the individual.
A dissonant environment is one that is culturally and ethnically different than that of the
individual. Dissonant and consonant environments effect a child’s development through
the comparisons made between their group and the group in their immediate context.
White students who attend predominantly African American schools may develop
comparisons between themselves and their African American classmates. Due to this
comparison, Rosenberg (1979) argued that individuals in dissonant contexts are more
aware of their ethnicity. For example, a study conducted by Rosenberg (1979) indicated
that African Americans who were more racially dissonant from their settings were more
likely to be teased. Rhodes, Roffman, Reddy, & Fredriksen (2004) found that student’s

who go to school with a majority of people who do not share their religion,

22

socioeconomic status, or ethnicity exhibit more negative views of themselves.
Additionally, White youth may exhibit negative self appraisals and experience social
alienation when embedded in racially diverse communities. This may lead to feelings of
powerlessness, fear, and anxiety in situations in which they are not the majority race
(Rhodes, Roffman, Reddy, & Fredriksen, 2004).

The development of identity and self esteem during adolescence occurs through
constant self evaluation and comparison with same age peers. A child who may be in the
minority in their context may have negative appraisals of themselves due to the cultural
and physical differences they notice between themselves and their peers. In addition,
adolescence is a time during which teenagers seek positive appraisals from peers
(Rhodes, Roffman, Reddy, & F redriksen, 2004). This dissonance between the student
and their context contributes to the development of low self-esteem and academic failure
(Rhodes, Roffman, Reddy, & F redriksen, 2004). For example, research has demonstrated
that American Indians have higher self esteem when they are in the majority than when
they are in the minority within their school contexts (Spencer & Markstrom-Adams,
1990). Also, school contexts that are similar to the student contribute to their feelings of
belonging within the school and are a protective factor against negative social stigma and
social comparisons that would otherwise be detrimental to self esteem (Rhodes, Roffman,
Reddy, & Fredriksen, 2004; Wong, Eccles, & Sameroff, 2003). Although incongruence
between an individual and his/her context may lead to negative self esteem, there are
several factors that may inﬂuence this relationship. The ﬁrst component to this
relationship is that the individual has to exhibit the characteristic of his/her ethnic group

that makes them different from peers. The second is that the individual believes that the

23

group he/she belongs to is relevant to them. Lastly, the salience of that person’s ethnicity
in his/her life (Rowley, Sellers, Chavous & Smith, 1998). Therefore, Whites who are the
minority within their school settings may have very different experiences based on their
expression of their ethnic group that makes them different. Morris (2006) found that a
number of students did not exhibit cultural behaviors typical of their White racial group.
One student in Morris’ (2006) study even identiﬁed himself as “White Chocolate.”
Students with similar identiﬁcations may not be as affected by their minority status as
those who display culturally “typical” White racial group behaviors.

Although Whites make up the majority of society, as society becomes more
diverse, they may ﬁnd themselves in more situations in which they are the minority.
These students’ relationship between ethnic identity and self esteem could be similar to
the relationship found for minority youths within the broader society (Phinney, 1992).
Ethnic identity is an important protective factor for minorities within the majority context
and buffers the effect of discontinuity of the school setting on their development of
positive self esteem (Carlson, Uppal & Prosser, 2000; Kiang, Yip, Gonzales-Backen,
Witkow & Fuligni, 2006; Phinney, 1990; Phinney, Cantu & Kurtz, 1997; Pyant, &
Yanico, 1991).

The current literature on self esteem indicates that ethnic minorities have similar
if not higher self esteem than their White counterparts (Verkuyten, & Thijs, 2004). Many
attribute this to the ability of minorities, particularly African Americans, to separate
themselves from the negative characteristics that society places on them. However, a gap
exists in the literature examining the self esteem of White students comparatively across

their embedded racial contexts. The current study seeks to ﬁll this gap. Some research

24

states that due to racial privilege, Whites beneﬁt from better self esteem, social status,
and cognitive/academic performance (Quintana et al, 2006). Those students who are in
the majority do not experience the detrimental effects of their ethnic identity on their
psychological well being (Crocker, Luhtanen, Blaine, & Broadnax, 1994).

Other research counters this argument for those lower income White adolescents
who are in the minority within their immediate context. Rhodes, Roffman, Reddy, &

F redriksen (2004) state that lower income Whites who are minorities within their schools
are at increased risk for maladjustment. Results from this study have indicated that these
individuals who are from lower socioeconomic statuses experience the lowest self esteem
and the sharpest declines in self-esteem across middle school. There were several
conclusions drawn by the researchers for their results. One such conclusion is that these
individuals privileged role within society causes negative self perceptions at the
realization that neither they themselves nor their families have achieved the American
dream that is so readily accessible to this population. This creates conﬂicting cultural
expectations with everyday life.

In addition to the context, the ethnic identity that develops in response to one’s
immediate environment also relates to the development of self-esteem and depression in
adolescents. For example, research has found that the development of a strong positive
ethnic identity boosts self esteem and psychological well being, and is a protective factor
against discrimination by the majority culture (Carlson, Uppal & Prosser, 2000; Kiang,
Yip, Gonzales-Backen, Witkow & F uligni, 2006; Phinney, 1990; Phinney, Cantu &
Kurtz, I997; Pyant, & Yanico, 1991). This relationship has been found across various

ethnic groups (Phinney, 1996; Sellers, Copeland-Under, Martin, & Lewis, 2006; Umana-

25

Taylor, Diversi & Fine, 2002). Ethnic identity and the positive sense of belonging to
one’s group contributes to positive self esteem via the social identity theory (Crocker,
Luhtanen, Blaine, & Broadnax, 1994; Phinney, Cantu & Kurtz, 1997). African
Americans with lower ethnic identities experienced higher anxiety, paranoia, and
depressive symptoms (Sellers, Copeland-Linder, Martin, & Lewis, 2006). High ethnic
identity scores may moderate the ability of adolescents to cope with daily stress and may
encourage emotional resilience (Quintana et al, 2006). Other research indicates,
however, that ethnic identity does not moderate between the stressful demands of society
and anxiety.

The continued research on the effect of the school environment on the well being
of America’s children is important. This is because the comparisons that children make
to their peers contributes to negative self concept and often puts children at risk for
emotional difﬁculties and the engagement in maladaptive behavior (Rhodes, Roffman,
Reddy, & F redriksen, 2004). Authors of ethnic identity literature have been calling for
research that broadens the examination of the impact of school environments on diverse
school populations with regard to ethnic identity and self esteem (Carlson, Uppal &
Prosser, 2000). The current study seeks to answer this call by investigating these
relationships.

Although ethnic identity plays a major part in the development of self esteem, the
context in which this ethnic identity and self concept develops proves to be an important
contributor to their relationship. Those who ﬁnd themselves in the racial minority within
their setting may experience race related stressful events that create feelings of alienation

and mistreatment (Jones, Cross & DeF our, 2007). These stressful events are positively

related to the development of depression and low self esteem (Jones, Cross & Defour,
2007). The importance of ethnic identity to the development of self esteem may be
caused in part by an individual’s minority status within schools (Breakwell, 1986). For
example, research has indicated that for individuals within diverse settings, the higher
their ethnic identity, the higher their self esteem (Phinney, Cantu & Kurtz, 1997). This
ethnic identity within diverse settings may moderate the effect of social discrimination or
alienation on the development of a high self esteem (Jones, Cross & DeFour, 2007). In
some cases, students may strengthen their identity which therefore plays a protective role
against social stress (Kiang, Yip, Gonzales-Backen, Witkow & F uligni, 2006).

Summary. The literature on the impact of the context of schools indicates that
continued research needs to be conducted within different diverse settings to provide a
complete picture of these phenomena (Phinney, Cantu & Kurtz, 1997). Although
research has found relationships between racial minority/majority status, ethnic identity
and mental health for African Americans, a gap still exists in the literature for White
students in similar situations. This research is needed as it is important to address the
mental health needs of all students in schools. This is especially true for White students
who may be minorities in their school settings as they will increasingly be in these

settings as time progresses.

School Engagement

In addition to mental health outcomes, academic outcomes are important

adolescent school outcomes to investigate. Students who are academically engaged and

27

 

l.__ i::."....'_....:_"- ~

 

 

subsequently achieve academically are less likely to drop out of school or participate in
delinquent behaviors (Johnson, Crosnoe & Elder, 2001).
Context and Academic Achievement and Engagement

The school context is an important factor when examining areas of academic
engagement and academic achievement. The ethnic makeup of a school is a school
contextual factor that may inﬂuence the level of school engagement, particularly if an
individual represents a minority population within the school (Johnson, Crosnoe, &
Elder, 2001). Rumberger & Palardy (2005) indicated that the social composition of
schools is more highly related to achievement, independent of the individual’s own social
background, than any other school factor. Additionally, research indicated that the
achievement of minority students improves when they are in integrated schools (Johnson,
Crosnoe, & Elder, 2001). However, attending schools with greater percentages of one’s
own ethnicity fosters greater school bonding (Johnson, Crosnoe, & Elder, 2001). If
students do not feel comfortable within their school context, they may not identify with
school and experience school failure (Johnson, Crosnoe & Elder, 2001).

Researchers have suggested that for African Americans, being a minority within a
school setting can lead to stereotype threat (the fear that one’s behavior will conﬁrm
existing negative stereotypes) and decreased grades (Steele, 1997). Others have indicated
that for Asians, the stereotype of being a model minority actually contributes to their
success in schools (Altshcul, Oyserman, & Bybee, 2006). Little research has investigated
the impact of society’s views of White students and how it contributes to school
outcomes within different school contexts. Research has investigated the effects of

cumulative racial contexts and found that the cumulative racial context is associated with

28

math and reading scores but the current racial context is not, this is particularly the case
for White students (St. John & Lewis, 1971). Goldsmith (2004) however, has found that
the racial composition of schools impact test scores for Whites just as much as it impacts
the outcomes for African Americans (Rumberger & Palardy, 2005). Current racial
context has been found to increase White students aspirations to achieve beyond college
for those who are minorities within their school settings. However, researchers place
little importance on this outcome due to limited number of White students who actually
make up the minority in their schools (Goldsmith, 2004). Lastly, researchers feel that
White students’ dominant status in society may be a protective factor against the negative
effects of being a minority within their school setting, on White students’ academic
achievement (Jackson, Barth, Powell, & Lochman, 2006).

Ethnic identity has also been identiﬁed as a protective factor against negative school
environments. When looking at ethnic identity within the microsystem and its
relationship to academic achievement, researchers have found that the higher the
individual’s ethnic identity the better they perform in school (Supple, Ghazarian, F rabutt,
Plunkett, & Sands, 2006). This ethnic identity is described as a protective factor for
Latinos. In addition to being associated with overall academic achievement, it is a buffer
against declining grades for all ethnicities (Altshcul, Oyserman, & Bybee, 2006; Supple,
Ghazarian, Frabutt, Plunkett, & Sands, 2006).

Summary. The research on racial minority/majority status and academic
outcomes has indicated a number of things for African Americans and Latinos. The
research on these populations has found that being a minority within a school setting

leads to negative academic outcomes and that a positive ethnic identity moderates the

29

relationship between minority status and academic outcomes (Altshcul, Oyserman, &
Bybee, 2006; Supple, Ghazarian, Frabutt, Plunkett, & Sands, 2006). The research in this
area lays a foundation for the current study that will contribute to the literature by
examining these relationships among White students who are minorities within their
school settings. Although Goldsmith (2004) negates the importance of these student’s
experiences, the dearth of research on this population and the negative outcomes found
for other groups, indicates a gap in the literature that needs to be ﬁlled.
Purpose of Present Study

An overwhelming amount of literature indicates the inﬂuence of school context
on the development of school children. The school context is vital in the development of
not only positive mental health but school engagement which leads to positive school
outcomes (Johnson, Crosnoe, & Elder, 2001). Ethnic identity has been found to play a
role in the inﬂuence of context on the development of these outcomes for African
Americans. Research, however, has neglected White students who may also be impacted
by their racial minority status within their schools. It is imperative to investigate these
constructs with this population of White students so school personnel can create an
inclusive school environment that fosters the positive development of all students.

The purpose of this study is to examine the interaction of racial majority/minority
status and ethnic identity development on the mental health and school outcomes of

White students. The research questions of interest in this study are as follows:

1. What is the relationship between racial majority/minority status, school

engagement, and mental health for White students?

30

2. What is the relationship between ethnic identity, school engagement, and
mental health for White students?

3. How, if at all, does ethnic identity differ for White students who attend
predominantly White schools versus White students who attend schools in
which they are the minority?

4. How does the ethnic identity of White students moderate how racial
majority/minority status is related to school engagement, and mental

health?

31

CHAPTER III

METHOD

Data Source and Sample
University Outreach and Engagement is a unit that provides a bridge between

science and practice, research and communities. The Research on Applied
Developmental Science lab (ROADS), under the leadership of Dr. Jessica Barnes and Dr.
Jason Almerigi, began an ongoing research project in 2002 with the Genesee
lntennediate School District (GISD). The research team from ROADS and the GISD
convened to create a survey instrument called the Coordinated Community Student
Survey (C282). The CZS2 was developed to track student outcomes across Genesee
County. An asset-based, developmental methodology was used to enable researchers to
examine how student outcomes change over time.

There were several questions that guided the development of the C282 instrument.
First, the instrument was designed to assess student strengths and needs and how these
differ across communities. The second was to determine the critical age to begin
prevention activities across different student outcomes. The third was to examine the
differences in needs and strengths between males and females. The fourth question
addressed how school, neighborhood, and home environments inﬂuence student
outcomes and how these inﬂuences change as the student gets older. Lastly, the
instrument was designed to answer how participation in support services offered at
schools inﬂuence student outcomes.

Based on these guiding questions, eight areas of student functioning were
assessed: Social Competence, Emotional Competence, School Engagement, School

Environment, Neighborhood Environment, Home Environment, Health Behaviors and

32

Alcohol, Tobacco, and Drugs. The GISD uses the information provided from the survey
to learn more about student needs and to gain insight into the effectiveness of the health,
safety, and nutrition services available to K-12 students. In subsequent versions of the
survey, additional data were gathered on student service learning and ethnic identity
development. Three waves of data have been collected thus far. Wave one was collected
during 2004-2005, wave two was collected during 2005-2006, and wave three was
collected during 2006-2007.

The sample was drawn from the C282 database that is created and maintained by
ROADS lab researchers. The population of interest in this study was White students
attending schools in which they comprise the minority population within that school. A
comparison group of Whites who comprise the majority within their school was used. In
this study, sample selection and inclusion included the following:

0 White racial status

0 School racial demographics of 30% or less

0 Grade level from 6th grade to 12’h grade at the time of data collection

0 School free or reduced lunch rate of 70% or higher
These students were then matched ﬁrst by grade level and then by gender with those
students whose race makes up 70% or more of their school demographic (Brown &
Bigler, 2002; McRary, 2000). Demographic data on each group as well as the complete

sample are presented below in Table 1.

33

Table l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Demographic Data
Majority Minority Total n
Grade
6 29 29 58
7 16 16 32
3 l7 17 34
9 10 10 20
10 3 3 6
1 1 l3 13 26
12 3 3 6
Gender
Male 40 40 80
Female 51 51 102
n =182
Variables and Measures

As shown in Figure 2, the variables of interest in this study include
majority/minority status, ethnic identity, school engagement, and mental health

outcomes. Each of the variables is conceptually and operationally deﬁned below.

Figure 2. Detailed research model

  
   

  
 

     
 
 

    
 
 

School Prep.
Positive
Beliefs about
School
Enjoyment of
Majority/ Schoolwork
Minority
Status Mental
. . Health
Majority Multrethnrc Outcomes Self-Esteem
Identity Anxiety
Minority Measure Depression

34

Majority/Minority Status. In this study majority/minority status was deﬁned by
the racial makeup of an individual’s school. This was measured by the National Center
for Educational Statistics Common Core of Data (2005-2006) which consists of ﬁve
surveys administered to school administrators each year that collect ﬁscal and non-ﬁscal
information about elementary and secondary schools including school demographics.
Those students whose race comprised more than 70% of their total school population
were deﬁned as being in the racial majority. Those students whose race comprised 30%
or less of the total school population were deﬁned as being in the minority (Brown &
Bigler, 2002; McRary, 2000).

Ethnic Identity. In this study ethnic identity was deﬁned as the “expression of
loyalty, commitment, and belongingness towards one’s own ethnic group which is
produced by the exploration, resolution, and afﬁrmation of one’s ethnicity” (Bemal,
Knight, Ocampo, Garza, & Cota, 1993). Ethnic identity was operationally deﬁned by a
total scale score on the Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM) (Phinney, 1992).
As shown in Appendix A, The Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (Phinney, 1992) is a
14—item scale that was designed to measure three components of ethnic identity:
afﬁrmation and belonging (afﬁrmation); ethnic behaviors (exploration) and ethnic
identity achievement (resolution). The Afﬁnnation subscale has ﬁve items with a
reliability of .75. The Exploration subscale has two items but reliability was not
calculated due to the small number of items. Phinney (1992) states however, that the
addition of these two items increases the overall reliability of the total scale. The last
subscale, resolution, has seven items with a reliability of .69. Items are rated on a 4 point

likert scale, 1 being strongly disagree and 4 being strongly agree. The range on this

35

measure is from 14 to 56. Higher scores indicate higher levels of racial identity
development. This total scale has an established reliability of .81 with high school aged
students (Phinney, 1992).

School Engagement. School engagement was measured by a total score on three
different scales combined. The ﬁrst scale, school preparation, consisted of eleven items
rated on a 4 point likert scale, 1 being strongly disagree and 4 being strongly
agree(M=3.22, SD=.519). Higher scores indicate higher levels of school preparation
Sample questions include: “I have good study habits” and “I ﬁnish my schoolwork on
time.” This scale has a reliability of .87. The second scale is positive beliefs about
school. This scale consisted of ﬁve items rated on a 1-4 likert scale (M=3.63, SD=.416)
and includes items such as “I believe school is very important.” This scale has a
reliability of .78. The last scale is enjoyment of school work. This scale has six items
ranging from 1 to 4 such as “I like reading,” and “I feel like I am a part of my school.”
(M=2.85, SD=.59). This scale has a reliability of .79. Combined, the measure of school
engagement in this study consisted of 22 items and had a range ﬁ'om 22 to 88. Higher
scores indicate higher levels of school engagement. The school engagement measure can
be found in Appendix B.

Mental Health. In this study, mental health outcomes were measured on a total
of three different subscales combined: self esteem, anxiety, and depression. In this study,
self esteem was deﬁned as “the totality of the individual’s cognitive droughts and
affective emotions regarding the self” (Pg. 44) (Carlson, Uppal & Prosser, 2000). The
self esteem aspect of mental health outcomes was operationally deﬁned by a total score

on the 7 items of self-esteem subscale (M=3.23, SD=.54). These items were rated on a 4

36

point likert scale, 1 being strongly disagree and 4 being strongly agree. Sample items
include “I think I am good looking” and “I like who I am.” This subscale has a reliability
of .79.

Anxiety in this study was deﬁned as “constant worries about family, friends,
school, or activities” (American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 2004).
Anxiety was operationally deﬁned by a total score on the ten items included on the
anxiety scale (M=2.45, SD=.78). This scale is a modiﬁed version of the State-Trait
Anxiety Inventory (STAI). These items were rated on a 4 point likert scale, 1 being
strongly disagree and 4 being strongly agree. The items on this subscale were reverse
scored. Higher scores indicate lower levels anxiety. Sample items include “I worried a
lot” and “I noticed my heard beating fast.” This scale has a reliability of .79.

Depression in this study was deﬁned as, “feeling blue or sad.” (National Institute
of Mental Health, 2008). Depression was operationally deﬁned by a total score on the
thirteen items included on the depression subscale (M=2.1, SD=.64). These items were
rated on a 4 point likert scale, 1 being strongly disagree and 4 being strongly agree. The
items on this subscale were reverse scored. Higher scores indicate lower levels of
depression. Sample items include, “I felt good.” And “I felt down and unhappy.” This
scale has a reliability of .89.

Combined, the measure of depression in this study consisted of 30 items that have
a range from 30 to 120. Higher scores indicate more positive levels of mental health.

The mental health measure can be found in Appendix C.

37

Teacher Support .Teacher support was operationally deﬁned by a total score on
the six items included on the teacher support scale. These items were rated on a 4 point
likert scale, 1 being strongly disagree and 4 being strongly agree. Higher scores indicate
higher levels of teacher support. Sample items include “Teachers and students are nice to
each other at my school.” and “There is a teacher or some other adult who really cares
about me at my school.” This scale has a reliability of .803. The teacher support measure
can be found in Appendix D.

Peer Support .Peer support was operationally deﬁned by a total score on the 4
items included on the peer support scale. These items were rated on a 4 point likert scale,
1 being strongly disagree and 4 being strongly agree. The items on this subscale were
reverse scored. Higher scores indicate lower levels peer support. Sample items include
“I feel alone when I’m at my school” and “It is hard to make friends at my school.” This
scale has a reliability of .746. The peer support measure can be found in Appendix B.
Data Analyses

Answers to research questions one, two, and four were sought by multiple
regression. According to Holmbeck (1997), moderating relationships can be tested two
ways, either through multiple regression or Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). This
study uses a regression approach. Because of the nested nature of the design (children
are nested within schools), regression was done using general linear modeling (GLM).
GLM adjusts the standard error in the regressions to account for the nested nature of the
data.

Holmbeck (1997) suggests that when doing a test of moderation it is preferable to

use continuous variables. For this reason all of the outcome variables were continuous in

38

form. First, predictor and moderator main effects were entered into the equation. This
includes the predictor of majority/minority status as well as the moderating variable,
ethnic identity. Next, the interaction effects between the predictors and moderators
(minority/majority x ethnic identity) were entered. Lastly, school engagement and
mental health were entered as dependent variables. Holmbeck (1997) recommends
mean-centering the predictor and moderating variables to eliminate the problem of
multicollinearity. Thus, the predictor (majority/minority) and the moderators (ethnic
identity) were centered prior to entry into the multiple regression equation as interactions.
The outcome of this GLM procedure provides insight into the main effect of
majority/minority status on school engagement and mental health (research question 1).
Additionally, output provides insight into the main effect of ethnic identity on school
engagement and mental health (research question 2). Lastly, output provides insight into
the moderating effect of ethnic identity on the relationship between majority/minority
status and the aforementioned outcomes (research question 4).

An answer to research question three was sought by conducting an independent
samples t-test. Majority/minority status was entered as the grouping variable and ethnic

identity was entered as the test variable.

39

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

The results of the analyses are presented in the following sequence. First,
descriptive statistics on ethnic identity as well as the dependent variables of mental health
and school engagement are presented across majority and minority student groups.
Second, correlations between all study variables are presented. Third, the results are
presented in relation to each of the four proposed research questions. Lastly, due to the
exploratory nature of the current research, the results of a supplementary analysis are
presented.

Descriptive Statistics. Descriptive statistics on ethnic identity as well as the
dependent variables of mental health and school engagement are presented for the
majority group (Table 2), minority group (Table 3) and the total complete sample (Table
4). The skewness and kurtosis were examined for each variable. There were no values
greater than the absolute value of 1 for ethnic identity and mental health indicating
normal distributions. School engagement, however, had a skewness and kurtosis of
greater than the absolute value of one. Pallant (2001) indicates that this should not

present a problem for the current study because of the large sample size (n=182).

40

Table 2
Descriptive Statistics on all variables for the Majority Group

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Majority
n =91
Mean (SD) Range
Ethnic Identity 2.58 (.62) 1.0-4.0
Mental Health 2.65 (.58) 1.6-3.9
School Engagement 3.21 (.46) 1.0-3.9
Table 3
Descriptive Statistics on all variables for the Minority Group
Minority
n =91
Mean (SD) Range
Ethnic Identity 2.64 (.66) 1040
Mental Health 2.82 (.50) 16-39
School Engagement 3.23 (.40) 2.2-4.0
Table 4
Descriptive Statistics on all variables for the complete sample
n =182
Mean (SD) Range
Ethnic Identity 2.61 (.64) 1.0-4.0
Mental Health 2.73 (.54) 16-39
School Engagement 3.22 (.43) 1.0-4.0

 

41

Correlations. Correlations between all variables are presented in three different tables.
Table 5 presents the correlations for the majority group. The results of these correlations

reveal a strong positive correlation between school engagement and ethnic identity (r

 

 

=.444).
Table 5
Correlations among all outcome variables for the Majority Group
Ethnic Mental School
Identity Health Engagement
Ethnic 1
Identity
Mental -.03 1
Health
School .444* . 18 1
Engagement

 

*p< .05 (2-tailed)
The results of correlations between outcome variables for White students who
comprise the minority reveal a strong positive correlation between school engagement

and ethnic identity (r =.421). These results are found in below in Table 6.

 

 

Table 6
Correlations among all outcome variables for the Minority group
Ethnic Mental School
Identity Health Engagement
Ethnic 1
Identity
Mental .129 1
Health
School .421 ** .141 1
Engagement

 

42

** p< .01 level (2-tailed).
The results of correlations on the complete sample reveal a strong positive

correlation between school engagement and ethnic identity was also found (r =.431).
Additionally, a correlation between school engagement and mental health was found (r
=.164). These results are found in Table 7.

Table 7
Correlations among all outcome variables for the Total Sample

 

 

Ethnic Mental School
Identity Health Engagement
Ethnic 1
Identity
Mental .056 1
Health
School .431 ** .164"' 1
Engagement

 

*p< .05 (2-tailed). ** p< .01 level (2-tailed).

Research Questions

Question 1: What is the relationship between racial majority/minority status,
school engagement, and mental health for White students? The results from the General
Linear Model analyses indicate that there is no signiﬁcant relationship between
majority/minority status and school engagement (p=.921). Thus, students who are racial
majorities in their school (M= 3.21) have similar levels of school engagement as those
who comprise the racial minority population within their schools (M= 3.23). The results
from these analyses also indicate that there is no signiﬁcant relationship between racial

majority/minority status and mental health for White students (p= .796). White students

43

who are the racial majority in their school (M= 2.65) setting have similar mental health
outcomes as those students who comprise the racial minority of their school settings (M=
2.82).

Question 2: What is the relationship between ethnic identity, school engagement,
and mental health for White students? Results from the GLM analyses indicate that there
is a signiﬁcant positive relationship between ethnic identity and school engagement for
all White students [F (2, 181) =1 .84; p= .004]. Thus, the higher a student’s ethnic
identity the more engaged they are in school. This relationship had a large effect size ('12
= .45). These analyses also indicate a signiﬁcant positive relationship between ethnic
identity and mental health outcomes [F (2, 181) = 2.28; P=.OOO] with a large effect size
('12 = .50) Therefore, the higher a student’s ethnic identity the more positive their mental
health.

Question 3: How, if at all, does ethnic identity dijﬁr for White students who
attend predominantly White schools versus White students who attend schools in which
they are the minority? An independent samples t-test was conducted to compare the
ethnic identity of racial majority and racial minority students. The t-test analyses
revealed that ethnic identity between White students who attend predominantly White
schools and White students who attend schools in which they are the minority do not
differ in their total ethnic identity. The students were also compared in regards to the
ethnic identity subscales. These analyses reveal that these two groups of students do not
differ in their ethnic identity achievement or their ethnic behaviors. Analyses do,
however indicate a signiﬁcant difference between the two groups in ethnic group

belonging. White students who attend schools in which they are the majority have

44

signiﬁcantly lower feelings of belonging to their ethnic group than do White students
who attend schools in which they are the minority. Complete results are presented below

in Table 8.

Table 8
Ethnic Identity Means and Signiﬁcance Values

 

Majority Minority

 

 

Mean (SD) Mean (SD) T(P)
Total Ethnic Identity 2.58 (.62) 2.64 (.66) -.66(.508)
Identity Achievement 2.31 (.62) 2.49 (.71) 1.81(.071)
Ethnic Behaviors 2.44 (.70) 2.35 (.91) .774 (.440)
Ethnic Belonging 2.43 (.68) 2.91(.727) -4.6(.000)*

 

*p< .05 (2-tailed).

Question 4: How does the ethnic identity of White students moderate how racial
majority/minority status is related to school engagement and mental health? General
Linear Modeling was conducted to test for a moderating effect of ethnic identity on
majority/minority status on two variables: school engagement and mental health. Results
indicated that ethnic identity does not moderate the relationship between
majority/minority status and school engagement (p = .244) or mental health (p= .324).
This may be due to the fact that results revealed that there was no main effect or
signiﬁcant relationship between majority/minority status and school engagement (p =

.921) or mental health (p=.796).

45

Summary. The conclusive results of the four research questions for the current study are

presented in a summative table below.

 

 

 

Table 9
Summary of Results
School Engagement Mental Health Ethnic Identity
Variable p p p
Majority/Minority (A) 0.921 0.796 0.508
Ethnic Identity (B) 0004* 0.000* --
A x B 0.244 0.324 --

*p< .05 (2-tai1ed).
Supplementary Analyses

Due to the exploratory nature of the study, a supplementary analysis was
conducted. The supplementary analyses examined the relationship of majority/minority
status and peer and teacher support. Morris (2006) found a lack of teacher and peer
support for White students in schools in which they comprise the minority in his
qualitative analyses of this population. Contrary to these ﬁndings, exploratory analyses in
this study indicate that there is no signiﬁcant difference in teacher support [t (181) =-
.868, p = .785] between students who are the majority (M=2.89, SD=.68) versus those
who are the minority (M= 2.97, SD = .58) within their school setting. There was also no
difference in peer support [t (181) = .274, p=.387] between majorities (M= 1.87, SD =

.75) and those who are in the minority (M = 1.89, SD = .68).

46

CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION

The current study investigated the effect of racial majority/minority status of
White students on mental health and school engagement outcomes. The study also
examined the difference in ethnic identity for students who hold majority/minority status
and the moderating effect of ethnic identity on their mental health and school engagement
outcomes. It is important to investigate the aforementioned relationships for White
students who are in the racial minority within their microsystem and how this is
associated with their dominant status within the broader society. Critically investigating
how Whites’ dominant status in the broader macrosystem transacts with risk factors
across demographic contexts can provide a deeper understanding of how the development
of school and mental health outcomes are affected by a variety of sociocultural factors
(Carlson, Upal, & Prosser, 2000). The aforementioned relationship was investigated in
the present study. First, the results of the current study are compared to the literature.
Second, the limitations of the study will be discussed. Third, the implications for
research and practice are examined.
Majority/Minority Status and Mental Health

The ﬁrst question posed by the current study examined the relationship between
majority/minority status, and mental health outcomes for White students. The results
indicated that White students who are racial minorities within their school context do not
differ from White students who are racial majorities in their school context in regards to
their mental health. The present study’s ﬁnding is not congruent with research on this

same phenomenon with traditional minority groups. Research within the literature

47

indicates that those students who are racial/ethnic minorities in their school context
experience negative mental health outcomes (unlike their counterparts who are in the
racial majority) due to the salience and discontinuity between their race and that of the
majority race within their school context (Spencer & Markstrom-Adams, 1990). Rowley
et al. (1998), however, suggest that it may not be as simple as just being a racial minority
within a context that determines whether or not one’s racial salience contributes to
negative outcomes. The salience of race may also be dependent on how one exhibits
his/her race, how much they feel they belong to a racial group, and how salient one’s race
is in his/her life in general. Morris (2006) ﬁnds examples of White students whose race
may not be a salient by virtue of having acculturated or assimilated to the culture in
which they are embedded. In his qualitative study, Morris found that White students who
are in the racial minority may not necessarily exhibit a “typical” White identity or
identity expression. Morris (2006) describes this phenomenon pointing to White girls
wearing comrows or braids in their hair and White boys wearing baggy pants and
describing themselves as “White Chocolate.” This may have been the case for many of
the students in the present study who could display cultural characteristics that are
normally attributed to African Americans. However, a number of these behaviors could
also be class based. A number of these behaviors could exist across racial lines due to the
class based rather than race based nature. This could be the case for the current sample
since the students who were minorities attended schools with an average free or reduced
lunch rate of 88%. Hardigan (1999) also found that Whites within urban Detroit
indicated that they felt they related more culturally to urban Blacks than to suburban

Whites. Therefore, a student’s perception of difference from his/her peers that is said to

48

lead to negative mental health outcomes may not be as great for those who have
assimilated or display cultural behaviors that are more like their African American or low
income peers. The ﬁnding that there is no difference between racial majority and racial
minority Whites in the present study in mental health outcomes could indicate some level
of acculturation or assimilation of students who are racial minorities within the present
sample.

Additionally, negative mental health outcomes that are said to be associated with
assimilation for traditional minority groups (due to the rejection of their culture) may not
apply for the students in the present sample (LaFromboise, Coleman, & Gerton, 1993).
Due to White’s dominant place in society, many may feel as though they do not belong to
a particular cultural group. Thus, Whites may not feel as if they are giving up or
rejecting their culture when acquiring the cultural attributes of another group.
Majority/Minority Status and School Engagement

When investigating majority/minority status and school engagement, the current
study found that there is no difference in school engagement between White students who
are the racial majority versus the racial minority. This ﬁnding is consistent with Johnson,
Crosnoe, & Eder’s (2001) ﬁnding that minority status does not inﬂuence the level of
school engagement. One possibility for this ﬁnding is that the sample employed for the
present study identiﬁes with their school context through their cultural adaptation and
adoption of cultural practices prevalent within their school setting contributing to their
level of school engagement. Another possibility is that White individual’s dominant
status in the Macrosystem of society is a protective factor against the negative effects of

being a minority within their school setting (Jackson, Barth, Powell & Lochman, 2006).

49

Thus, the privilege that Whites experience from being the majority within the
Macrosystem prevents them from experiencing the negative effects that traditional
minorities would experience from being a minority within both their Macrosystem and
Microsystem.

These experiences are vastly different from traditional minorities (i.e. African
Americans, Latinos, and Asians) who are greatly affected by their minority status
(Altshcul, Oyserman, & Bybee, 2006; Steele, 1997). For example, Steele (1997) talks
about “stereotype threat” with African American students who are minorities and how
this threat negatively impacts academic performance and creates distractions for students.
Steele (1997) describes stereotype threat as when an individual is reminded of negative
stereotypes relating to one of their social identities. This stereotype threat negatively
impacts the performance of African American students and can lead to distractibility. For
example, when Aﬁican American students were reminded of their race in a negative way
prior to taking exams, they scored signiﬁcantly lower than when they were not. The
same occurs with women who are reminded of their gender in a negative way prior to
taking science or math exams. This same stereotype threat may not apply to White
students who are minorities within their setting when it comes to school outcomes. In
fact, Morris (2006) found that even though White students who are the minority within
their school context received less teacher support, they were still overrepresented in
higher level courses and were asked for academic help by their peers. Thus, stereotypes
about Whites in general within the broader society may be assisting White students in
these contexts as it sometimes does with Asian Americans and the “model minority”

stereotype (Lee, 1996).

50

Ethnic Identity, School Engagement, and Mental Health

The second question investigated by the current study is the relationship between
ethnic identity, school engagement, and mental health for White students. The present
study found a positive relationship between ethnic identity and school engagement for all
White students regardless of their racial majority/minority status. Ethnic identity
accounted for 45% of the variability in school engagement, proving to be a strong
predictor. This is consistent with research on ethnic identity and school outcomes.
Ethnic identity has been positively associated with school performance and academic
achievement for all ethnicities, including Whites (Altshcul, Oyserman, & Bybee, 2006;
Supple, Ghazarian, F rabutt, Plunkett, & Sands, 2006). Ethnic identity also had a positive
relationship with mental health outcomes, accounting for 50% of the variability in mental
health outcomes. This outcome is also consistent with the myriad of research on ethnic
identity and mental health outcomes across various ethnic groups (Carlson, Uppal &
Prosser, 2000; Kiang, Yip, Gonzales-Backen, Witkow & F uligni, 2006; Phinney, 1990;
Phinney, 1996; Phinney, Cantu & Kurtz, 1997; Pyant, & Yanico, 1991; Sellers,
Copeland-Linder, Martin, & Lewis, 2006; Umana-Taylor, Diversi & Fine, 2002). This
ﬁnding is signiﬁcant due to the lack of research speciﬁcally on White students and their
ethnic identity (Phinney, 1990). This ﬁnding indicates that the ethnic identity
development for all White students is an important variable and contributes to their
school engagement and mental health outcomes just as it does for other ethnic groups.
Differences in Ethnic Identity across Majority/Minority groups

This study also investigated whether or not ethnic identity differed for White students

who attended predominantly White schools versus White students who attended schools

51

in which they were the minority. Despite the majority of US. society being White, there
has been a dearth of research on the ethnic identity of this group (Phinney, 1990,
Phinney, 1992). In terms of overall ethnic identity, the current study found that there
was no difference between White students who were the racial majority versus those who
were the racial minority. This overall ﬁnding is contrary to research that indicates that
ethnic identity is stronger for students who comprise the minority due to the increased
salience of race (Altschul, Oyserrnan & Bybee, 2006; Lee, Noh, Yoo, & Doh, 2007;
Phinney, 1990; Roberts et al, 1999). These studies, however, use traditional minorities
such as African Americans and Latinos within their samples. The fact that this same
relationship does not appear for White students indicates something important about the
invisibility of race for many White students. The impact of the macrosystem, in which
Whites are the majority, consists of a larger society in which being White is the “nonn;”
therefore, when individuals think of race or ethnicity many think of traditional minorities
due to the invisibility of “Whiteness.” The present study’s ﬁnding suggests that the
larger macrosystem may indicate, even to Whites who are minorities within their schools,
that they are the norm, creating an invisibility of their own ethnicity.

The current study did, however, ﬁnd a difference in feelings of belonging among
White students who attended schools in which they comprised the majority and those
who comprised the minority. Those White students who were racial majorities within
their school setting had signiﬁcantly lower feelings of belonging (a subscale of ethnic
identity) to their ethnic group than did those White students who attended schools in
which they comprised the minority. This conﬁrms research that the social context can

make ethnicity more salient and make one feel more like an essential part of a group

52

(Crocker, Luhtanen, Blaine, & Broadnax, 1994). This self-perception however, occurs
on a continuum from one feeling like an individual to one feeling like a member of a
group. These ﬁndings make sense given the social nature of identity. Many White
students who attend majority White schools may not necessarily feel that they belong
ethnic group due to the invisibility of “Whiteness” within the dominant culture. This
further makes individuals feel more average and therefore the characteristics of their
ethnicity are not self-deﬁning (Altschul, Oyserman, & Bybee, 2006), therefore, feeling
and acting more like the individualistic side of the continuum.

The salience of ethnicity in a minority context makes White students in the minority
more aware of their race and thus they may develop social systems within their school to
ﬁt in. This is similar to African American students at predominantly White schools who
often congregate together during down time, such as during lunch or in the hallways
outside of class, as a place where they can feel a sense of belonging (Carter, 2007;
Tatum, 2003). Thus, even though “Whiteness” remains invisible to some extent, the
salience of race for Whites who are racial minorities is enough to develop networks
within the school setting (more so than Whites who are majorities), but does not
contribute to the importance one places on their race within the school setting.

The results ﬁrrther indicate that the salience of race for White students only
contributes to their sense of belonging to their racial group but that the signiﬁcance of
race does not contribute to differences in ethnic identity achievement or ethnic behaviors
(as deﬁned by the MEIM). Although students who are racial majorities in their school
contexts appear similar on the MEIM in regards to ethnic behaviors as White students

who are minorities within their context, it could be argued that these two groups are

53

similar, yet drastically different in this aspect. Both groups may be unsure of what
deﬁnes White cultural behaviors due to the invisibility of “Whiteness” and White culture.
Yet, those students who are minorities within their school contexts may assimilate and
develop different deﬁnitions of their cultural selves as White individuals than those who
are the majority within their school context. Further research should investigate how the
subscale of ethnic behaviors translates to a dominant group in society that may not be
aware of activities that are a part of their ethnic group. The questions on this subscale,
such as “I participate in cultural practices of my own group, such as special food, music,
or customs,” may not hold much relevance for this population because of the invisibility
of these activities or cultural practices. Therefore, it is suggested that further research
examine ethnic behaviors in ways that may be applicable to White students.

Lastly, the similarities between the two groups in their ethnic identity achievement
may also say something about the invisibility of “Whiteness” and a lack of understanding
of what deﬁnes its culture and is integral to its deﬁnition. Many of the questions on this
subscale asks questions regarding trying to ﬁnd out more about one’s ethnic group’s
traditions and cultures, having a clear sense of one’s ethnic background and what it
means to them, thinking a lot about their ethnic group membership and clearly knowing
the role ethnicity plays in their life. The present study’s results showing that there is no
difference between the two groups in addition to fairly low mean scores indicates that
both groups are somewhat unsure about the meaning and role of their ethnicity in their

lives.

54

The Moderating Role of Ethnic Identity

The last question this research sought to examine was how ethnic identity might
play a protective factor in the relationship between majority/minority status, school
engagement, and mental health outcomes. Results indicated that ethnic identity did not
play a protective role, primarily because there was no difference between Whites who
comprised the racial majority within their schools and those Whites who comprised the
racial minority within their schools. Therefore, due to the fact that the groups were not
different on mental health and school engagement and had no relationship, ethnic identity
could not moderate this inexistent relationship. Previous research conducted on the
moderating effect of ethnic identity on outcomes indicates that ethnic identity moderates
the relationship between environments that may be deemed stressful and may encourage
emotional resilience (Breakwell, 1986; Jones, Cross & Defour, 2007; Kiang, Yup,
Gonzales-Backen, Witkow & Fuligni, 2006; Quintana etal., 2006). The present study’s
ﬁndings could indicate that the environments were not signiﬁcantly more stressful for
those White students who were minorities within their schools. Further research should
explicitly explore the differences in the levels of stress of the environments between
White students who comprise the racial minority versus those White students who
comprise the racial majority.
Majority/Minority Status, Teacher and Peer support

Due to the exploratory nature of this study a supplementary analysis was
conducted. As a result of qualitative research indicating the differential treatment and
lack of teacher and peer support for White students within contexts they comprise the

racial minority (Morris, 2006), the author felt it important to investigate this relationship.

55

The results from this study indicate however, that there is no difference in the amount of
teacher or peer support for White students who are in the racial minority versus the racial
majority. Morris (2006) indicated that both Black and White teachers did not provide
support for White students based on assumed stereotypes. White teachers did not provide
support for these students because they thought of them as “trailer trash.” Black teachers
did not provide support for these students because they thought of them as “middle
class.” Due to the ﬁndings in the current study, it may be that Morris (2006) found an
outcome more related to social class rather than minority status; thus, making no
difference in the current low income sample across majority/minority groups.

Limitations

While the current study provides useful data related to an understudied
population, several limitations must also be noted. These limitations should be taken into
consideration when interpreting study results. The ﬁrst limitation is that data were used
frdm a larger project and dataset. This could impact the internal validity due the inability
to control for all factors in relationship to the research question.

Second, it is important to note that the study attempted to control for the impact of
socioeconomic status on outcomes or differences between groups with an attempt to
make them as comparable as possible. However, due to the nature of the dataset, the
socioeconomic status of the groups was not commensurate. The students who comprised
minorities within their school system had a free or reduced lunch rate of 88% compared
to the 71% free or reduced lunch rate of the students who comprised the majority in their
school settings. Although these numbers are discrepant, both reveal a signiﬁcant amount

of poverty within the schools. Additionally, the socioeconomic status of the actual

56

students who participated in the study is unknown because the socioeconomic status of
the children was extracted from school wide data. It is possible, that some students who
participated in the study did not experience the same level of poverty.

The third thing to consider with this research study is the relationship between
race and ethnicity. As a part of the procedures, students were asked to provide their race,
yet they were measured on their level of ethnic identity. Some could argue that using a
child’s racial identiﬁcation and associating it with their ethnic identity could be
troublesome because of the arguable difference between the two. This could also be
troublesome because the majority of the sample consists of middle school students who,
because of their age, may have difﬁculty discerning the difference. Other research
indicates, however, that race and ethnicity are very similar constructs and ﬁnd an 80%
overlap between individual’s race and ethnic identiﬁcation (Singh, 1977). Despite these
ﬁndings, the dearth of research on Whites in regards to their race and ethnicity makes it
difﬁcult to ascertain how this group conceives of their race or ethnicity if they do at all.
The broader society’s normalization of “Whiteness” and the invisibility of this construct
within the broader society and in the literature make the external validity of measures of
ethnicity and race unknown.

Implications

The current research contributes to the literature by examining the
majority/minority status, ethnic identity, school engagement, and mental health of White
students, particularly those who hold minority status within their schools. Overall, the
study indicates that low income White students who are in the racial minority do not

differ much from their White low income counterparts who comprise the racial majority

57

in their mental health, school engagement and overall ethnic identity. An important
implication, however, for school personnel is that ethnic identity accounts for a
signiﬁcant portion of the variance in all low income White students school engagement
and mental health outcomes regardless of school context. This indicates that the
development of a positive ethnic identity is an important variable that school personnel
can address to improve the overall school engagement and mental health outcomes of
their students.

To accomplish this goal it is important for schools to contribute to White
students’ identity development and the understanding of their race/ethnicity and what it
means to them. Middle schools and high schools are prime places to discuss this material
as students are grappling with, developing, and forming their adolescent identity.
Investing in the development of strong student identities has strong positive implications
for their mental health as well as their school engagement and subsequent academic
success.

School psychologists can play a vital role in helping students develop strong
student identities. As professionals invested in the well being of the whole child, school
psychologists can develop groups for students during middle school and high school to
assist them in developing a positive sense of self. This commitment would contribute to
the positive development of not only mental health outcomes but academic outcomes as
well.

Future Directions
Due to the dearth of research on this phenomenon, there are several areas of

research that need to be examined with regards to furthering the current investigation.

58

First, subsequent research should continue to investigate the impact of racial
majority/minority status on ethnic identity and school outcomes. The addition of a
comparison group of White students who are the racial majority in higher income areas to
the two groups presented in this study (racial majority/minority) of low income students
would provide important insight into the role socioeconomic status plays in the
relationship between school context, ethnic identity, mental health, and school
engagement.

Second, examinations of environment hostility, such as bullying/teasing, for
White students who are racial minorities versus White students who are racial majorities
would give valuable insight into the lived experiences of both groups of students. This
would permit researchers to compare and contrast these experiences to those of
traditional minority groups within the literature. These studies would reveal important
contributions of the macrosystem in these developments as well as the role that ethnic
identity plays in moderating these experiences.

Third, research should continue to examine the ethnic identity of White students.
The lack of research in this area for Whites leaves many questions unanswered about this
group. Further qualitative research is needed to examine White ethnic identity in
relationship to contextual variables and to examine ethnic behaviors in ways that may be
applicable to White students. Research should also seek to redeﬁne the models of ethnic
identity development applied to Whites, as major models used today focus on the
unraveling of inherent racist attitudes. Additionally, the development of racial identity
scales for Whites has yet to be done and is important to the continued research of this

phenomenon. The investigation of the racial identity construct public regard — or how

59

others view a person’s race — would be a very important link to understanding the racial
and ethnic identity development of this population and its link to important
developmental outcomes.

Lastly, little research of ethnic identity development has been conducted with
students in middle school. The majority of the research has been conducted with the high
school population. Research should continue to investigate the development of ethnic

identity during the initial stages of identity development — middle school.

60

APPENDICES

61

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

APPENDIX A

Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure

. I have spent time trying to ﬁnd out more about my own ethnic group, such as its

history, traditions, and customs.

I am active in organizations or social groups that include mostly members of my
own ethnic group.

I have a clear sense of my ethnic background and what it means for me.

I think a lot about how my life will be affected by my ethnic group membership.

I am happy that I am a member of the group I belong to.

I am not very clear about the role of my ethnicity in my life.

I really have not spent much time trying to learn more about the culture and
history of my ethnic group.

I have a strong sense of belonging to my own ethnic group.

I understand pretty well what my ethnic group membership means to me, in terms
of how to relate to my own group and other groups.

In order to learn more about my ethnic background, I have often talked to other
people about my ethnic group.

I have a lot of pride in my ethnic group and its accomplishments.

I participate in cultural practices of my own group, such as special food, music, or
customs.

I feel a strong attachment towards my own ethnic group.

I feel good about my cultural or ethnic group.

62

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

l8.

19.

20.

21.

APPENDIX B

School Engagement Measure

. I have good study habits.

I always write down my homework assignments.
I know how to plan things so I get my work done.
I work hard at my school work.

I ﬁnish my school work on time.

I participate/take part in class.

I follow directions in class.

I do the best I can in school.

I am careful and neat with my school work.

I make good use of my time at school.

I keep track of my things at school.

I believe school work is very important.

I think it is important to try to do a good job in school.
I will get a better job if I do well in school.

I will graduate from high school.

I will graduate from college.

I like reading.

I like my school.

I enjoy learning new things at my school.

I do interesting things at my school.

I feel like I am part of my school.

63

22. I feel bored at my school.

64

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

I7.

19.

20.

21.

APPENDIX C
Mental Health Measure
I worried a lot.
I worried about things that might happen.
I worried about making mistakes.
I worried about school.
I got a funny feeling in my stomach.
I worried about someone in my family.
I noticed my heart beating fast.
My hands got all sweaty.
I felt scared.
I felt nervous.
I felt good.
I felt upset.
I felt that I could not stop being sad.
I felt good about the future.
I had a hard time sleeping.
I was happy.

I talked less than usual.

. I felt lonely.

I felt sad.
I was bothered by things that usually don’t bother me.

I felt down and unhappy.

65

22. I felt like I was too tired to do things.
23. I felt like crying.

24. I think I am good looking.

25. I think I’m pretty good at ﬁguring out problems at school.
26. I think I am very smart.

27. I get along well with other kids.
28. I like who I am.

29. I am good at sports

30. I think I am a good person.

66

APPENDIX D

Teacher Support Measure

. Teachers and students are nice to each other at my school.

. There is a teacher or some other adult who really cares about me at my school.

. There is a teacher or some other adult who listens to me at my school.

. It is easy to talk with a teacher or counselor at my school

. The teachers are fair to students at my school

. I will get into trouble if a break a rule at my school.

67

APPENDIX E

Peer Support Measure

. There are students at my school who really care about me.

. I feel alone when I’m at my school.

. It is hard to make friends at my school.

. I usually spend lunch and/or recess time alone at my school

68

REFERENCES

69

REFERENCES

Altschul, I., Oyserman, D., & Bybee, D. (2006). Racial-ethnic identity in mid—
adolescence: content and change as predictors of academic achievement. Child
Development, 7 7, 1155-1 169.

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. (2004).The Anxious Child,4 7.
Retrieved February 1, 2008 from

www.aacap.orglcs/root/facts for families/the anxious child

Anderson, C.A., & Foster, P.J. (1964). Discrimination and inequality in education.
Sociology of Education, 58, 1-18.

Berk, L. E. (2000). Child development (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Bernal M. E., Knight G. P., Ocampo K. A., Garza C. A., Cota M. K. (1993) Development
of Mexican American identity. In M. E. Bernal, G. P. Knight (Eds.), Ethnic
identity: Formation and transmission among Hispanics and other minorities.
Albany: State University of New York Press, 61-79.

Blau, J .R. (2003). Race in the Schools: Perpetuating White Dominance? Boulder:
Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Breakwell, G.M. (1986). Coping with Threatened Identities. London; New York:
Methuen.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature
and Design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Brown, C.S. & Bigler, RS. (2002). Effects of minority status in the classroom on
children’s intergroup attitudes. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 83,
77-110.

Busk, R, Ford, L., & Shulman, L.(l973). Effects of schools' racial composition on the
self-concept of Black and White students. Journal of Educational Research, 67,
57-63.

Carlson, C., Uppal, S. & Prosser, EC. (2000). Ethnic differences in processes
contributing to the self—esteem of early adolescent girls. Journal of Early
Adolescence, 20, 44-67.

Carter, D. J. (2005). "In a sea of white people ".' Arr analysis of the experiences and

behaviors of high achieving Black students in a predominantly White high school.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge.

70

Carter, DJ . (2007). Why the black kids sit together at the stairs: The role of identity
afﬁrming counter-spaces in a predominantly white high school. Journal of Negro
Education, 74, 542-554.

Coll, C.G., Cmic, K., Lamberty, G., Wasik, B.H., Jenkins, R., Garcia, H.V., McAdoo,
HP. (1996). An integrative model for the study of developmental competencies
in minority children. Child Development, 67, 1891-1914.

Crocker, J ., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: the self-protective
properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608-630.

Crocker, J ., Luhtanen, R., Blaine, B., & Broadnax, S. (1994). Collective self-esteem and
psychological well-being among white, black, and asian college students.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 503-513.

Dawson, M., Cummings, J .A., Harrison, P.L., Short, R.J., Gorin, S., & Palomares, R.
(2004). The 2002 multisite conference on the future of school psychology: next
steps. School Psychology Review, 33, 115-125.

Delpit, L. (1995). Other people ’3 children: Cultural conﬂict in the classroom. New
York: New Press.

Denevi, E. (2001). Whiteness: Helping white students and educators understand their role
in a
multicultural society. Independent School, 61(1), 101-108.

Derman-Sparks, L., & Ramsey, P. G. (2006). How children construct White identities;
Fostering children’s identities. What if all the kids are White? Anti-bias

multicultural education with young children and families (pp. 39-65). New York:
Teachers College Press.

Erickson, EH. (1968). Identity: Youth and Crisis. New York: Norton.

Finn, J .D., & Voelkl, K.E. (1993). School characteristics related to student engagement.
The Journal of negro education, 62, 249-268.

Fordham, S., & Ogbu, J.U. (1986). Black students’ school success: Coping with the
“burden of ‘acting white.”’ The Urban Review, 18, 176-206.

Goldsmith, RA. (2004). Schools’ racial mix, students’ optimism, and the black-white
and latino-white achievement gaps. Sociology of Education, 77, 121-147.

Grossack, M.M. (1965). Psychological considerations essential to effective educational
integration. The Journal of Negro Education, 34, 278-287.

71

Hardiman, R. (1982). White identity development: A process oriented model for
describing the racial consciousness of White Americans. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 43, 104A.

Hardiman, R. (2001). Reﬂections on White identity development theory. In E. L.
Wijeyesinghe & B. W. Jackson III (Eds.), New perspectives on racial identity
development: A theoretical and practical anthology (pp. 108- 125). New York:
New York University Press.

Hartigan, J. (1999). Racial Situations: Class Predicaments of Whiteness in Detroit.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Holmbeck, G.N. (1997). Toward terminological, conceptual, and statistical clarity in the
study of mediators and moderators: Examples from the child-clinical and
pediatric psychology literatures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
65(4), 599-610.

Jackson, M.R., Barth, J .M., Powell, N., & Lochman, J .E. (2006). Classroom contextual
effects of race on children’s peer nominations. Child Development, 77, 1325-
1337.

Johnson, M.K., Crosnoe, R., & Elder, G.H. (2001). Students’ attachement and academic
engagement: The role of race and ethnicity. Sociology of Education, 74, 318-
340.

Jones, H.L., Cross, W.E., DeFour, DC. (2007). Race-related stress, racial identity
attitudes, and mental health among black women. Journal of Black Psychology,
33, 208-231.

Khmelkov, V.T., & Hallinan, M.T. (1999). Organizational Effects on Race Relations in
Schools, Journal of Social Issues, 55, 627—645.

Kiang, L., Yip, T., Gonzales-Backen, M., Witkow, M., & Fuligni, A.J. (2006). Ethnic
identity and the daily psychological well-being of adolescents from Mexican and
Chinese backgrounds. Child Development, 77, 1338-1350.

LaFromboise, T., Coleman, H.L.K., Gerton, J. (1993). Psychological impact of
biculturalism: Evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 395-412.

Lee, S. J. (1996). Unraveling the “model minority” stereotype: Listening to Asian
American youth. New York: Teachers College Press.

Lee, R.M., Noh, C.Y., Yoo, H.C., & Doh, HS. (2007). The psychology of diaspora
experiences: Intergroup contact, perceived discrimination, and the ethnic identity
of Koreans in china. Cultural Diversity an Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13, 115-
124.

72

Lewin, K. ( 1935). A dynamic theory of personality New York: McGraw- Hill.

Longshore, D., & Prager, J. (1985). The impact of school desegregation: a situational
analysis. Annual Review of Sociology, 11, 75-91.

Marcia, J .E. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity status. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 551-558.

McIntosh, P. (1989). "White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack." Peace and
Freedom, July/Au gust issue, 10-12.

McCrary, J. (2000). Ethnic majority/minority status: Children’s interactions and
affective responses to music. Journal of Research in Music Education, 48, 249-
261.

Morris, E. (2006). An unexpected minority: White kids in an urban school. Piscataway,
NJ: Rutgers University Press.

National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved February 1, 2008 from
www.nces.ed.gov

National Institute of Mental Health. (2008). Depression. Retrieved February 1, 2008
from www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/depression/complete-

publicationshtml

Ogbu, J .(2003).Black Students in an Afﬂuent Suburb:A Study of Academic
Disengagement. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Pallant, J. (2001). SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using
SPSS for Windows. Open University Press.

Perry, P. (2002). Shades of White: White kids and racial identities in High School.
Durhan, NC: Duke University Press.

Phinney, J .S. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: Review of research.
Psychological Bulletin, 108, 499—514.

Phinney, J .S. (1992). The multigroup ethnic identity measure: A new scale for use with
diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7, 156-176.

Phinney, J .S. (1996). When we talk about American ethnic groups, what do we mean?.
American Psychologist, 51, 918-927.

Phinney, J .S., Cantu, C.L., & Kurtz, DA. (1997). Ethnic and American identity as

predictors of self-esteem among African American, latino, and white adolescents.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 26, 165-185.

73

Pyant, C.T., & Yanico, BJ. (1991). Relationship of racial identity and gender-role
attitudes to black women’s psychological well being. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 38, 315-322.

Quintana, S.M., Aboud, F.E., Chao, R.K., Contreras-Gran, J ., Cross, W.E., Hudley, C.,
Hughes, D., Liben, L.S., Nelson-Le Gall, S., & Vietze, D.L. (2006). Race,
ethnicity, and culture in child development: Contemporary research and future
directions. Child Development, 77, 1129-1141.

Reardon, S.F., Yun, J .T. (2001). Suburban racial change and suburban school
segregation, 1987-1995. Sociology of Education, 74, 79-101.

Reardon, S.F., Yun, J .T., & Eitle, T.M. (2000). The changing structure of school
segregation: measurement and evidence of multiracial metropolitan-area school
segregation, 1989-1995. Demography, 37, 351-364.

Rhodes, J., Roffman, J ., Reddy, R., & Fredriksen, K. (2004). Changes in self-esteem
during the middle school years: a latent growth curve study of individual and
contextual inﬂuences. Journal of School Psychology, 42, 243-261.

Roberts, R.E., Phinney, J .S., Masse, L.C., Chen, Y.R., Roberts, C.R., & Romero, A.
(1999). The structure of ethnic identity of young adolescents from diverse
ethnocultural groups. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 19, 301-322.

Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the Self. New York: Basic Book.

Rowley, S.J., Sellers, R.M., Chavous, T.M., Smith, M.A. (1998). The relationship
between racial identity and self-esteem in african American college and high
school students. Journal of Personality and social Psychology, 74, 715-724.

Rumberger, R.W., & Palardy, G]. (2005). Does segregation still matter? The impact of
student composition on academic achievement in high school. Teachers College
Regard, 107, 1999-2045.

Sellers, R.M., Copeland-Linder, N., Martin, P.P., & Lewis, R.L. (2006). Racial identity
matters: The relationship between racial discrimination and psychological
functioning in african American adolescents. Journal of Research on
Adolescence, 16, 187-2 16.

Singh, VP. (1977). Some theoretical and methodological problems in the study of ethnic
identity: A cross-cultural perspective. Annals of New York Academy of Sciences,
285, 33-45.

Spencer, M.B. ( 2006). Revisiting the 1990 special issue on minority children: an
editorial perspective 15 years later. Child Development, 77, 1149-1154.

74

Spencer, M.B., & Markstom—Adams, C. (1990). Identity processes among racial and
ethnic minority children in america. Child Development, 61, 290-310.

Statistical Abstracts of the United States, 2004 & 2005. US. Census Bureau. Retrieved

 

June 30, 2007, from
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/population/estimatesandprojectionsbyag
esexraceethnicityl.

 

Steele, CM. (1997). A threat in the air. American Psychologist, 52, 613-629.

St. John, N .H., & Lewis, R. (1971). The influence of school racial context on academic
achievement. Social Problems, 19, 68-79.

Supple, A.J., Ghazarian, S.R., Frabutt, J .M., Plunkett, S.W., & Sands, T. (2006).
Contextual inﬂuences on latino adolescent ethnic identity and academic
outcomes. Child Development, 77, 1427-1433.

Tajfel, H. (1981). Human group and social categories. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.

Umana-Taylor, A.J., Diversi, M., & Fine, M.A. (2002). Ethnic identity and self-esteem
of latino adolescents: Distinctions among the latino populations. Journal of
Adolescent Research, 17, 303-327.

Umana-Taylor, A.J. & Shin, N. (2007). An examination of ethnic identity and self
esteem with diverse populations: Exploring variation by ethnicity and geography.
Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13, 178-186.

US Census Bureau. (2002). US Census 2000 demographic proﬁles. Retrieved April 6,
2007 from http://censtats.census.gov/pub/Proﬁles.shtml.

Verkuyten, M., Thijs, J. (2004). Global and ethnic self esteem in school context:
Minority and majority groups in the Netherlands. Social Indicators research, 6 7,
253-281.

Webb, L. D., Metha, A., & Jordan, K. F. (2003). Foundations of American Education.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Wong, C.A., Eccles, J.S., Sameroff, A. (2003). The inﬂuence of ethnic discrimination
and ethnic identiﬁcation on African American adolescents’ school and
socioemotional adjustment. Journal of Personality, 71, 1197-1232.

Yip, T., Seaton, E.K., Sellers, R.M. (2006). African american racial identity across the

lifespan: Identity status, identity content, and depressive symptoms. Child
Development 77, 1504-1517.

75

Ysseldyke, J ., Burns, M., Dawson, P., Kelley, B., Morrison, D., Ortiz, S., Rosenﬁeld, S.,
& Telzrow, C. (2006). A blueprint for training and practice 111. Bethesda, MD:
National Association of School Psychologists.

Zuckerman, M. (1990). Some dubious premises in research and theory on racial
differences. American Psychologist, 45, 1297-1303.

76