‘b u H 3 L IE5]: .- 0; “ V V . . . V V.V.:.&r$dfiei§.fiz . I , 10.: t. 1vfl¢flvvl . x r. Win-9H1 ghrfl‘a‘fi. 'V . . . I yam. . v V , . ¢ . I... ». “Ag-a. 2 fire: L. . In. 3 n . . A s . .. L... figmmfimwfii. umpv .wqrfldflawgfimhfigfihfiR : 9%.. ufirh.z%§n. 5.3:...5: n h... .. u w . .V p to. . bqgfi. 2 . u . 1 u” . in. u. . w. «v. . V . .93. kw... awuu #991 In... IL». 1 “bun”?! “fibuwkv’kflr 7.... v 1 .71 e. L. c . a , V V . . It? 5. g.“ V g . . V . u. v 2.5.»... “Viva 2. UV .. Hymvrt?cv§ v: .V. .5524 u . t .NMVHJ.‘ n. .V a 2.. . 4h. . .V. v; y a m. Poona . ~ Vu. a..« US wmwrfiuezflfiwh. £5.“ .1 :3... . V. . furuwnz 1.. $.fi w W . . . . git .V: 1. 3.3.3:... .. . . V ., . V .V V 4% V. 4%...» V: a . m. V s V w . inflatfifiyimw . . V. 2 5%. .V. .L... %ML%.:3§.%§.33 .. . . . .V . V V ‘1' . .y... is «fir?» a. Vi». aging... .. . z. hum... um. ; ,3 Mahkufiufi: . an . 1% . .V v. I i "‘ r vi :9 I fit 1? R V 3% w . :2. 9 . . V. .1 . . .35.... ha“? .. . . ”142;. $1: . V I. V. .QWMMWEW u..." Wuéwfiumsm. ‘ .. ‘ kt ‘ h . t... A n R. f. v r RF. I (I Pvt. buy}: at .V. F: I LR “in? 11!». 1 r cl 5 v , . uN Q 04?. #vi y L ‘ 6| ¢ doi:3VlN6 5 0‘4 .rnnnVUOVt § «”1; a... 13:4..«33... V . v «.54 . .. .64 234.; s . .kmfi. z. 1.3 anaértfz: . t; 1:. 2.... i. . fl 2. £71; . uh. . V- i. into... » {thmfln .. Sgrizl OI 2 9 I g I a M. . 0 V a h . 3.14.. .3. .a. «fiznvxfi Rum . V . a. . {he}; , tit 3312i: .. in flfiwggria as». :52. a. :fiu...» :x ,..uibtz§rpz:tlu..§.t.t.»fiw«.§..v. .1323: . 1 1“. raven. qtmovEtOrfififi‘xnIherfluNWgw fidflrtvfihogr‘fefiv “case-m1 V van-WW!!! by. “NO. fi (a! $3 “Nu”, Vi:flulchnitnhg {in ”50-1..“ . y r I}; I V t’Mv 11 333.1. 9"!th $.39 41.. .v {'9 Orgy... , ~ V 1 . p. it 3, 14: .m- . O 4?: )3. ntian dfifin .- 2.; REC»... rcfivfléftrnruvvt .znutcv ttyvtfivo'kuvnwfirn .1! VV t. . V 9 . ; if. a 5”. t1) .1. v23". 1:1!!! I 11'. VII-10%.! l... a... 1‘ 1090‘. p 5. ti 4 01 v f. 1.? bfix'ltb‘ if. :50... ¢ I1; .. I.“ '1! a p :5er .3...’ fivflur fl} n. V .10 ’3‘: . I- . Abb:téck.bpa in; it" 1%. a . .. uwfiummwfl .3. VN134.m~.%m%.memvwm%m.¢ufi .nmmn...» L33». I... t Zfiw§ 54¢..hsdduwmflz .41th be? ,9..rt.wi§.f:u.v~§ai.3. 4 .. . .29.?“ V . , . V , , 5 it . V . V . I . . £1- 1 In r201 :rLe tit-yr .. I 1-. r1 ~r to. fVO 1: . are-II: :5 4.... hi: $5 , o i ‘ 3.... L): 4 . . a .4. FfimmuwaanthdE¥¢uw§.. 2.4. .33. 9.... En -p . v 3% .9350... x :. ,V z 81? . t. 1.. Err}. V 7. a V Ezfin .. It . r 9...}: rawx#2r,§..v:ivtdov4 r .. v A}... x e 1. .. 1 5% e... sift... . mm Marie... 1% ch: finfiwtquQfimVfifimflkhfihflqu-n: 1R Hum-mum? “WNW; v¢VVvv.v.%.£tbr o v. . + q 09.42. V a I It to 3r K 958 1.. Ki; . .. at!“ V 2. art... 15.1.9 11: :1 1.. DH: .1 33.1.5? I! i!!! v :1 {4045‘ tin-Hi?“ 13.1»... o, t. 5 V.. sun. to u 3 , . .113)? .V. .nrfiammairufi. nm??§anL:lB.....mv; 53.4%.Txu..#nm._us.mt.~. Wan... u 3m 1&1): 34523.94? . : , 1 Pin .3 . V .3..:2.....2!;.. inamfiétrfiz . ...£...V.v..7.§3...€.. 1% . 133... 3. c a? by» b... x. V. V .1 In. 5 flag... 1 .. .1 I max} .u $7: . vyftttrt ,vvuwm. Li. 1O!V!.K...2VI vafihtv!) .- I I 3.x... ta 7.. 1 )1 . _ .. J): V a... 5. .53, it. . .. th‘xf. . $3.... auzawivnnwwvfifm .fimwnna3nifigfimwnp. $7ng68... 9...... £3.24... 1...: . .V. . nmxuhfiauwuuhv . . , 9g. u . humus...» .u..tt 3331.29.Trititd;.uttfii..hazu§hnam : '4. Bid 10.7! uh: it {1 P170 '1'- “. 7.. :0 in V I I? .. I N t r: . ~. V V 3.0431 a ’1 Sing to A L... Q1; 1555.. 5 zfiwwficakéfififimwmfixanfiwmfifizfiQQPV$VHK§§J “ii :1? V 3.. 1303.53.25 V ,2. V .V p. x L... :...tx..§hz. a. VIVEVVeruVVVth. 1 t I it! :3. ti. v 07.57:) 3.?! avvvlv v I r? 00.. v v «Q.- It) 0 1a“)?! 5113...... , v ,_ 4. ‘ t3 . 3A.. 8 V.~5n....£»V [VI . .. €s§§hfiu§ .2..~rnwn$.lz.§.~ $.3331Lb0 2.. 3.. «wins. :mu V. Hymns. 2. a V. 1.»... _: 53.9.. : thatvat .. . 3‘ :fl 0 .15?! .71.. Irvttfoorvoovrvvvvo 1'33...) '0 t6: 1...! O . V X. a... r 1 2‘1.»- 40. s m b A .. Altman. in. .114 . valafifizavti .517!!!“ ivVOvtivlei‘? 9 .1 0.5.. that. 215 v v . b\).¢.. Wig )\ _ )\ 7‘3 3 :1 30.1 .1? £5.99 1.70.3.0 1V! .. '79 211::z1ritvfulr .3515... ..v 7.33321: a zg‘vvx $195 . . 2.3}. \I §3x§ ““1523. . A Z .1“.- . efiéfigfiafi»¥3fiwfif ...ufi$sn3.nus. Vfitififinunknfimaiinbe9§9 . 8,3,. .. 2%... 3.. :5. V? V 5 .3. “it... 3.... V.» wing. £3.31, rfiv 5...».anufimufi3-amnfifiavfinufi. fivQ§ufifv$ #33“: 3...... . 1.3.1. «.13 o 3%.. I 5191. ”(R‘sghfhisz. .3594 H. V .89.“... MW. . . auntikbsuwvt a la.- V’? I: '1: ill? 10ft?! 71A. "viii. Q1113. rib-roV C 3‘!) gt. 1:1 . 3V1»! #1165». V. {A A; Z. 9:955...“ italics...) if: ‘r 1%" Orr! tap!- tvrval 33 V 2 . . $13531; big)... g. 33‘ M ‘03.). \r ha V 09.3.0 . 2. z... 13%.. 37.:hewvgim33bu .63.?!th let, ow: .. 1 y. . . 3113 .3250 .h. .3 a V V .3? A .3. «iaiverdfluufiiar: 1 19:91:? .1... 1:1... :lov r!) v!!! v u 1 E19. . . k l ‘2‘ x V . . _ S‘s-r17? r fi:’hfl.l~l|¢i‘~yrhvuf3l rolO-I‘tttrl!’ .t a T II: I!!! IV! , t . , 3 a! 5 5314\1. 5553'” 3517‘ £:;1vvtiu v#xr.¢vl1:r"attvtvotw 1 Elfixv I 71...... .. vi. 1 o . . . S ’0‘ E. g. I‘ .3551); ‘32. V . ....... V... at»; z... . e V «VLF. 33 .m! V, 2&3! g 133....» x 2... a 33 a bah; a. \ #59:;$unb.umnmzmmshu.wrrumflwfiafiubudmunnhhvkmmnvt .3.%:l~. ..,.vh.vfi.mvz.sk.fltyr :. V. V «A V. .V 3531 .Vrl..‘1..tL.U.T?to\Vlrv:.lv9ii .. garrrxav:v?§§}’v‘~§3 1‘ t V fc$gzl a... .V $.51 .«fibflmrinebwnanmwwwwm.aha.wn.n¥...flq..z.frt.ifv..ur$.ndtt3$i 3%....quzluutvhiwt .2“ 1 k V 2 . ' Iv .Icsc 0 but"; u i , 71tliv.‘;rxvvufl?r:v:livlt )’ c)!!! It; I’ I £331... v IOD’O!!! . . V V i1.3....u...,33N33nul.n.uuripfi€?4hnh.. 3 .wnbiihtfa....§ia 115.13? 33g? 3. sag $535. .... waswwflvaai Rowan inn?!” ..z§9r£;$3€133§13afvuvz ihgyhtwflfitéli 1...; V ‘ in 5 I'll nwghnnfel‘flv rvvflvra ”07%) ?V.. r :vacItVfg‘kvwnflyWi uukrgz’filvb V” I .1. I l r I 19?... . a... .71 V32. 23. . Pl: nfifl.3muhwaahztg t. o 111111 . . A h. V»... L .V f V 9 l. .thhmxx4it tram“. i3 t 3115.. Vtflh}.§s!n~n .. 3:33;...23239. 3.. 3:3..31. #1... 37:32.3 V V V .. . vlanhunu... H . . .. 33.53.39 ...;!V.S!§p!133 {IO-At; . . . I V. V. VI V . V t V V . Ian»: 33 \\\\\ n. .gifluQNUthn. K3,}... Ithstrrxfliuuw)” . V 1.! {tiff L 3.. 3.1.... - -31313V3 3913.2.b4m1mmmwwhtsbfit. 3...qu V V3335}..- V .V a £3 f I1! E‘- V... I V .3723. 32;... 1.1; V. 3... T 33.1232.,ztlh..3‘£xs+rxfufidtfi . V ;: 3.. Vic: 5.53 . 1.1.! V .1: E It; (3.: V .333...‘ 33.31.19.333 7.3.» .13.... . . V #93:?! bflfipgulpfiéfl VfLshnHMx :2 ~ bilgiafvt!h.§g£¥.lll fi§§h tr .8. V ‘0 930130.. f! JLVquHUV. \SiflflltiAfl‘xtl .523 a, 1.3!. .3 {3? .V . ~ 2:... . V V VV .. rt. 32. 3:... pg)». :3. it)? {as}: Ir! :3». {£6 .5 . . 3...... EV ‘lelibbfi‘qfl... 3%..»“kflv333gugl3fig3t .V I V V 3251:3332 1...... . 333% .V 25.. #414,...”3; V In; . {3.13333 3 llll Il— l P’ V V ill I; t. V L. 7.0.13.1!!! rtbflflszu'g. V 13.. , V. .V V . g:vlbfivoz§fu .a V x .V p .V. , 1&3! V V . . . . V . . n .E V 4 ~ g.” V3323 .- . 0.?{l‘z .f. 1 $1.13.?! 9.3V x I333Lrflut . Vituflhunlbkrrric it. atyintnansd 83f thlél‘if‘t r33tu! gfipfitfifrg3fiqfih ibis-5E; ‘?.I1tt3st k \ 34.7‘; AA {393: i... .13..“ L31: tun... Hr3itiutrf3tt . x 33%;». L. .13: 1! 9.1.23... 3.3333333 It? 23...... t .2313... V}, f (L A.“ t Ir! Lllttl L I V .7...» 53th.. 3.6.. V. s 239......ueu723503; 33-.-..23.2-ti.$t .er it if, A \v‘fil‘f’ll 31-x“... L333§uaiittt+tzfii {V31 3.! V if it»... lit. _ A V #an3331 t. V .. .._ \ V \x. 3; flit-ASL; V . K3,.EIIELI3V33. I , ‘ V V {bizfilzL-‘z Lita » £31,319}... -. . f. fictrlx! V . .‘I (‘1 NEAT... («WVkLUILJS \ . . t’Trlfsw. A\l (I A: V If I‘. 3.4,}. 3. .L... ll 3.: V g}: f 5i‘ggifgt V . \«LRIKLV \xnvAII if? V V .391. . 333315353}... 3!: . J...) 35:. ultt.‘\;.2.r..il.t1\~\zx .V n . I sift! 3.13.51 rs. .7... Run... 2?... 1.. 5|... . .72 .. . . .. §§!A\§ \JLI... s 53.2.1593 .« V . n .El‘sf.3inf§l . 1 ,1 33.4.: VV . a (I! . V . .V , 3””ng .653! vs , . . 8.. . (353- 53“ V V . .. A ; i<3t23t|3357 3| sh! '5... .VIE..n‘..§\?L4L.. .. 35:32.5...z33i33 .lt 3.3.33 V finitlt- .L‘qutntall I . V V )3. fit 3 l5 VV.V V . . I . V , 433343-th[3‘33;KFL£L.3:31245.35134.2‘12. Lllilxt’rvt’tltttltb 3tl« . V. V n V3333tnag3t~33331i3 3.....L(3L3:Lt3x.i|i-.t3lhfl«3stkkh3§i.t .,V V. . V. V. lvu‘l .EEKL’: 31lu3‘bttVV3lflL‘ttLfivln{L\3|).III|VI‘NA \fizrllttx. 3:31. fix): . V . V V .V . . . I )5! L-4\L>X§Alldf~3lk‘ 3.21; flfiri. 0:73. V .L‘ :33 ~x33xL VAxLL\‘l£3lofol\LL3-11(l3‘r. 3-3L .s. . . LI. . V 3 ..... 3.2.1.3.: .31. (3.2.3. 3. Girl; ll. .33.. .3! in; .LVVttrtitelVlX‘3331333Z V.... ..V. V V |.V.L(.l£32.(liry y 5. V In}: «t . 34L\lV E|\ALL.~lLLLLLH )395..? If; F‘llrflt\(l..\$krl..3t .133: V . 42511): Q V . . «1...? 53391;). -frrizxx‘tV thuVVttrryrriltliuC ZV§ZIEE$EIVI3153333IV V V V 3{tiaxéfixvzitccliit {itirtlgzgllifr I335: . .. V. . L; (CF.353.3333Ik333V.Lniiloxlt3rix347:\. V.V .,. . V V . 3 . . V3VV.VV.L..V.?.\3(\(3L3lsV333§VE§3£EV kn). . . .3. {($13}. r3313tcrifln3rty 133?? V .a V VV.3...333:T»»3;.£ rgstthLVVinV V...V .. V 131.41.333.49???) «33:93:...» V . V This is to certify that the _ thesis entitled Effects of Perceived Env1ronmental Support on the Self—reported Cognitive and Behavioral Adaptation Strategies of Black and White Undergraduates. presented by J oycelyn Landrum has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Masters degree in Clinical Psychology _7 Major professor Date November , 1981 O»7 B39 ,,_.,_ OVERDUE FINES: Siézf‘ 25¢ per day per item (I J._, ‘ .‘-\. ‘ g : v \ ' " :7? 3-.) f ‘ "1 ’ r- l ' I\ ' {N g ""3- ' ' A? w ‘ "11'le 1 (ul' ' 1 f "V ‘ . \ " r a 334‘ . '. . p ; '- , RETURNING LIBRARY MATERIALS: Place in book return to remove charge from circulation records 7 n © 1981 JOYCELYN LANDRUM All Rights Reserved EFFECTS OF PERCEIVED ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPORT ON THE SELFFREPORTED COGNITIVE AND BEHAVIORAL ADAPTATION STRATEGIES OF BLACK AND WHITE UNDERGRADUATES BY Joycelyn Landrum A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1981 soc: the thrl env: SUP] The col (BW The Ce it the as ; exp; and 00m r60 ABSTRACT EFFECTS OF PERCEIVED ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPORT ON THE SELF-REPORTED COGNITIVE AND BEHAVIORAL ADAPTATION STRATEGIES OF BLACK AND WHITE UNDERGRADUATES BY Joycelyn Landrum The premise of this research was that the perceived social environment in which individual's interact affects the adaptation strategies they use. The study involved three groups of subjects who volunteered to complete an environment adaptation questionnaire assessing perceived support and various cognitive and behavioral strategies. The groups were: blacks attending two southern black colleges (BB), blacks attending a northern white university (BW), and whites attending a northern white university (WW). The results revealed the following: (1) the BW group per- ceived their environment to be less supportive than both the BB and WW groups; (2) the BW group perceived themselves as functioning less effectively than the BB group by expressing lower dominance and higher deference attitudes; and (3) the BB group expressed significantly higher social consciousness attitudes than the WW group. The implications of the findings are discussed and recommendations are made for further research. DEDICATION To God, Allah, Jah (by any other name) from whom all wisdom, knowledge, understanding, inspiration and blessings flow. To my family, aunts, uncles, cousins, friends and especially my mother who provided the support and encour— agement to help make this work possible. For Andre, Ashanti, Aisha and all the young brothers and sisters who must continue the struggle. For my brothers and sisters in East Lansing, Skinner, C. J., Carl, Kitty and Fareedah who provided me with an extended family and a support system in this "wasteland of consciousness." For Naeemah Hasan, who provided me with a positive direction. To my peOple who provided me with a purpose and direction in our struggle for liberation from psycho- logical oppression. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank the members of my committee, Dr. Dozier Thornton, Dr. Ralph Levine and Dr. Bertram Karon for their guidance, direction and support in the prepara- tion of this research. Thanks are also expressed to the American Psychologi- cal Association Minority Fellowship Program, Michigan State University Psychology Department and to Dr. Oran Eagleson, Spelman College Psychology Department and Dr. Madeline Chennault, Morehouse College Psychology Department, who provided the opportunity and financial support necessary to complete this project. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES . . . . . vi LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . viii INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Environmental Influences . . . . . . 1 Cultural Processes . . . 4 Efficacy Expectations . . . . . . 8 Locus of Control . . . . lO Majority— Minority Group Dynamics . . . 20 Racial Attitudes . . . . . . . . 26 Understanding Racism . . . . 27 Racism as a Threat and Stressor . . . 31 Stress . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Appraisal . . . . . . . . 34 Adjustment Mechanisms . . . 35 Support Systems as Stress Modifiers . . 38 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . 41 METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Instruments . . . . . . . 44 Background Information . . . . . . 44 Values . . 44 Self— —Descriptive Adjective Checklist . 45 Stress Management Scales . . 46 Cognitive Processes . . . . . . . 46 Locus of Control . . . . . . . . 47 Social Consciousness . . . . . 49 Environmental Support . . . . . . 49 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . 50 RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Population Description . . . . . 53 Scale and Subscale Description . . . . 59 iv Page Group Differences on the Scales and Subscales . . . . . . . . 63 Discriminant Analysis . . 74 Demographic Variables, Effects and Rela— tionships to the Scales and Subscales . 81 Intercorrelations Between the Scales and Subscales . . . . . . . 83 Response Differences to the Social Consciousness Items . . . . . . 85 Response Differences to the Environmental Support Items . . . . . . . . 86 Response Differences to the Terminal Values Scale Items . . . . . . . 88 Response Differences to the Instrumental Values Itesm . . . . . . . 88 Response Differences to the Locus of Con— trol—God Items . . . . . . . . 89 DISCUSSION . . . . . . 9O Hypotheses . . . . . 90 Methodological Considerations . 92 General Findings and Comparison with the Research Literature . . . . . . 95 Environmental Support . . . . 95 Cognitive and Behavioral Strategies . 97 Speculations on Possible Implications for Black Americans . . . 101 Implications for Further Research . . 109 APPENDICES . . . . . 116 REFERENCES . . . . . . . 175 LIST OF TABLES able Page 1. Demographic Characteristics of Subjects . 54 2. Description of Scales and Subscales . . 60 3. Number of Items, Means, Standard Devia- tions, and Alpha Coefficients of Relia— bility for the Scales and Subscales . . 65 4. Predicted Group Membership from the Sub— scale Variables . . . . . . . . . 77 5. Wilks Lambda Significance Table . . . 78 6. Discriminant Function Coefficients . . 80 A.l Analysis of Variance between Blacks and Whites on Specified Demographic Variables . . . . . . . . . . . 118 3.1 Items which Constitute the Racial Con— sciousness Subscale . . . . . . . 120 B.2 Intercorrelations among the Racial Con— sciousness . . . . . . . . . . 121 B.3 Items which Constitute the Racial Tol— erance Subscale and Intercorrelation Table . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 C.l Analysis of Variance between the Scales Subscales, and Race Significant Demo— graphic Variables . . . . . . . . 124 D.1 Correlations between Scales and Subscales and Demographic Variables for the WW Group . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 D.2 Correlations between Scales and Subscales and Demographic Variables for the BB Group . . . . . . . . . . . 132 vi Table Page D.3 Correlations between Scales and Subscales and Demographic Variables for the BB Group . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 E.l Intercorrelations Among Scales and Sub- scales for the WW Group . . . . . . 135 B.2 Intercorrelations Among Scales and Sub- scales for the BB Group . . . . . . 136 E.3 Intercorrelations Among Scales and Sub- scales for the BW Group . . . . . . 137 F.1 Group Mean Response Differences on the Social Consciousness Items . . . . . 139 F.2 Group Mean Response Differences on the Environmental Support Scale Items . . . 141 F.3 Group Mean Item Responses to the Terminal Values Scale . . . . . . . . . . 144 F.4 Group Mean Item ReSponses to the Instru— mental Values Scale . . . . . . . . 145 F.5 Group Mean Item Responses to the Locus of Control—God Subscale . . . . . . . 146 G.l Subscale Item Designations . . . . . 148 Vii LIST OF APPENDICES ppendix A. Analysis of Variance between Blacks and Whites on Specified Demographic Vari— ables . . . Cluster Analysis of Social Consciousness Scale . . . . Analysis of Variance between the Scales, Subscales, and Race Significant Demo— graphic Variables . . . . . . . Correlations between Scales and Sub- scales and Demographic Variables for Each Group . . . . . . . . . . Intercorrelations Among Scales and Sub— scales for Each Group . . . . . . Group Mean Response Differences to Indi— vidual Scale Items . . Environment Adaptation Questionnaire 0 Departmental Research Consent Form Volunteer Registration Form . viii Page 147 119 123 130 134 138 147 171 173 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study was to explore some of the -fferences in the perceptual realities of black and white idergraduate students and how these differences may Efect their adaptive strategies. It appears that comparing black and white students 1 different environmental settings might shed some light 1 the influences that environmental factors have on ieir cognitive and behavioral adaptation strategies. In order to understand how and why blacks perceive iemselves as they do, it is necessary to examine both the vironmental and personality (cognitive) factors which fluence the response modes (behaviors) individuals opt. More specifically, there is a need to assess how rceived environmental support may influence one's self- rceptions and self-reported cognitive and behavioral rategies. Environmental Influences Any assessment of an individual's or a group's psy— logical functioning must take into consideration the eraction of environmental, cognitive and behavioral tors. Bandura (1978) proposed that psychological function- ing involves a continuous reciprocal interaction between behavioral, cognitive and environmental influences. Therefore, an individual's responses are a result of the interdependent cognitive, behavioral and environmental influences which function as external and internal stimuli for that individual. As a result, the way individuals perceive their environment and the consequences of their actions tend to affect the cognitive and behavioral strategies that they use to adapt to their situation. As far as environmental factors are concerned, the perceived social climate within which individuals function has an important impact on their attitudes, behaviors, general health and overall sense of well-being. Different environments may require different adaptive approaches and those individuals socialized in one environmental setting may come to internalize very specific adaptive responses which may not be as effective in another setting. oos (1973a) indicated that different environments may acilitate different preparatory activities for coping in ew environments, and therefore, different cultural and ocial groups may obtain differential preparation for nvironmental adaptations. This appears to support the dea that different groups are socialized to attend to ifferent environmental cues and to respond differently 5 well. 1.1 -jgiw" When considering the psychological functioning of college undergraduates, it seems important to understand the perceptions of the university social climate for dif— ferent subgroups within the university setting. It would seem likely that people in different groups at the same university may function under different psychological conditions and perceive the social climate differently. Pfeifer and Schneider (1974) found that dimensions of university climate appear to differ for black and white students. From this research it was suggested that blacks and whites attend to different cues available in the envir- onment to structure their perceptions of the world around them. It becomes apparent that as a result of their differ— ent environmental experiences, in addition to having dif— ferent adaptive responses, some groups may have different perceptual realities. One's perceptual reality or world iew involves all of the beliefs and values that compose n individual's idea of the structure of the world and ne‘s relationship to it and to other individuals. Jack- on (1975) reported that world views are highly correlated ith a person's cultural upbringing and life experiences. World views tend to affect the way one thinks and cts by defining and categorizing events in a particular ay. In addition to one's racial or cultural heritage, :her socio—cultural factors such as socioeconomic class, aligion, and sex all influence one's world View. Researchers have suggested that the many ecological id cultural factors within the environmental field Eeate differences in the perceptual realities of differ— it groups (Triandis, 1964; Segall, Campbell & Herskovite, 964; Gilman, 1978; Berry, 1969, 1971, 1979). These tudies further support the idea that different environ— ental and cultural factors provide significant altera- ions to the perceptual processes. This information helps to explain many of the con— 1icts in American society, where many different ethnic, acial and cultural groups live together. Therefore, ny of the conflicts between different groups may be a rect consequence of contact between groups of indi— duals who have been socialized to different versions of at is truly valuable and important in the world. Cultural Processes In order to ascertain what the perceptual differences ween different groups are, it is necessary to under- nd the general environmental influences. A basic component of the environment is the cultural ieu. Levine (1973) described culture as a set of organ- d rules that provide standards for the ways members a population should think, communicate and interact with one another and their environment. In many respects, one's world view is a reflection of the culture in which one was socialized. This encompases many aspects of life because a society's culture takes the form of the lan- guage, customs, knowledge, symbols, ideas and value sys— tems which provide the members of a society with a general iesign for living and interpreting reality. The cultural milieu is maintained byaisocialization >rocess which is achieved through four major areas: 1) the family, (2) peers, (3) schools, and (4) mass media. rimarily, the educational system in America has always unctioned to maintain the status quo, by socializing the tudents into the structure of the society as it exists. he society's culture becomes internalized through the elief and symbol systems of these institutions. In idition, one's culture is internalized through psycho— )gical identification with the groups to which individual's along or the groups to which they want to belong (Eitzen, |74). In general, a culture is internalized by providing an dividual with an identity that reflects the major liefs, attitudes, mores and values of that culture. erefore, these social patterns established through the tural system are not merely accepted or externally ctioned, but they become incorporated into the moti— ional systems of individuals through internalization. Internalization involves the incorporation of attitudes, standards of conduct or opinions of another individual or a group. In providing the beliefs, attitudes, mores and values, the culture controls one's thoughts and perceptions by limiting the range of acceptable behaviors and attitudes. In this way, the culture provides a knowledge structure or common perceptual reality that categorizes and evalu- ates attitudes and behaviors according to the degree of acceptability or non—acceptability. Since the familial institution is the initial socializing agent within a culture, the earliest and most durable source for socialization into the dominant culture resides here. The family is primarily responsible for personality development, identity formation and status assignment (Smith, Burlew, Mosely & Whitney, 1978). Identity is the distinguishing character or person— ality of an individual. One's sense of identity is a distinct feeling of self which is acquired though the developmental stages as the individual interacts within the environment and with others in the environment. “The term identity points to an individual's link with the inique history of his people, and also relates to the :ornerstone of the individual's unique development"(Erik- :on, 1969, p. 102). In order for a positive identity to emerge, an individual must receive some reinforcement and acceptance for the unique characteristics that they possess. This may be particularly hard for minority group members vho differ distinctly from the acceptable characteris- tics presented by the dominant group. since the family is initially responsible for identity ievelopment, an individual's basic values, beliefs, and attitudes are learned within the family. "By encourag- -ng independence, challenge seeking and delay of gratifi— :ation through exhortation, modeling or selective rein— ?orcement, the parent not only establishes appropriate abit patterns, but most importantly, creates affective esponses which cause the person to approach or avoid chievement situations" (Maehr, 1977, p. 82). Through direct and observational learning within the 1mily, individuals acquire information about the world 1d their relationship to it, and this learning is influ— ced by the cultural beliefs held. In addition to direct arning experiences, vicarious and symbolic learning oeriences gained through the observation of social models re been found to substantially influence learning .ndura, 1978). From their learning experiences within their environ— tal milieus individual's gain a sense of identity char— :rized by efficacy expectations. Efficacy Expectations Bandura (1977) described efficacy expectations as the conviction that one can successfully execute the behavior required to produce the outcomes and the out— come expectancies as the estimate that a given behavior will lead to certain outcomes. Bandura differentated the two expectations in that individual's may believe :hat a particular course of action will result in certain >utcomes; however, they may question whether they can >erform these actions or vice versa. Bandura further :xplained that expectations of personal efficacy may stem rom four main sources of information: (1) performance ccomplishments; (2) vicarious experiences; (3) verbal ersuasion, and (4) emotional arousal. Since perceived self—efficacy expectations affect 1e persistence of one's coping efforts and the amount of Lergy that one will expend in the face of obstacles and ‘ersive situations, it becomes an important variable to sess_when considering an individual's adaptive responses one's environment. Coyne and Lazarus (1980) suggested it a firm sense of self-efficacy can lead an individual appraise situations as irrelevant that would otherwise threatening. On the other hand, a low self-efficacy actation may influence one to perceive a situation as eatening when it would not otherwise be. Any assessment of personal adequacy involves a self— assessment process. If self—awareness is to lead toward effective coping, it should involve an assessment of one's competencies and incompetencies as well as an awareness of one's values and needs and an objective monitoring of one's reactions to situational factors which appear to block one's opportunities for development. Competence refers to the objective evaluation of one's skill and incentive level in relation to the require- ments of the task to be met. The competency traits cited by Smith (1969a) are also those generally ascribed to psy— chological health: self—confidence; self—esteem; assertive- ness; self-reliance; self-control; buoyance; affilativeness; realistic openness to experiences; initiative; feelings of control over one's destiny; reality—orientation; con— trol over impulses; identity clarity; persistence in the face of failure; determination; and problem-solving attitudes. Self-awareness and self—efficacy tend to be impor— :ant factors when considering the effects of COping 'esponses. Bandura et a1. (1977), indicated that treat— ents that improve one's performance level, such as those imed at reducing physiological arousal, are effective ecause they tend to raise one's expectations of personal 'ficacy. In the same way, any mastery experience may 10 increase the tendency to cope with, rather than defend against or avoid, the threat in stressful situations. The authors further suggested that individuals who per— severe in subjectively threatening activities will, as a esult, gain corrective experiences that tend to rein- orce their sense of personal efficacy, whereas those ho terminate their COping efforts prematurely will main— ain their low self—efficacy expectations. Locus of Control It appears that the individuals who perceive that Fey can succeed by striving toward certain goals are more ikely to continue attempting to master those tasks ecessary for goal attainment. The individual who per— aives that failure is certain will tend to be less com- .tted to goal attainment. The dimensions of locus of control are important to understanding of the reactions to success or failure d changes in the perceived probability of success for ture outcomes. An outcome is considered controllable 1y if that individual's voluntary activity can change a probability that the outcome will occur. Individuals experience the feeling of personal con— 1 when it is them, rather than other people, luck, God, fate, that determines whether desired outcomes will be ained. Expectancies of control are primary to high T—*—“ 11 self—efficacy expectations and as a result, the desire for control is generally very high, particularly in societies where internal control is highly valued. Lan— ger's (1975) work suggests that even in cases where individual's "know" that the contingencies are primarily controlled by chance, there is still a strong tendency to view them as individually controllable. The orientations toward external or internal con- trollability are generalized expectancies which influence one's behaviors and learning experiences across a large number of situations. Rotter (1966) first formulated the ‘concept of internal-external locus of control. Internal control refers to people's belief that reinforcements are contingent upon their own actions and they can shape their own destiny. External control refers to people's belief that reinforcing events occur independently of their actions and that the future is determined more by outside forces. Lefcourt (1966) and Rotter (1966; 1975) have summar- zed the research findings which show correlations of high (1) greater attempts at mastering the (3) nternality with: nvironment; (2) lower predispositions to anxiety; Lgher achievement motivation; (4) greater social action Ivolvement; and (5) placing greater value on skill— etermined rewards. 12 Early research on generalized expectancies of locus of control suggests that ethnic and racial group members (Levenson, 1974; Garcia & Levenson, 1975) and lower socio— economic class members (Lefcourt, 1966) score signifi- cantly higher on the external end of the continuum. Garcia and Levenson (1975) found that their black students who came from a predominately black college had higher expectations of control by powerful others and chance than did white. Non—reinforcement, indiscriminant and non—contingent reinforcement may result in exaggerated feelings of help— :lessness or an extremely external locus of control in members of lower socioeconomic status and minority group members who commonly share many common experiences where there is Hdnimal reinforcement or non-contingency between the quality of effort and the outcome. Few investigators iave analyzed externality in terms of the socio—political :ealities that Black Americans face. It is apparent that focusing on external forces may be adaptive if it results rom an assessment of one's chances for success against ystematic discriminatory obstacles. Access to Opportunity for contingent responses ppears to be essential in the development of internal >cus of control in that, through one's learning expe— .ences, one gains mastery. When individuals are 13 deprived of their sense of self-determination, they are less able to learn from their experiences. Blacks, His— panics, Native Americans and other minority groups who do not enjoy as much access to opportunities as the whites are bound to hold more external control beliefs. This appears to be reflective of a situation where individuals develop little expectation that success and failure can be determined by personal efforts and, as a result, are less apt to persist in the face of failure in the pursuit of their goals. Individuals who do not control material, social, or intellectual resources are, as a result, found to believe that luck, chance, or fate control their destiny. This is similar to Mirel's (1970) suggestion that external— ity may be a function of a person's Opinions about pre— ailing social institutions. As a result of racism, )lacks may be perceiving realistically a discrepancy >etween their ability and goal attainment. One of the problems in the locus of control litera— ure is that many of the researchers have assumed that nternality is "good" and externality is “bad." This is learly based on a bias toward the American value system i.e., Protestant ethic) and does not take into considera— ion other factors that may be influencing an individual's andency toward externality. Another aspect of this problem is that an analysis of :ternality tends to refer to several different things. 14 externality includes beliefs that chance determines what happens in life, beliefs that God determines what happens in life, and beliefs that powerful others determine what happens in life. This differentiation is the primary reason for Levenson's (1974) distinction and development of the chance and powerful others subscales. A belief in chance externality is seen as the purest form in that rewards are perceived to be totally independent of one's actions. As far as the powerful others externality belief, the rewards are perceived to be independent of one's actions and they are perceived to be controlled by others. When people are placed in situations where aversive events occur unpredictably and are out of their control, the result involves feelings of helplessness, incompetence, frustration, depression, anxiety and fatigue (Miller & Norman, 1979). It appears that it is an individual's per— ception of their power to control the threatening situation rather than the actual power to control it that is impor— ant. Stotland and Blumenthal (1964) showed that indi— iduals who are made to feel that they are in control end to be less anxious than those who do not have this elief. Similarly, Glass and Singer (1972) suggested that he stress associated with an aversive event is reduced hen the event is perceived as predictable or controll— ble. 15 Minorities living in a discriminatory system may feel powerless to control or predict the circumstances in their social environment and as a result experience a form of "learned helplessness." Learned helplessness is a cognitive—behavioral state which an individual learns. Seligman (1974, 1975) suggested that when individuals are exposed to uncontrollable aversive outcomes, they learn that responding and reinforcement are independent. These individuals then show inappropriate generalization from these uncontrollable experiences to new situations which are controllable. Therefore, it appears that learned helplessness and perceived control have special implica- tions for Black Americans. Sue (1978) suggested that in its extreme form oppression may result in a form of learned helplessness. When individuals are exposed to helplessness as a result of systemic racial discrimina— tion, unemployment, poor housing and little economic or political control, they may exhibit passivity and apathy (low motivation), they may fail to learn which events may be controlled (cognitive disruption) and they may show anxiety, anger and depression (emotional disturbance). It appears that perceived control makes a great dif— ference with respect to behavioral responses made to aversive stimulation. In that behavioral responses are shaped by perceptions of external and internal stimuli, 16 the perception of control would seem to be a major influ— ence on the responses to aversive events. In addition to the familial influences on self- efficacy and locus of control expectancies other forces also influence individual's identity development. However, those initial world views and beliefs passed along to the children from the family and the mass media have addi- tional influence on the effects of other socialization forces (i.e., peers, schools) that will be encountered later in life. One major system that is passed on to the children through the socialization process is the dominant society's values. This system is essential to the socialization process in that the values structure provides the evalua— tive framework on which decisions are based. The values of a culture are important in that they determine what is defined as preferable or unpreferable by the social system. These values are passed on to individuals through the socialization process. “Values are acquired so early in the socialization process—~in the family, in the school, in the community-—that for most peOple they are largely unconscious assumptions, govern- ing action much more than it is governed by consciously refessed creeds" (Marden & Meyer, 1968, p. 20). Value orientations are an integral part of the cul— ural system, in that they provide definitely patterned 17 principles which give order and direction for the indi— viduals within a given society. Rokeach (1979) described value systems as organized sets of perferential standards used to select objects and actions, resolve conflicts, invoke social sanctions and cope with needs to defend choices made or proposed. Rokeach (1973) further reported that values are considered as standards when they lead one to take a particular position on social or personal issues, when they predispose preference for a particular ideology, when they act as a guide for one's self— representation to others and when they are used to evaluate and judge. Any existing social system maintains its social rder through the dominance of its particular value system. In this sense, values are important to understand not only ecause they motivate and govern behavior but because they elp maintain the society's social order. In that the socialization process depends upon the nternalization of a society's norms, values and world iew, there are degrees of socialization depending on ow much of the society's cultural views are actually nternalized. Feather (1979) outlined three main criteria hat gauge the degree of assimilation into the host ociety: (1) acculturation (i.e., leaned roles, norms, d customs); (2) personal adjustment (i.e., low rates 18 of mental illness, crime, suicide); (3) institutional dispersion (i.e., degree of assimilation into institutions). These three criteria are outward indications of the degree of socialization and assimilation of minority group mem- bers into the dominant cultural system. The more accul— turated individuals are, the more likely they will be better adjusted and their chances for advancement within the institutional system will be increased. A major factor is the degree of assimilation desired by the individuals who are being acculturated. “Assimila— tion expects for individuals at all class levels to become part of the dominant society" (Marden & Meyer, 1968, p. 39). One may assimilate into the society to differing degrees by adopting the lifestyle as far as onsumption behaviors, dress, social roles, values, beliefs and speech, while at the same time continuing to identify with one's own particular racial or ethnic group Caditz, 1976). The issue of socialization for minority group members .5 primarily one of degree of acculturation. "Accultura- ion is one of the sustaining processes whereby minorities re incorporated into the dominant culture" (Marden & eyer, 1968). In this sense, the term refers to a change om one's primary cultural or subcultural belief system that of the majority group's cultural belief system. 19 The acculturation process takes place on two levels—— external and internal. External acculturation is pri— marily behavioral, in which the everyday language, dress and social roles of the dominant culture are accepted, while key attitudes and behaviors in the private life remain in common with those of the minority group. In this way, the individual is leading a double lifestyle, where publically there is conformity with the society's standards, but privately the individual continues to conform with the attitudes and behaviors of the minority subculture. On the other hand, internal acculturation occurs when the cultural attitudes, belief systems and values of the dominant culture have been internalized. Given the ethnocentric nature of most societies, there is always pressure for acculturation. This is particu- larly true in that some degree of common reality and beliefs are essential for any economic or social advance— ment within the society. Through acculturation, indi- viduals are provided with a common reality, which provides the society with a means of predicting and controlling heir behaviors. The degree of acculturation is influenced by how uccessful the society's institutions are able to socialize ndividuals to the dominant group's value system and orld View. For minorities, the degree of socialization 20 will initially depend on how acculturated the parents and other significant family members are. What the parents consider desirable and important in life will determine the qualities that they will teach their children. Majority-Minority Group Dynamics The dominant group in a society is one whose appear- ance and ways of behaving are considered to be the normal one's of the society (Marden & Meyer, 1968). Therefore, the dominant group's culture and physical traits are established as superior and other groups with different cultures or physical traits are discriminated against. A minority group is the subordinate group which has different physical or cultural traits held in low esteem by the dominant group (Marden & Meyer, 1968). Marden and Meyer further indicated that minority status is an imposed one and is valid only as long as the dominant group main— tains the power and has the opportunity to sustain it. The attitudes of dominant group members toward minor- 'ty group members are bound up with a system of values hich devalues certain physical and cultural traits and hese values are established through the socialization rocess. There are two conditions for the establishment of ominance. The first is a differentiation between the roups thatlnakeseach group identifiable to the others 21 and the second condition consists of an unequal power situation (Marden & Meyer, 1968). The establishment of dominance occurs when one group succeeds in imposing its values and institutions as the norm, with inferior label— ing being sanctioned for those who adhere to different norms. There is much potential for conflict in majority— minority group relations because the minority groups share of the power, authority, opportunities and resources are unjustifiably limited. A conflict arises between the majority and minority groups not only from unequal treat— ment, but because of the basic group differences that are exaggerated by discriminatory practices. When the minority group finds itself in conflict with the major culture because its values are divergent and because it resists the acceptance of the roles assigned to it, then the minority group has to accept the responsibility for effect— ing a change to accommodate the circumstances (Mosby, 1972, p. 122). When considering the unequal distribution of power, everal factors must be taken into consideration. Power 's the ability to control or influence directly or 'ndirectly the conditions under which one lives. To have ower is to have access to the resources which can be mployed to reduce one's feeling of uncontrollability or 0 increase one's sense of control. Rothman (1978) escribed the resource bases of social power as: 22 (1) economic (i.e., property, money, credit, wages); (2) occupational (i.e., jobs, promotions); (3) informa- tional (i.e., knowledge, specific and general informa— tion); and (4) coercive (i.e., physical force). Rothman (1978) further suggested that the degree to which minority group members are dependent on the majority group is related to the availability of substitute commodities. The patterns of actions and attitudes related to the distribution of resources in American society are based on the doctrine of white supremacy and the protestant ethic. Marden and Meyer (1968) reported that these actions and attitudes are sustaining processes and they also ensure the restriction of people with other patterns of ‘action or with different attitudes from full participation in the power and economic opportunities of that society. As a result, Black Americans live under circumstances where they are prohibited from participating freely in the culture of the larger society and at the same time are denied the right to practice and re-develop their own cultural patterns. It appears that what has been established in America is a system of institutionalized inequality. Rothman (1978) suggested that the term "inequality" implies the neven distribution of a resource. Structural inequality efers to situations in which resources are allocated on 23 the basis of group membership or position in the social organization of a society. As a result of the inequality and opportunity restrictions, individuals or groups may not be able to make the advances within the society that would enable them to become self—determining or self— sustaining. Within the majority-minority group dynamics, there appears to be varying degrees of dependency relationships which are shaped by specific forms of exploitation and manifested differentially. Of primary importance to the maintenance of the subordination of a group is the need for psychological control as well as physical restrictions. This psychological control is essentially maintained through instrumental conditioning which involves the con— trol of reinforcements such as resources and opportunities. A state of conditioning is produced in that only the spe— cific behaviors and thoughts which conform to White Ameri- can standards will tend to produce reinforcements or resources (i.e., jobs, educational degrees, access to power structures). Some investigators (Blauner, 1969; Chesler, 1976) ave described the social situation in America for blacks nd other racial minorities in terms of internal colonial- 'sm. Blauner's (1969) theoretical paradigm of internal olonialism includes: (1) conquest; (2) economic 24 exploitation; (3) political control; (4) cultural geno- cide and control; and (5) a self-justifying ideology. American society continues to operate in ways that tend to perpetuate the historical injustices inflicted on blacks, so as a result the inequitable situation is main~ tained and reinforced. The self-justifying ideology is used to rationalize the situation and to restore psycho- logical equity. In addition, it appears that this self— justifying ideology will result in a distorted and unreal assessment of the situation. Researchers have investigated the ways that one can restore pyschological equity to a relationship by dis- torting reality. Studies by Berkowitz (1962); Davis and Jones (1960); Glass (1964); Katz, Glass and Cohen (1973); and Ryan (1971) revealed that harmdoers will often dero— gate their victims. In addition, Brock and Buss (1962, 1964) reported that harmdoers will consistently under— estimate how much harm they have done as well as tend to deny their responsibility for the act. Maintaining prejudicial attitudes appears to be one ay of restoring psychological equity to relationships. rejudice is a negative attitude toward a person or group ased upon a social compariSOn process in which the indi- idual‘s own group is taken as the positive point of eference (Jones, 1972). It appears that prejudice is earned through one's interaction within the sociocultural 25 environment. Marden and Meyer (1968) suggested that, through the socialization process, discrimination and prejudice toward minorities becomes the normative psy— chological and sociological behavior instead of deviant behavior. The behavioral manifestation of prejudice is discrim- ination (Jones, 1972). Discrimination may involve an overt or covert situation where the opportunities and choices open to the victimized groups are limited. In an overt situation, the discriminatory practices are openly and directly used, whereas a covert situation tends to involve more subtle and indirect means such as the legitimization of racist occupational promotion practices such as senior— ity. Discrimination is typically justified or rationalized by the development of ideologies which define the victim as fundamentally inferior or different and deserving of being treated unjustly. Nash (1962, cited in Rothman, 1978) suggested that a discriminatory ideology serves five functions: (1) it provides a moral rationale for system— atic deprivation; (2) it allows the dominant group to reconcile their values and behavior; (3) it discourages the subordinate group from challenging the system; (4) it serves to rally adherents in support of a just cause; and (5) it defends the existing diViSion Of labor. 26 Racial Attitudes Some researchers (Schuman, 1969; Schwartz, 1967; lcConahay & Hough, 1976) who have examined racial atti— ;ude trends indicate that White Americans still hold xegative attitudes toward blacks, but have discarded >vertly racist positions in favor of more sublty racially related statements and behaviors. Racial attitude research conducted by Campbell (1971) ;uggests that White Americans are racist in degrees and :he explanation that whites give for the disadvantages -n the black population has shifted from a genetic one to 1 motivational one. This attitude shift appears to help restore psy- :hologica1 equity. By continuing to blame black Americans or their socio-economic plight, many white Americans elp to relieve their responsibility. Other researchers who have focused on black racial ttitudes (Schuman & Hatchett, 1974; Chang & Ritter, 1976; essing & Zagorin, 1972) all suggest a trend in attitudes oving toward black self—definition and self—realization. 1is redefinition of blacks by blacks requires a schematic lift from the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant perceptual aality or schema to a cognitive structure that is more 1pportive of black people's best interests and needs. 27 This trend may tend to increase the perceptual differ- ences between blacks and whites. Researchers have sug— gested that whites may in fact have different beliefs than blacks in crucial race-relevant domains (Gilman, 1978; Dixon, 1976; Nobles, 1978, Clark et al., 1975; Maykovich, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1978; Greenberg & Rosenfield, 1979). Understanding Racism Racial prejudice begins with a perception of color or physical appearance differences between two groups (Jones, 1972). This perception is followed by a com— parison and an evaluation. Racism is defined as any activity by individuals, institutions or cultures that treats people unjustly because of color and rationalizes that treatment by attributing to them undesirable biological, psychological, social or cultural characteristics (Terry, 1975). Racism involves the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that certain racial characteristics determine the superiority of one racial group over another. It is commonly believed that, in order for an act to be racist, it must be overt and deliberate. Racism may be overt as well as covert and intentional as well as unin— tentional. If any practices or acts result in unjust or nequal consequences for a particular racial group, that 28 act may be termed racist regardless of the circumstances (Jones, 1972). Racism is distinguished by three main situational factors: (1) individual racism; (2) institu— tional racism; and (3) cultural racism. Individual racism involves an individual action, overt or covert, intentional or unintentional, that perpetuates societal racism. It consists of a set of values, atti— tudes and behaviors that have been internalized and learned, either directly (i.e., bad experiences) or indirectly (i.e., observation, imitation and identification with significant others). The cognitive dimensions of prejudice have been tra— ditionally placed under the label of stereotypes. Stereo- ‘types function to reinforce the beliefs and disbeliefs of individuals and they also furnish the basis for the develop— ment and maintenance of in—group solidarity. Stereotypes provide motives for the actions of prejudiced or closed- minded individuals and at the same time, they signal the socially approved and accessible targets for the release of hostility and aggression. Stereotyping has been dis— cussed in terms of a structural framework for processing information and in this way, it has the properties of a schema (Hamilton, 1979). Institutional racism can be defined as these estab— lished laws, customs, and practices which systematically 29 reflect and produce racial inequities in American society (Jones, 1972). Institutional racism can be either overt or covert, intentional or unintentional. This type of racism involves systemic arrangements that were originally designed and establishedtxnmaintain the status quo. How— ever, one serious problem is that, in maintaining the status quo, little flexibility is allowed for individuals operating within that system who are different culturally or racially. In this sense, these institutional arrange- ments are racist in that they restrict the life choices of Black Americans. Cultural racism can be generally defined as the individual and institutional expression of the superiority of one races cultural heritage over that of another (Jones, ‘ 1972). Jones further states that cultural racism is the appropriate term describing the act of requiring cultural minorities to measure up to the White American‘s stand- ‘ards in order to be able to participate and advance in the economic mainstream of the society. It appears that cul— tural racism may be an offshoot from symbolic racism and perceived racial threat, in that it appears to stem from a perception of threat to the established values and stand— ards of the society. Jones (1972) suggested that western society has prac- ticed a form of cultural racism by imposing its standards, 3O beliefs and ways of behaving onto minority groups. As a result, cultural racism is found in the historical pre- sentations within the educational system. "It is a matter of cultural racism when the achievements of a race of people are fully ignored" (Jones, 1972, p. 6). The nega— tive distortions of African culture, the suppression of the black race's cultural heritage as a whole and the positive distortion of Western culture has limited the objective educational growth of all Americans. Cultural racism is also expressed in the English lan- guage. Given that language acts as a symbolic representa- tion of objects in the physical world, these symbols have come to be associated with evaluative connotations. Research by Jordan and Brown (1975) and Williams (1964, 1965) has shown how, in American culture, "black" has been associated with negative connotations, while "white" has been associated with positive connotations. It can easily be seen that, given these negative connotations asso— ciated with the color Black, it would follow that evalua— tions of, and reactions to, black people would be bound up ith the symbolic representations. This may not be a onscious process in that symbolic forms may, and often 0, affect individuals at an unconscious level. This indi— ates that even the language system may be unconsciously einforcing symbolic negative associations toward blacks nd perpetuating racism. 31 Racism as a Threat and Stressor Understanding the environment is especially important for minority group members who may perceive their environ— ment as threatening. This is an adaptive perception for Black Americans in that individuals need to be consciously and objectively aware of threats in order to take effec- tive action regarding it (Wilcox, 1971). For minorities, there appears to be a constant threat or anticipation of threat form the discrimination in their environment. It appears that a state of stress underlies most reactions to threatening situations. Whether or not the threat is real, it is perceived as real and may inhibit the minority individual's behaviors and capacity toward growth and competency. Therefore, it is important to be able to objectively appraise whether the situation is actually threatening. Minority group members who perceive their environment to be threatening may adapt to the situation by becoming defensive. The effects created by such defensive behavior may become a handicap in that it tends to narrow one's objectiveness and limits their perspective regarding the stress situation. One of the important sources of psychological stress for minority families is discrimination and racism (Smith at al., 1978). The systemic barriers to equal opportu— iities based on cultural or physical differences, confronts 32 all minority groups, but for Blacks the problem is com- pounded by the inferior labeling, noncontingent reinforce- ment and limitations placed on them because of their differences from the dominant group. Psychological stress results from the frustration experienced due to opportunity barriers within the enviro- ment. This stress may manifest itself in a variety of ways. "The reaction of Black family members to a hostile environment may be seen as psychotic or neurotic without a concurrent knowledge of the cultural and social environ- ment and Black norms"(Smith et al., 1978, p. 45). One must look not only at the external forces but at the perception and thoughts of the individual regarding those factors. Discrimination is stressful in that it involves a potential or actual threat to an individual. The practice of discrimination is the differential and unequal treat- ment of a minority group by a majority group and is an essential feature of majority-minority group relations (Marden & Meyer, 1968). This differential and unequal treatment sets up a threatening situation for minorities. Stress Stress is a state of disequilibrium which results from an anticipated or real threat to an individual. "Threat implies a state in which the individual antici— pates a confrontation with a harmful condition of some 33 sort" (Lazarus, 1966, p. 25). From this definition, an individual may be aroused by some impending and real threat, or just by that person's misperception of a potentially threatening situation. Stress may arise from internal as well as external sources. An external source is environmental stress which results from disturbances, demands, obstacles, restric— tions and unpredictable interruptions that seem to chal— lenge or qualify an individual's expected control over the situation. Another crucial aspect of many stressful situations is that they may present a threat to one's self—esteem. The effect of low self—esteem as an internal stressor should be considered in that it represents a continuous experience of devaluation and rejection. The intense emotions that are often experienced under stress may affect one's choice of stress management behav- iors because one's rationality, flexibility and objective- ness may be limited. The anxiety that arises from the perception of threat reduces individual's cognitive flexi- bility considerably (Mueller, 1979). An individual may, as a result, easily adapt to a stress situation by becom- ing defensive rather than effectively coping with the problem. If one must respond in a stressful environment that is hostile and ambiguous regarding the conditions and amount of reinforcement that may be received, then that 34 individual may, as a result, be defensive and doubtful if not immobilized regarding their response modes. Wills and Langer (1980) reported that stress—related symptomatology is produced not only by the unpleasant nature of the experience but by the fact that some persons do not have the necessary resources and skills that will enable them to solve their problems. Three general components of a stress reaction include: (1) the stressor, (2) the appraisal and evaluation, and (3) the emotional and physiological arousal responses. Haan (1977) reported that the reasons for stress reaction impairment were that either the individual did not antici— pate the stress onset, they expected something different, the conditions of the situation were ambiguous, they anticipated the stress, they regarded the situation as similar to a previous one that they could not handle, they were already at a depleted state at the onset of the stress, or the situation deprived them of the necessary information for them to adapt. These factors indicate the importance of perceptual functions that motivate the resulting behaviors under stressful situations. How an individual appraises an environmental stressor as an important impact on the emotional and adaptational 35 responses. An evaluation must be made in order for a siutation to be assessed as threatening. The cues to threatening situations are evaluated by cognitive appraisal processes. Hamburg and Adams (1967) indicated that the appraisal of threatening elements lies in their personal meanings for the perceiver and is, in turn, influenced by one's past environmental influences and internal dispositions. These appraisal processes are influenced by various internal characteristics such as the abilities, attitudes, values, and beliefs of the individual. Coyne and Lazarus (1980) described the cognitive appraisal process in terms of primary and secondary appraisals. Primary appraisal refers to the evaluation of the stressful situation as either irrelevant, benign or stressful. Secondary appraisal refers to the individuals ongoing judgments concerning their coping resources, options and constraints. Adjustment Mechanisms The manner in which individuals adapt to stressful ituations is important to understand. Adaptation is onsidered to be a process, with progressive changes and efinements, not an outcome. One's adaptation responses enerally involve the available psychological resources nd behavioral attempts to deal with stress constructively 36 through one's own efforts or by turning to the assistance of significant others, family or friends. Lazarus (1966) suggested that there are two general classes of adjustment which can be identified: (1) action- oriented tendencies that attempt to eliminate or reduce the anticipated harmful threat confrontation; and (2) cog- nitive maneuvers that alter the situation appraisal without being directed at changing the objective situation. Considering the cognitive maneuvers, Lazarus (1966) reported that there were certain ego resources that influ— ence adjustment directly rather than through the cognitive appraisal system. These ego resources are identified by Haan (1977) as ego processes. The ego processes are divided into three basic cate— gories: (1) c0ping, (2) defense; and (3) fragmentation. The basic concern here is with the coping and defense modes since fragmentation is more exemplary of extreme dis— orders and that is not the interest of this study. Haan (1977) viewed the coping processes as actions that allow individuals to understand, master, reshape, and gain sustenance from their environment, both internally and externally. Two fundamental coping patterns were dif- ferentiated by Lazarus (1966) which involved: (1) action aimed at strengthening the individual's resources against harm, and (2) an attack mode. 37 The defense processes are psychological mechanisms which help an individual deceive him/herself about the actual condition of the threat. Lazarus (1966) differ- entiated two fundamental defensive patterns: (1) avoidance of the threatening situation; and (2) inaction against the threatening situation. In summary, the coping processes involve more adaptive response strategies while the defensive processes consist of more maladaptive response strategies. The ego processes delineated by Haan (1977) involve three major functions: cognitive, intraceptive and attention—focusing. The cognitive function involves dis— crimination, detachment, and goal-reactive behavior. The intraceptive function entails delayed response, sensi- tivity and time reversion. The attention-focusing function involves selective awareness, division, transformation and restraint. These functions are broken up into separate components, each of which involves a coping and defending mode. Haan (1977) suggested that these processes are internal attributes which affect the individual's percep— tual reality and ultimately have a motivational influence on the resulting behaviors of that individual. The coping mechanisms include objectivity, intellectu— lity, logical analysis, tolerance of ambiguity, empathy, egression in service of ego, concentration, sublimation, 38 substitution and suppression. The defense mechanisms involve isolation, intellectualization, rationalization, doubt and indecision, projection, regression, denial, displacement, reaction formation and repression. The manner in which individual's adapt to stressful situations is of central importance. These adaptation reSponses generally involve one's available resources and attempts to deal with stress constructively through one's own efforts or by turning to the assistance of significant others, family or friends. Similarly, c0ping refers to the capability of meeting situational requirements or fore- stalling the stressful experience, thereby reducing the intensity and duration of the experience (Kaplan, 1980). Therefore, coping responses represent some of the things that people do to deal with the stressors they encounter. Sgpport Systems as Stress Modifiers Caplan (1974) characterized social support systems as consisting of enduring interpersonal ties to a group of peOple who can be relied on to provide feedback and who share similar standards and values. It appears that one important function of social support is to provide con— sensual validation of one's perceptions of the physical and social reality. This idea is similar to Allen's (1975) description of social support as the presence of at least —i—-'— . ”.1...“ -. 39 one person in a group who gives a reSponse that agrees with an individual's private belief or perception. However, it may be the quality, rather than the quan- tity, of resources that is the essential ingredient in social support. It appears that social support provides predictability and security for individuals through the interaction with similar others. "Social resources are represented in the interpersonal networks of which people are a part and which are a potential source of crucial supports: family, friends, fellow workers, neighbors and voluntary associations" (Pearlin & Schooler, 1978, p. 5). In addition, Pearlin and Schooler suggested other functions of social supports such as modifying the conditions that produced the stress, neutralizing the meaning of the experience and thereby maintaining the individual's self— esteem and keeping emotional reactions in bounds. There- fore, it seems feasible that the combination of predicta— bility and reassurance makes social support a potential insulator against stressful conditions. Johnson and Sarason (1979) identified four potentially important moderators in stress reduction research. These included social support, perceived control, stimulation seeking and level of arousability. Mechanic (1970) indicated that, from the sociological point of View, stress arises when the social system fails 40 to provide adequate preparatory institutions, incentive systems and support systems. It appears that a social support system developed by an individual will tend to provide a buffer against stressful circumstances. Researchers have suggested that the condition of low social support is in itself a source of stress (Myers, Lindenthal & Pepper, 1975). The literature shows that, among those individuals exposed to high stress, those with social supports of various kinds have much lower levels of symptomatology compared with those lacking social sup— port (Cobbs, 1976; Rabkin & Struening, 1976b). From this information it can be seen that perceived social support may influence not only the psychological well-being of individuals, but may act as a buffer against istressful situations. Summary A review of the literature has shown how various environmental influences such as cultural factors, sociali— zation patterns, and majority-minority groups dynamics may influence the efficacy expectations, racial attitudes, locus of control expectations, values, perceived environ— mental support attitudes and stress management strategies of Black Americans and other minority group members. Considering the interrelationship of environmental, Cognitive and behavioral influences on adaptation 41 strategies, it appears that racism and discrimination act as additional stressors for minority group members and influence the adaptive strategies that they use. In that social support systems tend to act as stress modifiers then the effects of perceived support may reduce the stress that accompanies racist encounters. In order to understand Black Americans' behavior, one must focus on the systemic issues and conditions that contribute to their mental health, as well as their daily adaptations and normative aspirations. In this way, it may be possible to develop preventive models and strate- gies and thereby improve the psychological functioning of blacks. The primary focus of these research efforts will be on examining the effects of perceived support on the cognitive and behavioral adaptation strategies of black and white undergraduates. Hypotheses Hypothesis 1: Blacks attending predominately white institutions will perceive their environment to be less supportive than blacks attending predominately black institutions and whites attending predominately white institutions. Hypothesis 2: Blacks attending predominately white institutions will perceive their envir- onment to be more uncontrollable than blacks attending predominately black institutions and whites attending pre- dominately white institutions. Hypothesis 3: Hypothesis 4: Hypothesis 5: 42 The adaptive strategies of blacks attending predominately white insti— tutions will be more defensive than the adaptive strategies of blacks attending predominately black insti— tutions and whites attending pre~ dominately black institutions and whites attending predominantly white institutions. Black students attending predominately white institutions will perceive them- selves as functioning less effectively than blacks attending predominately black institutions and whites attend— ing predominately white institutions. Black students attending predominately black institutions will have a higher social consciousness than the blacks attending predominately white insti- tutions and whites attending predomi— nately white institutions. METHOD This study was designed to assess the differential coping strategies used by black and white students. The plan was to assess racial differences in the self- reported cognitive and behavioral strategies obtained from questionnaire measures. Subjects The sample consisted of 168 undergraduate volunteers from three different educational institutions. All sub- jects received course credit for participation in the study with the exception of 80 students from Spelman College and Morehouse College and nine Black students from Michigan State. These students did not receive course credit because it was not an established practice in all of the courses. In addition, the nine Black students were solicited from dormitories rather than classes which offered credit. It does not appear that the data were affected by these differences. One group (BB) consists of 100 black students from Spelman and Morehouse Colleges (two predominately black southern colleges). A second group (BW) involves 12 black students from Michigan State University (a predominately white northern institution). 43 44 The third group (WW) consists of 56 white students from Michigan State University (a predominately white institu- tion). Instruments Five likert-type scales, three rating scales and one demographic measure were constructed or adapted by the researcher. The measures included background information, values, self-descriptive, stress management, cognitive processes, focus of control, social consciousness, and environmental support. These measures were further divided into subscales derived either from the literature, per- sonal experiences or by cluster analysis. Background Information Personal demographic information was gathered in order to determine the relationship, if any, between question- naire results and family and situational factors such as income, age, sex, and race. The background information scales may be found in Appendix G. Values The terminal and instrumental values scales were adapted from Rokeach's (1967) values ranking measure. The instruments were changed from ranked to rated responses and only those values, fifteen terminal and fifteen instru- mental, that the researcher considered to be pertinent were e; t: WI 45 included. The terminal and instrumental values measures may be found in Appendix G. Each value is rated on a continuum from one (not at all important) to seven (very much important). The importance of values, in understand— ing an individual‘s belief system, has been emphasized in Rokeach‘s value research studies (1968, 1972, 1973). The values instruments are included in this study to give a broader understanding of the belief systems of the groups. Since the total scale scores add little information only the group mean item responses will be reported. Self-Descriptive Adjective Checklist The adjective checklist rating measure was adapted from Gough and Heilbrun's (1965) Adjective Checklist :Instrument. Sixty adjectives were chosen from the measure, :each to be rated on a continuum from one (least like me) .to seven (most like me). The self-descriptive evaluations .were chosen to reflect achievement, dominance, deference, lendurance, orderliness, discontent, and abasement atti— tudes. This measure was included to give an indication of any relationships between these dimensions and the reSponses on other scales and subscales. This scale may be found in Appendix G. In rn L’——"r M“ H _" ““4" 46 Stress Management Scales The stress management scales were constructed by the researcher. Items for these scales were derived from the literature on anxiety and stress assessment (Borkovec, Weerts, & Bernstein, 1977; Zuckerman, 1960) and personal experiences. The scales are to measure the ways indi— viduals try to cope with feelings arising in response to stressors, and the frequency that those stress feelings occur. The stress management scale consists of fifteen feelings which often accompany stress. The stress fre- quency scale was derived by having subjects report the frequency that they experienced each stress feeling on a four-point scale from one (not at all) to four (very fre— quently). A stress management scale consisting of 10 items (e.g., get high, eat, work harder) was developed because it is assumed that how an individual responds to stress affects their adaptive capabilities. The stress management scale may be found in Appendix G. Cognitive Processes The cognitive processes scales was adapted from Haan's (1977) Ego processes Q-sort instrument. The cogni— tive processes scale was selected to differentiate the coping and defending strategies described by Haan. The scale consists of a 20—item questionnaire counter-balanced for response set. The items reflect the following ego pr in tC re dE 47 processes: objectivity, isolation, intellectuality,. intellectualization, logical analyses, rationalization, tolerance of ambiguity, indecision, empathy, projection, regression in service of ego, regression, concentration, denial, sublimation, displacement, substitution, reaction formation, suppression, and repression. Five—graded categories (i.e., Always, Usually, Sometimes, Rarely, Never) were provided for each question. This measure was included because it is important to assess whether the reSponses to stressful situations are characteristically c0ping or defending. The Cognitive Processes scale is included in Appendix G. Locus of Control Levenson's (1977) locus of control measure included three subscales: (a) Internality, causal attribution due to self, (i.e., Whether or not I get to be a leader depends mostly on my ability); (b) Externality, causal attribution due to chance, (i.e., To a great extent, my life is controlled by accidental happenings); (c) External- ity, causal attributions due to powerful others, (i.e., I feel like what happens in my life is mostly determined by powerful people). The scale consists of a 24-item questionnaire, counter—balanced for response set. The distinction is made between different types of externality, because it appears that externality may refer to several di ch de 0t 8) 48 different things. Externality may include beliefs that chance determines what happens in life, beliefs that God determines what happens in life, and beliefs that powerful others determine what happens in life. Individual's externality beliefs may vary as a function of whether or not control is determined by powerful others in the environ— ment, God or chance. Six—graded categories (i.e., agree strongly, agree moderately, agree slightly, disagree slightly, disagree moderately, disagree strongly) were provided for each item. Twelve additional items were con— structed by the researcher and added to the measure to assess: (a) self—trust containing three items (e.g., I accept my feelings as the surest guide to what is right); (b) conformity, with four items (e.g., I find myself imitating or agreeing with those I consider to be superior); (c) locus‘<1f control-—God, containing fiweitems (e.g., I believe that the world will come to an end according to the Will of God). The rationale for the differentiation of this measure stemmed from the reasoning that individuals who believe the world is controlled either by God or power— ful others would reSpond differently from those who feel the world is controlled by chance. The locus of control measures may be found in Appendix G. Soci the rie1 & DI Thi bel inc and tic unc‘ soc The ag: 39 ea in 49 Social Consciouness The social consciousness scale was constructed by the researcher, using information from community eXpe— riences and the literature on racial attitudes (Ashmore & Del Boca, 1976; Fairchild & Gurin, 1978; Chester, 1976). This measure was designed to assess the attitudes and beliefs regarding majority-minority group dynamics. This includes questions about the effects of discrimination and the issues related to some of the underlying assump- tions and situations that may present conflicts or mis— understandings between the races (e.g., whites are socialized to believe their race and culture are superior). The scale consists of lB-items, counterbalanced for response set. Six-graded categories (e.g., agree strongly, agree moderately, agree slightly, disagree slightly, dis- agree moderately, disagree strongly) were provided for :each item. The Social Consciousness scale may be found in Appendix G. 1 Environmental Support The support measure was constructed by the researcher using community eXperiences and the literature (Moos, 1973a) regarding individual's perception of their institutional environment. The instrument consists of 32 items, how- ever, later item 32 was dropped due to lack of response to the item by the participants. The areas of support CO st 811 et gr sl 39 W8 th 611'. P: fe 50 covered include: institution, location, major area of study, life satisfaction, Spiritual support, financial support, reinforcement, relations with school population, ethnic support, alienation, and course material. Six- graded categories (agree strongly, agree moderately, agree slightly, disagree slightly, disagree moderately, dis- agree strongly) were provided for each item. This measure was included to assess perceived environmental support and the relationship of this perception to the other scales and subscales. In the area of ethnic support an example of an item is: "The racial composition of this school [ makes it more supportive for me." This scale may be found in Appendix G. Procedure Volunteers were recruited from two predominately .black, southern colleges with the cooperation of the :Psychology Department Chairpersons and apprOpriate pro- fessors. At Spelman and Morehouse colleges, volunteers were recruited from different level psychology classes and the professors, permitted class time to be used for icompleting the questionnaires,tmmever,only one class at :Morehouse received additional course credit (points added 'to grade) for their participation. At Michigan State $University the subjects were recruited from introductory ipsychology courses and received course credit (points added to grade) for their participation. 51 Due to the low volunteer rate of Black students attending Michigan State University, letters were sent to all black students living in dormitories on campus to solicit their support. The nine black students who volun- teered from the dormitories received no course credit for their participation. For the volunteers at Michigan State University several different dates and times were provided for the participants to complete the questionnaire. The volun- teers selected a convenient time to individually complete the instrument. The volunteers at Spelman and Morehouse completed the questionnaire during class time provided by the individual professors. Before subjects received the questionnaires they were given a brief description of the study. The study was described as an environment adaptation study to assess the adaptation strategies they use. It was emphasized prior to administering questionnaire that all of the information on the questionnaire is considered confi- dential and that individual's were not required to put their names on the instruments. The students who agreed to participate filled out consent forms that were collected before the question- aires were administered. The participants were instructed Q fill out all the information and answer all the 52 questions as honestly as possible. The questionnaires were collected upon completion and the subjects were informed that they could receive the results of the study upon its completion by contacting the researcher. RESULTS Population Description Three groups were used in the data analyses. The demographic characteristics of the subjects in groups 1, 2 and 3 are presented in Table l. The mean ages for the blacks attending the black institution (BB), the blacks attending the white institution (BW), and the whites attending the white institution (WW) were 19.5, 18 and 18 respectively. The BB group consisted primarily of SOphomores and juniors and involved 30 males and 70 females, for a total of 100 students. The BW group involved mainly freshmen, ,with one male and 11 females for a total of 12 students. The WW group consists primarily of freshmen, with 17 males and 38 females for a total of 55 students (allowing for one missing case). One way analysis of variance tests were made to compare the effects of race on the demographic variables. The differences between the black and white students on the demographic variables are presented in Appendix A, Table A.1. There are three significant findings which are important for this study. There were significant differences between the black and white students on age, 53 Tl I v—J ymmmmw IHIP In (nut/3'11 54 TABLE l.—-Demographic Characteristics of Subjects Black White White . Institution Institution Institution Variable Blacks Blacks Whites (N = 100) (N = 12) (N = 56) Age 17 1 1 2 18 12 5 27 19 32 l 18 20 36 2 0 21 13 1 4 22 2 1 1 23 1 0 1 24 . 0 O 2 25 0 0 O 26 or older _2 _1 _1 TOTAL _ 99 _ 12 _ 56 X = 19.5 X = 18 X = 18 Sex Male 30 1 17 Female 70 ll 38 TOTALa 100 12 55 Annual Family Income Below $4,000 1 l l $4,000-7,500 2 2 l $7,500-10,000 7 2 4 $10,000-12,000 28 3 1g $12,000-20,000 6 0 1 Above $20,000 53 .1 3— TOTALa 97 12 52 Classification Freshman 5 7 3; Sophomore 37 2 14 Junior 41 2 4 Senior 17 _l ___ TOTAL 100 12 56 C M: OHUQhNME . _____ -~._—____' .— 55 TABLE l.--Continued Black White White . Institution Institution Institution Variable Blacks Blacks Whites (N = 100) (N = 12) (N = 56) Family Size 1 0 O 2 2 8 0 l 3 l7 2 2 4 31 3 ll 5 20 3 l7 6 10 l 12 7 5 l 3 8 3 l 4 9 3 O 3 More than 10 3 _1 __Q TOTALa 100 _ 12 _ 55 R = 4.37 X = 4.5 X = 5 Mother Living at Home Yes 96 11 53 No 4 l 3 Father Living at Home Yes 65 7 50 No 35 5 4 Mother's Occupation Other 2 O l . 6 28 Housew1fe l3 4 Unskilled 8 0 6 Skilled 15 l 4 Managerial ll 2 11 Professional 51 _§ -——— TOTALa 100 12 54 I mmmrnmmr' lt—Unfi LJ 56 TABLE l.--Continued Black White White . Institution Institution Institution Variable Blacks Blacks Whites (N = 100) (N = 12) (N = 56) Father's Occupation Other 9 1 5 Unskilled 7 2 2 Skilled 20 5 12 Managerial l4 2 13 Professional 49 _2 ‘22 TOTALa 99 12 54 Mother's Educational Level Completed Less than elementary O 0 1 Elementary 4 3 3 .High School 22 4 25 Some College 20 2 11 College Degree 19 1 11 Graduate 31 l 5 Post Doctoral 3 _1 ._Q TOTALa 99 12 56 Father's Educational Level Completed Less than elementary 4 0 1 Elementary 4 2 4 High School 27 3 3 Some College 15 2 19 College Degree 17 1 i1 Graduate 22 3 1 Post Doctoral 10 _9 .—— TOTALa 99 ll 56 57 TABLE l.--Continued Black White White . Institution Institution Institution Variable Blacks Blacks Whites (N = 100) (N = 12) (N = 56) Birth Order Only 15 2 3 Oldest 33 4 14 Middle 24 1 l6 Youngest 24 _§ 20 TOTALa 96 0 53 Grade Point Average 0-1.45 l 0 1 1.5-1.95 3 0 0 2.0—2.45 13 4 11 2.5-2.95 53 4 4 3.0-3.45 21 4 28 3.5-4.00 8 _9 11 TOTALa 99 12 55 State of Legal Residence Alabama 5 0 3 Alaska 1 0 0 California 4 O 0 Connecticut 2 0 0 District of Columbia 3 0 0 Florida 3 0 0 Georgia 21 0 0 Illinois 5 l 1 Indiana 3 8 0 Louisiana 3 O 0 Maine 7 1 0 Maryland 1 9 50 Michigan 3 O 0 Mississippi 1 O 0 Missouri 2 O 0 Nebraska 1 0 5 0 New Jersey 58 TABLE l.--Continued Black White White . Institution Institution Institution variable Blacks Whites Whites (N = 100) (N = 12) (N = 56) New York 6 O 4 Ohio 3 l 0 North Carolina 1 O 0 Pennsylvania 3 0 0 South Carolina 4 O 0 South Dakota 1 O 0 Tennessee 6 0 0 Texas 2 _2 .9 TOTALa 96 12 55 aN's for each variable may vary due to missing data as a result cxf no participant response to the question. 59 F(1) = 8.605, p < .003; classification level, F(1) = 46.423, p < .001; and grade point average, F(1) = 7.296, p < .007. Scale and Subscale Description Presented in Table 2 is a list of the scales and a breakdown of the subscales for each scale. The question- naire measure included nine scales. Subscales were gen- erated for five of the nine measures. Three of the six subscales generated from the combined locus of control instrument were derived from Levenson's (1977) original subscale structures. Three subscales were generated from the 12 additional items added to Levenson's scale by the researcher. Levenson's (1977) subscales are: Locus of control- internal (LCI), Locus of control-chance (LCC) and locus of control-powerful others (LCP). The other three sub- scales: conformity (CO), self-trust (ST) and locus of control-God (LCG), were derived rationally by the researcher from personal experiences. Three subscales were generated from the environmental support instrument: lifestyle support (L), student— institute relations (SIR) and spiritual support (SS). Sixty adjectives were chosen by the researcher and generated six subscales from Gough and Heilbrun's (1965) classifi- cations: achievement (ACH), dominance (DOM), deference 6O QABmV mocchoaoa HcHomm nAumv mmmc ImDOHOchU Hoflomm .mHoc nemueoomeo .omoc umpuo Aozmv mucousccm Lemme uaosommna Ammav ooconowoo ASOQV moomcfleoo Amuflv ucmE®>mH£O¢ Ammv bmommom Hoduflnflmm ooflpoaom ®DSDHDmEHIDCGUDDm eHVnHOEdsm wasnmmmeq Awoqv cow IIHOHpcOO wo msooq ABmv meHBIMHOm eamocoogmum DcmEommcmz mmonpm aeHOH>mzom ocmfiommcoz wmoubm eemmmcmsoflomcoo Hofloom Dmflaxoosu m>Hpoon©¢ o>flpmfluomoolmamm eepuommom Hobcoficoufl>cm Amway Homuozomnlaouocoo mo msooq AUUAV doomSUIIHonpcou mo moooq AOUV muflfinowcoo Aoqv HmcuochIIHouucoo mo moooq Houuoou mo msooq oncomom wasp now me 0Hm>oo moaoomQSm moaoomoom moamom o coaumahomm II. mmaoomosm UQM WOHMUM 61 .mouomwofi owocp MOM popmaop mEoDH Hmcflmfluo one mo omnneo .mflmhamoo Hobmoao mg Um>fluoc moamomn .ee >3 UmBOHH0w who commends mflcp How como~o>o© mmamomm moflooomoa ocflmoo mommooonm o>Hoflcmoo omosam> Hoaflauoe omoSHm> HmucmESHDmcH commemom warp How tomoHo>mo moamomosm wOHMUmQDW WOHMOW UTDCHDGOUII . N mumdfi. 62 (DEF), abasement (ABA), endurance (END) and order (0RD). One additional subscale was generated with three adjec- tives not included in Gough and Heilbrun's (1965) scale. These adjectives were added by the researcher to form the discontent (DIS) subscale. This additional subscale raises the total number of subscales in the self— descriptive measure to seven. The coqnitive processes (CP) instrument generated two subscales, the coping (C) and defending (D) measures. Cluster analysis was used to generate the two sub- scales derived from the social consciousness (SC) scale. The scale items were analyzed using a cluster analysis program develOped by Hunter and Cohen (1969). This analysis, called PACKAGE, involves a procedure where an inter—item correlation matrix is computed, so that a con— firmatory factor analysis of the cluster solution can be derived. The last step involves testing the fit of the items by three criteria of unidimensionality: homogeneity of content, internal consistency and parallelism. In general, the program involves an analysis of the correlations between the scale items to ascertain the degree of homogeneity. If the scale is homogeneous, then the items within the scale should cluster to form one factor. If the scale is heterogeneous, then it is eXpected that the items would cluster into homogeneous subscales. 63 The two subscales generated from the social con— sciousness scale included a racial consciousness (RC) and a racial tolerance (RT) subscale. Examination of Appendix B. Table B.l reveals the eleven items that com— pose the RC scale. The intercorrelations among the items in the RC subscale are presented in Table B.2. The seven items that make up the RT subscale and the inter-item correlation table are presented in Table B.3. The other scales included in the instrument were: stress management behavior, stress management frequency, instrumental values and terminal values. Considering that the cognitive processes, instrumental values and terminal values. Considering that the cognitive processes, instru- mental and terminal values total scale scores have little informative value only, the individual item group mean responses will be reported for the instrumental and ter- minal values measures, while only the cognitive processes subscales will be discussed. Combining the scales and sub-scales, 22 measures are involved in the data analysis. Group Differences on the Scales and Subscales To assess any group response differences for the scales and subscales, Specific information regarding each measure is required. For each of the measures, the num- ber of items, means, standard deviations and alpha coeffi— cients of reliability (internal consistency) are presented 64 in Table 3. This table compares the three groups on each of the above mentioned dimensions for each scale and subscale. The table indicates the possible group response differences. The means for the social consciousness measure equaled 88.30, 86.25 and 70.38 for the BB, BW and WW groups, respectively. An analysis of variance test revealed that there were significant differences f (1,66) = 33.214, p < .001; between the BW and WW groups and the BB and WW groups f (1,154) = 80.492, p < .001; but no significant difference between the BB and BW groups, thus partially confirming Hypothesis 5 which predicted that the BB group would have a higher social consciousness score than the BW and WW groups. Inspection of Duncan's post hoc paired comparisons for the racial consciousness subscale means for the BB group (R 52.14), the BW group (X = 50.91) and the WW group (X = 35.54) revealed significant differences between the BB and WW groups f (1,154) = 141.869, p < .001; and the BW and WW groups f (1,66) = 39,313, p < .001; while no significant difference was found between the BB and BW groups. For the racial tolerance subscale the means are 36.16, 35.33 and 34.84, for the BB, BW and WW groups, reSpectively, however no significant differences were found. 65 TABLE 3.--Number of Items, Means, Scales and Subscales Standard Deviations, and Alpha Coefficients of Reliability for the Black White White Measure Institution Institution Institution Blacks Blacks Whites Social Consciousness No. of Items 18 18 18 M 88.30 86.25 70.38 SD 13.31 8.01 8.67 Alpha .84 .47 .54 Racial Consciousness No. of Items 11 11 11 M 52.14 50.91 35.54 SD 8.44 5.85 7.96 Alpha .73 .34 .65 Racial Tolerance No. of Items 7 7 7 M 36.16 35.33 34.84 SD 6.39 5.98 4.45 Alpha .81 .77 .52 Locus Of Control—-Internal 8 8 No. of Items 8 M 20.53 23.50 21.05 SD 5.77 5.83 5.67 Alpha .6]. .49 .69 Locus of Control—-Chance 8 8 No. of Items 8 M 32.38 33.41 32.07 SD 7.11 7.77 5.57 Alpha .71 .83 .67 Locus of Control--Powerfu1 gthers 8 8 30. of Items 32.59 32.16 31.31 SD 7.03 7.45 6.75 Alpha .69 .78 .78 Self-Trust 3 3 3 30. of Items 14.22 14.00 13.57 SD 3.18 3.78 2.61 .56 .53 .48 Alpha TABLE 3.--Continued 66 Black White White Measure Institution Institution Institution Blacks BlaCks Whites Conformity No. of Items 4 4 4 M 9.77 9.25 12.12 SD 3.97 5.18 3.34 Alpha .61 .82 .58 Locus of Control-—God No. of Items 5 5 5 M 24.84 26.00 19.64 SD 6.30 4.47 8.20 Alpha .90 .74 .93 Environment Support No. of Items ' 31 31 31 M 134.67 116.08 129.38 SD 18.07 21.51 16.08 Alpha .81 .85 .79 Lifestyle Support No. of Items 18 18 18 M 71.52 67.58 75.40 SD 13.15 13.79 8.89 Alpha .76 .78 .62 Student—Institute Relations NO. of Items 10 10 10 M 47.29 31.58 40.47 SD 6.28 7.39 6.33 Alpha .61 .51 .59 Spiritual Support No. of Items 3 3 3 M 15.86 16.91 13.50 SD 8.20 2.02 4.63 Alpha .81 .72 .91 Stress Management Behavior No. of Items 15 15 15 M 76.15 76.41 23.32 17.29 . SD 22.49 .67 .78 Alpha .79 TABLE 3.--Continued 67 Black 'White White Measure Institution Institution Institution Blacks Blacks Whites Stree Management Frequency No. of Items 15 15 15 M 32.18 35.41 34.31 SD 6.95 7.41 7.85 Alpha .77 .77 .87 Achievement No. of Items 17 17 17 M 85.08 84.00 80.77 SD 13.09 17.49 15.77 Alpha .85 .87 .90 Dominance No. of Items 22 22 22 M 108.56 105.33 102.12 SD 17.63 22.01 20.86 Alpha .88 .90 .92 Deference No. of Items 10 10 10 M 41.59 47.50 42.40 SD 7.49 9.25 9.07 Alpha .61 .72 .77 Endurance No. of Items 21 21 21 M 111.98 119.83 111.38 SD 13.88 11.30 18.79 Alpha .84 .69 .92 Discontent 4 4 No. f Items 4 M O 14.68 16.66 16.08 SD 4.54 5.15 4.58 Alpha .57 .52 -56 Order ————- 16 No. f Items 16 16 M O 84.06 88.16 82.32 13.71 . SD 12.07 .82 .91 Alpha .84 TABLE 3.-—Continued Black White White Measure Institution Institution Institution Blacks Blacks Whites Abasement No. of Items 9 9 9 M 34.38 38.75 36.89 SD 7.99 11.12 9.38 Alpha .68 .80 .80 Coping No. of Items 10 10 10 M 37.09 37.83 37.03 SD 3.98 3.71 4.00 Alpha .60 .56 .70 Defending No. of Items 10 10 10 M 27.58 28.16 28.92 SD 4.19 8.23 3.75 Alpha .53 .85 .55 69 For Levenson's subscales the response codes indicate that the higher the mean score, the stronger the disagree- ment with the expressed locus of control expectancy atti- tudes. The means for the internal locus of control subscale were 23.50, 21.05, and 20.53 for the BW, WW and BB groups, respectively. There were no significant dif— ferences for Duncan's post hoc paired comparisons for any of the groups. The means for the locus of control—chance subscale equaled 32.28 for the BB group, 33.41 for the BW group and 32.07 for the WW group. No significant differences were found between any of the groups using Duncan's post hoc paired comparisons. The means for the locus of control- powerful others for the BB group equaled 32.59, the BW group mean equaled 32.16 and the WW group mean equaled 31.31. No significant differences were found on Duncan's post hoc comparisons for any of the paired groups. Inspection of the self—trust subscale means indi- cated the BB group mean equaled 14.22, the BW group mean equaled 14.00 and the WW group mean equaled 13.57. No significant differences were found on Duncan's post hoc paired comparison tests for the ST subscale. The conform- ity subscale means equaled 9.77, 9.25, and 12.12 for the BB group, the BW group and the WW group. Significant dif- ferences were found between the BW and WW groups f (1,154) = 5.710, p < .019; and the BB and WW groups f (1,66) = 70 13.577, p < .001; while no significant difference was found for the BB and BW groups using Duncan's post hoc paired comparison tests on the conformity subscale. The means for the locus of control-God subscale were 26.00, 24.84 and 19.64 for the BW, BB and WW groups, respectively. Significant differences were found using Duncan's post hoc paired comparisons between the BW and WW groups f (1,66) = 6.611, p < .012; and the BB and WW groups;§(l,154) = 19.396, p < .001; on the LCG subscale, while no significant differences were found between the BB and BW groups on this subscale. Considering tjmn: the only significant results on the locus of control measures were between the BB and WW groups and between the BW and WW groups on the conformity and locus of control-God subscales, Hypothesis 2, which predicted that the BW group would perceive their environ- ment as more uncontrollable than the BB and WW groups was disconfirmed. Results from the environmental support measure indi- cates that the BW group (i = 116.08) perceived their environment to be less supportive than the WW group (X = 129.38) and the BB group (X = 134.67) as predicted in Hypothesislu Significant differences were found between the BW and WW groups, f (1,66) = 6.270, p < .014; and between the BB and BW groups, 2 (l, 110) = 10.873, 71 p < .001; on the environmental support measure using Duncan's post hoc paired comparisons. The lifestyle support subscale means for the BB group, BW group and the WW group were: 71.52, 67.58, and 75.40, reSpectively. Using Duncan‘s post hoc paired com- parisons significant differences were found between the DB and WW groups, f (1,66) = 8.165, p < .005; and between the BB and WW groups, f (1,154) = 8.120, p < .005; while no significant difference was found between the BB and BW groups on the L subscale. The student-institute relations subscale means were: 47.29, 31.58, and 40.47 for the BB, BW and WW groups, respectively. Significant differences were found between the BB and BW groups f (1,110) = 64.533, p < .001; between the BB and WW groups, f (1,154) = 41.644, p < .001; and .between the BW and WW groups f (1,66) = 18.130, p < .001; on the student~institute relations measure using Duncan's ‘post hoc paired comparisons. The means for the spiritual support subscale equaled I15.86 for the BB group, 16.91 for the BW group, and 13.50 ifor the WW group. Significant differences were found ibetween the BW and WW groups, f (1,66) = 6.096, p < .016; sand between the BB and WW groups, g (1,154) = 13.882, Sp < .001; while there was no significant difference found 'between the BB and BW groups on spiritual support. 72 The results from the environmental support subscale shows that the BW group perceived less lifestyle support and student-institute relations support than both the BB and WW groups. The stress management behavior scale means equaled 76.15, 76.41 and 78.43 for the BB, BW and WW groups, respectively. For this measure there were no significant differences on Duncan's post hoc paired comparisons for any of the groups. The stress management frequency meas- ure means indicated that the mean for the BW group equaled 35.41, the BB group's mean equaled 32.18 and the WW group's mean equaled 34.31. There were no significant differences on the stress management frequency scale. The subscale dimensions within the self-descriptive adjective checklist measure provide the relevant informa— tion, therefore only the subscale response differences are reported. The achievement subscale means equaled 85.08, 84.00 and 80.77 for the BB, BW and WW groups, respectively. No significant differences were revealed for the ACH sub— scale using Duncan's post hoc paired comparisons. The dominance subscale means for the BB group (i = 108.56), the BW group (X = 105.33) and the WW group (X = 102.12) revealed only one significant difference between the BB and WW groups, f (1,154) = 3.928, p < .049; while no differences were found between the BB and BW groups and between the BW and WW groups means. 73 The deference subscale means were: 47.50, 42.40 and 41.59 for the BW, BB and WW groups, reSpectively. A sig— nificant difference was found between the BB and BW groups f (1,110) = 6.121, p < .014; while no significant differ— ences were found between the BB and WW groups on the deference measure using Duncan's post hoc paired compari- sons. The group means on the endurance subscale were: 119.83, 111.98 and 111.38 for the BW, BB and WW groups, respectively. There were no significant differences on Duncan's post hoc paired comparisons for the groups on the endurance subscale. The discontent subscale group means were: 16.66, 16.08 and 14.68 for the BW, BB and WW groups, reSpectively. Examination of the order subscale means revealed that the BB group mean equaled 84.06, the BW group mean equaled 88.16 and the WW group mean equaled 82.33. The abasement subscale group means were 38.75, 36.89 and 34.48 for the BW, WW and BB groups, respectively. No significant differences between any of the groups on Duncan's post hoc paired comparisons were found for each of the above subscales. The combined results for all of the self-descriptive subscales provided partial support for Hypothesis 4, in that the only significant differences in the BW groups self-perceived effectiveness were on the dominance and 74 deference subscales. These findings indicate that the BW group perceived themselves as less dominant and more deferent than the BW group. For the coping subscale the means equaled 37.83, 37.09 and 37.03 for the BW, BB and WW groups, respectively. No significant differences were revealed for any of the groups using Duncan's post hoc paired comparisons. The defending subscale means were: 28.92, 28.16 and 27.58 for the WW, BW and BB groups, reSpectively. The only sig- nificant mean differences for the defending subscale was between the BB and WW groups f (1,154) = 4.081, p < .045; while no significant differences were found between the BW and WW groups and the BB and BW groups using Duncan's post hoc paired comparisons. These results disconfirmed Hypothesis 3, which predicted that the adaptive strategies of the BW group would be more defensive than the adaptive strategies of the BB and the WW groups. Discriminant Analysis In order to assess how well the scales and subscales could discriminate between the races, discriminate analy— sis tests were made. Discriminant analysis is a way of generating linear combinations of independent variables that best discriminate two or more groups. The combina- tions of weighted variables used to achieve the maximal 75 separations of the groups are called discriminant func- tions (SPSS, 1975). Three sets of information are available from the discriminant analysis program: (1) The extent to which individual's known to belong to certain groups can have their group membership accurately predicted on the basis of the independent variables included in the analysis; (2) Individuals whose actual group membership is not known, can be classified as group members according to their pattern of scores on the independent variables that make up the discriminant linear function; (3) The rela— tive discriminatory power of the independent variables can be assessed, so that the exact nature of the differ- ence between the groups can be explored. In Table 4 the predicted group memberships for blacks and whites on the scales and subscales are presented. Four sets of subscales significantly discriminated between the (races. An inspection of the classification table involv— ing the self—trust (ST), conformity (C) and locus of ‘control-God (LCG) subscales showed an overall correct clas— sification of 70% compared to a chance occurrence of 50%. Examination of the classification table for the racial consciousness (RC) and racial tolerance (RT) subscales, an overall correct classification of 85% was achieved as compared to a probably occurrence of 50%. 76 For the subscales: achievement (ACH), dominance (DOM), deference (DEF), discontent (DIS), endurance (END), order (ORD) and abasement (ABA), the classification table indicates a 60% correct prediction rate, compared to a chance accuracy of 50%. An overall correct classifi- cation of 67%, as compared to chance accuracy of 50% was achieved for the lifestyle support (L), the student— institute relations (SIR) and the spiritual support (SS) subscales. In addition, presented in Table 4 the groups were divided into blacks attending the white institution (BW), blacks attending the black institutions (BB), and whites attendint the white institution (WW). A discriminant analysis was run for all of the environmental support variables and for variables 1 to 31, an overall correct classification of 91% was achieved as compared to a 33% chance accuracy. Presented in Table 5 are the results of the signifi- cance tests for each set of subscales. Wilkes Lambda is an inverse measure of the discriminating power in the original variables which has not yet been removed by the discriminant function (SPSS, 1975). The larger Wilkes Lambda is, the less information there is left to discrim— inate between the groups. For the locus of control subscales, only the con- formity, f (1,167) = 14.68, p < .001; and the locus of 77 TABLE 4.--Predicted Group Membership from the Subscale Variables Percentage Percentage Chi V 'ables . ' ' ' ari Predicted Group Correctly Square Significance Cla551f1ed Black White SMB, SMF Black 58% 42% 95 . . White 54% 45% 53 2 252 324 C,D Black 55% 44% 0 White 45 54% 550 3.370 .185 ST,CO,LCG Black 759 24% 9 ** White 40% 59% 700 42.469 .001 LCP White 47 52% ° ° 9 RC,RT Black 89% 10° 85% 116.24 .001** White 21% 78% ACH,DOM, END,ORD White 38% 61% ABA LISIR' BlaCk 75% 24% 76% 59.834 .001** SS White 22% 77% BW BB W 81 to BW 100% 0% % 831 BB 1% 90% % 91% 79.484 .001** ww 2% 7% 91% *2 < .05 **p < .001 TABLE 5.--Wilks Lambda Significance Tablea 78 . Wilks Variable Lambda F Significance Stress Management Behavior .997 .397 .529 Stress Management Frequency .986 2.251 .135 Ceping .999 .434 .835 Defending .981 3.186 .076 Self-Trust .990 1.558 .213 Conformity .919 14.680 .001** Locus of Control-God .881 22.470 .001** Locus of Control--Internal .999 .472 .828 Locus of Control--Chance .999 .150 .698 Locus of Control--Powerful Others .992 1.180 .279 Racial Consciousness .517 155.500 .001** Racial Tolerance .989 1.714 .192 Lifestyle Support .951 8.479 .004* Student-Institute Relations .904 17.690 .001** Spiritual Support .908 16.840 .001** Achievement .981 3.233 .074 Dominance .977 3.861 .051* Deference .999 .178 .893 Discontent .985 2.533 .113 Endurance .998 .317 .573 Order .993 1.025 .312 Abasement .987 2.060 .153 aThe terminal and instrumental analyzed as total scale. values scales are not to be 79 control-God, f (1,167) = 22.47, p < .001; were found to (significantly discriminate the races. Within the social consciousness subscales only racial consciousness, f , (1,167) = 155.50, p < .001; significantly discriminated between the races. Within the self-descriptive measure, only the domi- nance subscale, £ (1,167) = 3.861, p < .051; significantly discriminated between the races. For the environmental support subscale, the lifestyle support, f (1,167) = 8.479, p < .004; the student-institute relations, f (1,167) = 17.69, p < .001; and the spiritual support, f (1,167) = 16.84, p < .004; were all able to significantly discriminate between the races. In Table 6 the discriminant functions for each set of subscales that maximize the separation of blacks and whites are presented. The weights, multiplied by the discriminating subscale, serve to identify those sub- ‘ scales which contribute the most to the differentiation of the races along the function. The weights sign indicates whether the variable is making a positive or negative con— tribution. For the stress management function, it seems that the stress management frequency (SMF) scale contributes the most to racial differentiation along the function. On the c0gnitive processes function, the defending (D) 80 TABLE 6.—-Discriminant Function Coefficients Group Equation Race .12 (SMB) + .95 (SMF) Race = -.26 (C)-t1.00 (D) Race = —.09 (ST) — .75 (C0) + .89 (LCG) Race = —.19 (LCI) = .24 (LCC) + 1.08 (LCP) Race - 1.07 (RC) - .30 (RT) Race = .26 (ACH) + .87 (DOM) + 1.43 (DEF) - .83 (END) -1.14 (ABA) - .ll (ORD) -.49 (DIS) Race = .90 (L) - .85 (SIR) — .55 (SS) subscale appears to contribute the most to racial dif- ferentiation. The locus of control function subscales (developed by the researcher) indicate that the locus of control-God (LCG) subscale contributes the most to differentiating between the races. For the locus of control function sub— scales (developed by Levenson) the locus of control—power— ful others (LCP) subscale contributed the most to racial differentiation. For the social consciousness measure, the racial con— sciousness (RC) subscale contributes the most to discrim- inating between the races. Within the self-descriptive function, the deference (DEF) subscale contributed the most towards racial differentiation. For the environmental 81 support function, the lifestyle support (L) subscale seems to contribute the most to differentiating the races. Demographic Variables, Effects and Relation- ships to the Scales and Subscales In order to understand how the demographic differences between the groups might effect the scale and subscale responses, analyses were made to find out how the race significant demographic variables influenced the scale and subscale reSponses. One way analysis of variance tests were made to assess the effects of those demographic variables found to have a significant race effect on the scale and subscale reSponses. The one way analysis of variance results for each race significant demographic variable and the scales and subscales are presented in Appendix C, Table C.l. Correlation tables were constructed for each of the groups to show how the demographic variables related with the scale and subscale responses. Considering the empha— sis of this study is to understand the effects of per— ceived environmental support, only the variables that may influence the student's social climate perceptions are reported here; therefore, only age, sex and student classification level correlations with the scale and sub- scale reSponse will be included. The correlations between the scales, subscales and demographic variables for the WW group are presented in 82 Appendix D, Table D.l. For this group,age did not have a significant relationship with any of the scales and sub- scales. For the WW group, sex had an inverse relationship with RC (r = -.18) and a positive relationship with C (r = .27), indicating that females in the WW group tended to have lower racial consciousness and higher coping atti— tudes than the males. While the WW student's classification (CLAS) level positively related with two measures, SC (R = .37) and RC (r = .37); negative relationships were found for S (r = -.26) and SS (r = —.34). These results show that as the student's classification increases, their social con- sciousness and racial consciousness attitudes increased while their perceived environmental support and Spiritual support attitudes decreased. The correlations between the scales, subscales and demographic variables for the BB group are presented in Appendix D, Table D.2. For this group, age showed a significant positive association (r = .23) with SS, indi— cating that Spiritual support (SS) increased as the students ages increased. Sex had an inverse relationship with LCC (r = —.21), suggesting that the females had higher locus of control-chance expectancies than the males. The BB student's classification (CLAS) showed positive correlations with SC (r = .19), SMB (r = .21), LCC (r = .22) and RC (r = .24), indicating that as the student's 83 classification level increased so did their social con- sciousness attitudes, their locus of control—chance expectancies and their stress management behaviors. The correlations between the scales, subscales and demographic variables for the BW group are presented in Appendix D, Table D.3. For this group, classification level did not have any significant correlations with any of the scales and subscales, however age was found to have significant inverse relationships with S (r = -.59), LCG (r = -.64) and L (r = -.60), These results indicate that as the student ages increased, their per- ceptions of environmental support, lifestyle support, and locus of control-God expectancies decreased. For the BW group, sex correlated positively (r = .56) with SMF, indicating that the females tended to report higher stress frequencies. Intercorrelations Between the Scales and Subscales Scale and subscale intercorrelations for each group are presented in Appendix E. Considering that the focus of this study is on environmental support, only those measures which contribute to an understanding of how each group adapts are reported here. The intercorrelations between the scales and sub- scales for the WW group are presented in Appendix E, 84 Table E.1. The environment support (S) measure related positively with ST (R = .37), LCG (r = .56), L (r = .88), SIR (R = .80) and SS (R = .66); while a significant nega- tive relationship was found with RC (r = -.29). Social consciousness (SC) significantly correlated with both the defending (r = .34) and abasement (r = .27) sub— scales. Stress frequency (SMF) tended to increase as the LCC beliefs increased (r = —.31), powerful others beliefs increased (r = .30), as conformity (r = .27), deference (r = .30), discontent (r = .53), abasement (r = .52), racial consciousness (r = .29) and defending (r = .40) increased. In Table B.2 are presented the intercorrelations between the scales and subscales for the BB group. For this group the environmental support (S) scale showed an inverse correlation with SMF (r = -.27) and revealed positive relationships with ST (r .23), END (r .24), ORD (r = .20), RC (r = .25), L (r .93), SIR (r = .73) and SS (r = .36). The stress frequency (SMF) measure correlated negativelyvniilthe powerful others (LCP) sub- scale (r = —.19) indicating that the stress frequency increased as beliefs in powerful others increased. The intercorrelations between the scales and sub- scales for the BW group are presented in Table B.3. For this group, the environmental support (8) measure was 85 found to correlate positively with L (r = .97) and SIR (r = .94). The stress management frequency (SMF) scale (r = .71), discontent (DIS) subscale (r = .67) and conform- ity (CO) subscale (r = .60) responses significantly related with abasement (ABA), suggesting that as stress frequency, discontent and conformity attitudes increased, abasement attitudes also increased. SMF was found to relate negatively with L (r = -.59), indicating that stress frequency increased as lifestyle support decreased for the BW group. Response Differences to the Social Consciousness Items In Appendix F, Table F.1 are the item response group mean differences between the three groups of students on the social consciousness scale. Only the items with sig- nificant group differences are reported here. Examination of the significant results indicate that both the BW and BB groups agreed more than the WW groups on items 1, 8, 14, 15, 16 and 18 which appear to reflect attitudes resulting from discrimination effects (i.e., racial discrimination has effected my way of life). Both the BW and BB groups disagreed more than the WW groups on items 5 and 6; which indicate attitudes regarding the acceptance of white ideals (i.e., blacks should try to act more like whites). The BB group disagreed more than 86 the BW and WW groups on item 2 and item 10; which reveal themes concerning inferiority beliefs (i.e., blacks should accept their second-class status). The BB group agreed more than the BW and WW groups on items 13 and 17; which indicate attitudes regarding racial awareness (i.e., whites are socialized to believe their race and culture are superior). The WW group agreed more than the BW and BB groups on item 11, which reveals an attitude suppor- tive of maintianing the status quo (i.e., Blacks have as equal an Opportunity to accomplish their goals as whites). Response Differences to the Environmental Support Items Presented in Appendix F, Table F.2 are the response differences between the three groups on the environmental support items. Only those items shown to have signifi- cant group differences are reported. Examination of the results show that the BW group agreed with items 10 and 24, which indicate attitudes regarding poor student and faculty relationships while the BB and WW groups disagreed. For item 1, which stated ithat their institution had an excellent program in the .area of study, the BW group agreed more than the BB and WW groups. The BW group disagreed while both the BB and {Ww groups agreed with items 6, 9, l3, and 17, which 87 indicate attitudes regarding perceived institutional acceptance (i.e., I feel liked by my professors). The BW group disagreed more than the BB and WW groups on item 20, which reflects an attitude concerning racial equality. The BB and BW groups agreed more than the WW group on items 3, 22, and 29, which reveal attitudes regarding spiritual support (i.e., My belief in God is a comfort and support for me). The BB and BW groups disagreed more than the WW group on item 4, which deals with the avail- ability of financial aide. On item 12, which concerns feeling at home in the community, both the BB and BW dis- agreed while the WW group agreed. For item 14, which indicated that their program was supportive of minority concerns, the BB group agreed while both the BW and WW groups disagreed. For items 19, 31 and 25, which reflect attitudes ‘regarding the environment being too large, but convenient, both the BW and WW groups agreed, while the BB group dis- agreed. Item 27, concerning the course work being challenging, the BW and WW groups agreed more than the BB group. The WW group agreed more than the BW and BB groups on item 28, that was concerned with the amount of interest— ing things to do in the community. The BW and WW groups disagreed more than the BB group on item 30, which indi— cated that their coursework could be related to minority concerns . 88 Re3ponse Differences to the Terminal Values Scale Items In Appendix F, Table F.3 the response differences between the three groups on the terminal values items are presented. Only those values that were found to have significant response differences are reported. Both the BB and BW groups rated the values, a com— fortable life, equality, family security, salvation and wisdom to be more important than the WW group rated them. The BB group rates an exciting life, freedom, and inner harmony to be more important than the BW or WW groups rated them. Both the BB and WW groups rated mature love, and true friendship as more important than the BW group rated them. The BW group valued self-respect to be more important than either the WW or BB groups. Respgnse Differences to the Instrumental Values Items Presented in Appendix F, Table F.4 are the response differences between the three groups on the instrumental values items. Only the items that revealed significant *group mean response differences are reported. ‘ InSpection of the results indicate that both the BW and BB groups valued being ambitious, broadminded, courage— ous, polite and self—controlled more than the WW group. The BW group valued being helpful more than both the BB and WW groups. 89 Response Differences to the Locus of Control-God Items In Appendix F, Table F.5 the response differences between the three groups on the locus of control-God sub— scale items are presented. All of the items showed sig- nificant differences between the groups for this subscale. For items 32, 35, and 36 both the BW and BB groups agreed while the WW group disagreed. These items tend to reflect attitudes regarding the dominance of God's will. Both the BB and BW groups agreed more than the WW group on items 33 and 34; which indicates attitudes regarding accountability to and the influence of God in man's his- tory. DISCUSSION The objective of this investigation was to assess the impact of perceived environmental support, on the self—reported cognitive and behavioral strategies of three groups of students: (1) blacks attending two pre- dominately black institutions (BB); (2) blacks attending a predominately white institution (BW): and (3) whites attending a predominately white institution (WW). This chapter presents a general discussion of the findings of this study. The chapter is organized into five sections: (1) hypotheses, (2) methodological considerations, (3) general findings and comparison with other research lit— erature; (4) speculations on possible implications for Black Americans, and (5) implications for further research. Hypotheses As predicted, Hypothesis 1 was confirmed in that the black students attending the white institution (BW) reported their environment to be less supportive than either the BB or WW groups. Inspection of the individual group mean item iesponses (Table F.2) identifies the particular areas in 90 91 which the BW group reported less environmental support. From the group mean item responses, environmental non- support is reflected in the BW groups general attitudes indicating that they have poor student and faculty rela— tions, little perceived acceptance, little racial equality, did not have enough money, did not feel at home, their programs were not supportive of minority concerns, the institution was too large, they perceived few interesting things to do in the community and their coursework could not be related to minority concerns. In general, it appears from these responses that for the BW group per- ceived non—support is a reflection of perceived discrimina- tion and racial isolation. Hypothesis 2, that the BW groups would perceive their environment to be more uncontrollable was disconfirmed. iThis finding is related to the fact that the only sig- inificant results on the locus of control measures were :between the BB and WW groups and between the BW and WW groups on the conformity and locus of control—God sub- scale. Hypothesis 3, which stated that the adaptive strate- gies of the BW group would be more defensive than the adaptive strategies of the BB and WW groups, was not con- firmed. No significant differences on the defending sub- scale were found between the BW and BB groups and between 92 the BW and WW groups; while the only significant differ- ences was between the BB and WW groups. In addition, of all the groups the WW groups adaptive strategies were more defensive. Hypothesis 4, that the BW group would perceive them- selves as functioning less effectively than the BB and WW groups, received partial support. This finding was shown in the BW groups' higher deference attitudes than the BB group, however, no other significant differences were indicated. Hypothesis 5, that the social consciousness attitudes of the BB groups would be higher than the social con- sciousness attitudes of the BW and WW groups received partial support. This finding of partial support is seen in the result that the BB group had a higher social con- sciousness than the WW group, but there was no significant difference between the BB and BW groups in response to social consciousness attitudes. Methodological Considerations Given the demographic characteristics (Table l) of the three groups, it is apparent that the comparability of the groups must be considered in light of their sample char— acteristics. Considering the sample size differences, it is interesting to note that the BW group achieved signifi- cant differences on several scales, subscales, and scale 93 itesm with an N of 12. However, there may be a possi— bility that these 12 student responses are not represen— tative of the attitudes of the black students attending the white institution. In addition because of the samp- ling procedures (i.e., volunteers solicited from psychol- ogy classes and dormitories) the pOpulation sampled may not be representative of the total student bodies at each institution. As far as maturity influences, the fact that the BB group members were older and were represented by more upperclassmen might have had an influence on their higher social and racial consciousness attitudes since age and classification level were found to influence the social consciousness and racial consciousness attitudes (see Table C.l). The lifestyle support and student-institute relations attitudes of the BB group may as well have been affected by maturity factors. Classifications was found to have a significant influence in response to the life— style support and student-institute relations measures (see Table C.l). Social class differences may also influence the scale response differences. Given that the mother's educational and occupational level was higher for the BB group than the BW and WW groups, it appears that there may be some social class differences, particularly between the BB and 94 BW group, in that the BW group's father's educational and occupational levels were also lower than the BB groups. In Table C.l it was shown that mother's occupational level influenced responses on the social consciousness, racial consciousness, environmental support, student— institute relations and spiritual support measures. In addition, mother's educational level was found to influ— ence the reSponses to the lifestyle support, student— institute relations, coping strategies, stress management frequency, internal locus of control and locus of control— chance measures. The institution location and type may have had an influence on the group's responses to the scales and sub— scales. It seems likely that students who choose to attend a southern private black institution located in an urban area may be different from students who chose to attend a northern public white institution located in a rural area. As a result it appears that black students who choose to go to a predominately black southern insti- tution may be more financially able or expressing more racial identification and autonomy in making that choice, than students who choose to go to a public institution which primarily represents white ideas and standards. Another methodological concern involves social desirability which was not examined in this study. Given the nature of the quesions asked, it appears that social 95 desirability factors may have influenced the scale and subscale responses. Similarly, the race of the question- naire administrator (which was black) may also have influ— enced the responses to the scales and subscales. General Findings and Comparison with the Research Literature In general, the purpose of ths study was to investi- gate student responses to two primary areas of concern: (1) perceptions of environmental support, and (2) cogni- tive and behavioral strategies for dealing with the environment. Environmental Support The findings that the black students attending the predominately white institution would perceive their environment to be less supportive than the blacks attend- ing the black institutions and the whites attending the white institution has implications for students as well as faculty members and administrators interested in encouraging minority student enrollment and social par- ticipation at large white universities. These outcomes suggest that the supportive resources for minority stu- dents are either not effective or accessible or the students are not aware of them. These findings of dissatisfaction and non-support among black students attending white institutions are 96 similar to Jones's (1971) findings that black students attending white institutions think more highly of them- selves than their counterparts attending black institu- tions; however, they are also more alienated, less satisfied with life and rate their college experiences less favorably. In addition, the findings indicating the differential environmental perceptions and racial atti- tudes between black and white students are similar to the findings of Gilman (1978) and Pfeiffer and Schneider (1974). A look at the intercorrelation Table E.4 results may shed further light on the dissatisfaction experienced by the blacks attending the white institution. These find— ings suggest that the BW group's discontentment increased as their lifestyle support and student—institute rela— tions support decreased. In addition, it seems that as their perceptions of lifestyle support decreases, the amount of stress experienced by the BW group increases. Therefore, it appears that the stress and discon~ tentment experienced by black students attending white institutions may be due in part to the lack of perceived support and feelings of alienation. A further look at Table E.4 reveals that for the BW group there was a positive relationship between the amount of stress experienced and abasement attitudes. In addition, 97 the BW group's discontentment attitudes were highly corre- lated with their abasement attitudes. These results suggest that some of the stress and discontentment expe— rienced by black students attending white institutions may be related to their minority status in the environment and the consequential abasing attitudes that they must adOpt to survive in an environment that does not appear to be supportive of their best interests and needs. All together, it seems as if the perceptions of non- support tends to increase the amount of stress experienced, as well as the discontentment and abasement attitudes of the black students attending the predominately white institution. In general, the primary finding of signifi— cant group differences on the environmental support meas— ure and subscales indicates that the black students attending the white institution felt non—suported pri— marily because of racial differences. This appears to represent a situation involving perceived discrimination and racism and should be given careful consideration by faculty and staff concerned with the advancement of black students within white institutions of higher learning in this society. Cognitive and Behavioral Strategies Comparisons of the cognitive strategies used by the three groups indicate that the groups tended to reSpond 98 similarly except on racial issues, value preferences and religious beliefs. On race relevant issues (social consciousness atti— tudes) the BB and BW groups tended to respond more simi- larly than differently. The racial attitudes expressed by the BB and BW groups on the social consciousness measure appears to corroborate previous findings by Schuman and Hatchett (1974), Chang and Ritter (1976), and Lessing and Zagorin (1972) which indicated a trend toward greater black self-definition and self-realization as well as more awareness of the social ramifications that result from living within a racist and discriminatory social system. Furthermore these trends toward greater self—determination appear to be expressed as well through the locus of con- trol expectancies reported by the BB group. The similarity of religious attitudes between the BB and BW groups was found expressed in the Spiritual support and locus of control-God subscales. As far as religious beliefs are concerned, it appears that Spiritual beliefs and expectance of control by God appear to provide a cognitive support more for the black students than for the white students. This seems to be particularly true for the BW group who exPressed more spiritual support beliefs and God-control eXpectancies. This finding that religious beliefs tend to provide support is similar to 99 the literature describing the black church as a support system (Hunt & Hunt, 1977; Martin & Martin, 1978). By believing in control by God and receiving support from their spiritual beliefs the BW group members may be cog- nitively attempting to reduce the stress and discontent- ment experienced in an institutional setting where they feel non-supported. In addition, attitude similarities between the BB and BW groups were found in responses to the terminal and instrumental values items. This appears to indicate that common experiences as a result of racial similarity may tend to foster similar value preferences, particularly regarding values concerned with freedom and equality. In general these similarities suggest that the common cultural experiences of blacks due to similar socializa— tion patterns or the affects of oppression and discrimina— tion in the societal institutions may influence the per- ceptions of blacks on value preferences, racial attitudes and religious beliefs toward more similarity. It should be noted that there were no significant racial differences in response to Levenson's three locus of control subscales. These findings contradict the find- ing of Levenson (1974) and Garcia and Levenson (1975) which indicated that blacks scored significantly higher on the external end of the locus of control continuum. The findings for the BB group on the locus of control subscales 100 appears to reflect a changing trend toward more internal control beliefs which may be a result of the increased availability of mastery Opportunity structure. The dissimilar attitudes found between the groups seem to be influenced by differential environmental per- ceptions and influences. Except for racial response similarities on racial issues, values and religious beliefs the BB and BW groups were Shown to represent a heterogeneous pOpulation. The finding that blacks are not represented by a homogeneous group has been supported by other researchers (Ford,l972; Wade, 1972). In particular, as far as behavioral strategies were concerned, there were no significant differences between any of the groups in response to the stress management behavior scale. This finding suggests that regardless of race or differentially perceived environmental influences, the stress management strategies of the students were more similar than dissimilar. That the BB and BW groups did not respond differently from the WW group on adaptive strategies and locus of control expectancies suggests that there may be general cognitive beliefs that may not be greatly influenced by racial differences or differentially perceived environ- ments. lOl Speculations on Possible Implications for Black Americans From the results of this study, it appears that black students, specifically and Black Americans generally, must continuously assess the impact of environmental influences on their cognitive and behavioral adaptation responses. In order to effectively adapt within a social system, it is important to understand the mutual interactive effects of the environmental, cognitive and behavioral influences on one's psychological develOpment. This is particularly important for Black Americans in that there are additional adaptations for them to make within a social system that has historically denied and restricted their developmental potentials through various discrimina— tory and racist mechanisms within the society. It appears that few blacks take the time to analyze and clearly under- stand the implications of white supremacy and oppression, mainly because they are kept preoccupied with the additional stress of racism, maintaining their survival needs, and trying to acquire "the American dream." For an individual to be able to develop their poten— tials to the fullest extent and in their best interest, the individual should be self-determining rather than other—determined. Self-determination involves being able to choose one's future course from an unrestricted range 102 of Options. Therefore, self-determination appears to be a prerequisite for self-actualization. As a result, it is eSpecially important for Black Americans to understand their needs, values and beliefs to determine and under- stand how much the American cultural system meets or fails to meet their best interests. By maintaining discrimination, the American cultural system has failed to provide Blacks with a fully useful pattern for finding an effective identity and lifestyle satisfaction. By living in a society which delegates minority group members to a subordinate status and degrades cultural and physical differences, minorities are victim- ized by the active presence Of racism and the discrimina- tion, Oppression and exploitation that goes along with it. Taking these factors into account, one needs to con- sider how Black Americans may develOp adaptive and self- determining personalities in an unjust and psychologi- cally oppressive environment. It appears that for successful adaptation, blacks must develop the conceptual abilities and skills necessary for successful advancement within their highly technological and scientific society, while at the same time develOp those self-determining and progressive personality aSpects which accommodate the phiIOSOphical world views of their indigenous cultural heritages that would foster creative growth and positive identity development. 103 Blacks must make a realistic appraisal of the Oppor- tunities that are open to them and, in addition, be able to perceive alternative or additional course of action that may be open for negotiation and compromise. It appears that the most adaptive outcome will be to acknowl- edge both sets of antagonistic values and choose between them or combine them into a realistic new value system. Therefore, what is required is flexibility and clear cognitive discriminations regarding which aspects of the European (American) and African cultural philosophies that should be internalized for the develOpment of self— determined, adaptive and progressive personality struc— tures for Black Americans. In order to find out what aspects of the EurOpean and African cultures are in their best interest as far as individual and group advancement, it is imperative for black Americans to assess and reassess their environmental situation as well as their cognitive perceptions and behavioral responses to better understand which adaptive strategies are in their best interests and which are not. It appears that the situation facing Black Americans involves systemic psychological oppression. Oppression refers not only to the economic, social and political disenfranchisement, but to spiritual, mental and moral disenfranchisement as well (Cone, 1970). To be Oppressed 104 is to be defined according to another's perspective. To be psychologically Oppressed is to have accepted the imposed definition as one's own. In that an Oppressive system must continuously reinforce its imposed definitions for the people it Oppresses, conformity with one's assigned status and identification with the oppressor is positively sanctioned. In addition, in that a cultural system is a mechanism for continuing the history and soli- darity of a people, it is necessary that the oppressor destroy the history of the people it proposes to oppress. An oppressive situation tends to be reciprocal; once the Oppressed pOpulation has accepted the other imposed definition, they tend to act in ways that help to per— petuate the Oppressive situation. In line with this, Collier (1977) suggested that Oppression cannot exist without cooperation with the norms which support it. Therefore, because blacks have not changed many patterns of behavior (i.e., ingroup fighting, conspicuous con- sumerism, identification with the oppressor, bourgeoisie attitudes, exploitative and con-man attitudes) which help to maintain the Oppressive system, they are, in effect, responsible partners in their own Oppression. Overcoming Oppression requires psychological libera— tion from the conditioning and constraints of the majority culture. It involves a re-awakening to old and more 105 effective ways of dealing with reality as well as the development of creative and innovative thoughts and activities regarding environment adaptation and lifestyle management. Overcoming Oppression tends to indicate the need for black consciousness development. Cone (1970) describes black consciousness as an attempt to recover an awareness of past history and heri— tage that was destroyed by the slavery system. In this sense, black consciousness involves attempts to revive old survival symbols and systems, as well as creating new ones. While black consciousness is based on the group's sense of historical continuity, it is also generated by the persistent struggle for psychological liberation and self-determination. Hraba and Siegman (1974) suggested that "Black consciousness is an awareness of racial barriers, deprivation, consequent discontent, as well as a commitment to Black collection action" (p. 64). In addition, black consciousness involves an awareness of the differing world view philosophies, especially the African system. A world view may be defined as how an individual per- ceives his/her relationship to the world around them (i.e., nature, other people, institutions, objects). In compar— ing some of the general African and EurOpean world views, 106 some important differences are brought to consideration. The African world view is primarily based on the group, similarities, commonalities, cooperation, collective responsibility, survival of the group and being one with nature, while the EurOpean world View is primarily based on individuality, uniqueness, differences, competition, individual rights, survival of the fittest and mastery over nature (Nobles, 1978). It is clear that these world views are essentially antagonistic and could likely result in culture conflicts for those Black Americans seeking to retain the philOSOphical world view of their indigenous culture. Black consciousness is essential for black self- determination in that it provides a philosophical view of life and a framework for interpreting events; and it indi- cates a direction for the continuation of black people as a group. The primary issues inherent in black conscious- ness appear to center around self-awareness, self— determination, self-reliance and community control and power. When blacks can incorporate a sense of identity and self—acceptance based on their own racial heritage and culture instead of the white standards and culture and when they learn to transcend discriminatory practices and decrease their dependency on aspects of the dominant cul— ture which are not in their best interest as a group, they 107 will at least be psychologically liberated. "Liberation is the freedom to be one's self fully as a human being with all aspects of one's developmental, educational, social, political and cultural experiences supporting that free- dom" (Comer, 1972, p. 348). Liberation involves a group survival, self-determining attitude followed by purposeful and effective actions. The develOpment of black consciousness may be an important factor in the struggle for group solidarity and the elimination of racism. Jones (1972) suggested that the develOpment of black consciousness may be one way to eliminate racism in that blacks will be able to pool their talents and resources into a concentrated effort to defeat institutional racism by developing black controlled con- sumer cooperatives, banks, child-care centers and social service agencies. The movement of black peOple toward self—determination has been misunderstood by the majority group. As a result, any expression of "Black Power" and community control through direct methods, such as competition, has been diverted or defeated. It appears that, as long as blacks accepted their minority status role and did not mobilize for structural and environmental control, they were not considered to be particularly threatening. Two concepts have been advanced to account for white resistance to black demands: perceived racial threat 108 (Ashmore & DelBoca, 1976) and symbolic racism (McConahay & Hough, 1976; Sears & McConahay, 1973). Perceived racial threat involves the feeling that blacks are a direct threat to one's personal security. Ashmore and DelBoca (1976) found that this attitude was most prevalent among the urban working class whose mem- bers are in direct competition with blacks for socio- economic resources. Symbolic racism is an attitude involving the belief that the social, economic and political status quo should be maintained and that blacks are responsible for threat- ening this status quo and therefore, the American way of life. This attitude was found to be expressed most by middle-class suburbanites who view blacks as threatening the values of the society. The competitive relationship between blacks and whites, especially in times of economic hardship has posed an increasing threat to almost all white Americans who are feeling the strains of the recession. Therefore, as the hardships increase, whites will be less willing or concerned about rectifying past injustices toward blacks. This sets up a situation that requires blacks to take steps to provide their own advancement and support systems. 109 Implications for Further Research The effects of racism and environmental stress due to discrimination are manifested on many different levels and as a result it is necessary to try to combat it on all the same levels. This may be accomplished by consciously attempting to deal with racism by increasing individual's understanding of why and how it is manifested and per— petrated as well as how it works on all levels of con- sciousness and in what ways. In this way, it may be possible to bring unconscious racist beliefs and reactions to racist beliefs into conscious awareness so that cogni- tive restructuring may be used to decrease racist beliefs and stress innoculation may be used to help victims of racism COpe more effectively. Cognitively racism may be dealt with by pointing out its pathology and irrationality as well as helping vic- tims of racism transcend its effects through consciousness raising strategies. Behaviorally racism may be dealt with by helping individual's to manage their lifestyles more effectively to cope with racist and stressful environ— ments as well as helping individuals to become more environ- mentally aware and be able to objectively assess environmental events and act purposefully in their best interest by establishing support systems or improving the effectiveness of existing support systems that will 110 counteract the nonsupportive, discriminatory system under which they live. Underlying all these attempts to COpe with the effects of racism involves stress management. Stress management requires the modification of one's position in relation to the stressor. Since it is one's cognitive interpreta- tions that determine whether or not one experiences stress, it appears that a key to mastering stress will be found through becoming aware of and controlling one's cognitions. "Adaptive stress management minimally requires the regulation of affect, attention-focusing and cognitive processing" (Haan, 1977, p. 172). Therefore, individuals must be able to control their emotions enough to concentrate on the situation and use cognitive strate— gies to take effective action toward an appropriate solution. There are two major solutions to environmental stress: (1) change the environment, or (2) change one's perception of, or reaction to, the environment by reinterpretation, restructuring, lowering or raising stress thresholds, expanding or restricting one's attentional focus or making a different attribution. An individual's stress tolerance threshold is an important aSpect of the way that one manages stressful situations. Stress tolerance involves an indivdiual's 111 endurance and persistence under threat. In order to develop stress tolerance, a sense of security, self—esteem and self-confidence must be established first and, secondly, problem-solving skills and abilities must be developed. Two main aspects of stress management are behavioral and cognitive control. Behavioral control allows one to manage the aversive aspects of an environment. Cognitive control affects how the environment is likely to be per- ceived. Potentially stressful situations that can be controlled are perceived as less threatening, and such cognitive appraisals tend to further reduce anticipatory emotional arousal. Cognitive control increases one's capacity to attend to more information in the perceptual field and, as a result, helps one to become more aware of the cognitive patterns that sustain stress. The best way to get in touch with the threatening meanings given to events is to become aware of what one says to oneself about the situation. The things one says to oneself about stressful situations helps to create and maintain perceptions of infringement and threat. When one is attempting to adapt to a stressful or racist environment, there are many frustrations and blocks that have to be dealt with. In a racist environment, these frustrations increase the possibility of an increase in 112 anger and aggressive responses in that the frustrations are likely to be perceived as unjustified or inappro- priate. For Black Americans, stress management in a discrim- inatory system is a delicate situation due to the subtlety of many racist and discriminatory encounters. It seems that blacks must learn to cognitively transcend the threats of racism and discrimination to decrease the level of stress and improve their objectiveness regarding situa— tions of this nature. This transcendence can take place with the modification of the self-statements or covert cognitions that the individual makes regarding the threat— ening discriminatory situation. Meichenbaum (1977) defined this method as stress innoculation. Stress innoculation is based on the premise that both adaptive and maladaptive responses are mediated by the statements that the individual makes to him/herself and involves one's appraisals, eXpectancies, attributions and self—perceptions. These self-statements or cognitive coping skills encourage the individual to: (1) assess the reality of the threatening Situation; (2) control negative thoughts and images; (3) acknoweldge, use and re-label the stress experienced by the individual; (4) make preparations for confrontation; (5) COpe with the stress; and (6) reflect on results and reinforce oneself. Therefore, through concentration, one can become aware Of 113 and alter their cognitions and, in turn, affect not only the emotional but the behavioral responses. It also should be considered that learning to manage one's thoughts, in order to minimize stress, involves changing long- standing patterns of thinking that have become habitual, and it takes a considerable amount of effort. The stress of everyday life or of racism can be managed in many ways. Coping-skills models basically involve the modification of one's position in relation to a stressor. Stress COping—skills training approaches have been successfully applied in different problem areas. These include speech anxiety (Meichenbaum, Gil- more & Fadoravicius, 1971); test anxiety (Sarason, 1973), anger (Novaco, 1975a) and general anxiety management (Suinn & Richardson, 1971) to name a few. It appears that there is a need to research ways to develop social and environmental support systems that will help alleviate stress. Support tends to develop out of a sense of solidarity between individuals that works toward righteous relations within their immediate and nuclear families, as well as communities. Using the black extended family as an example of a support system provides an example of the effectiveness of mutual aide resources which could provide information,. funds, as well as provide a base for consensual validation 114 for one's world view. Similarly like the black church provides a support system, the black extended family has been the institution most significant to black survival in the diaspora and most helpful in the continuation of the African philOSOphical world View of the survival of the group and beliefs involving collective work and reSponsi- bility. In that extended families Often involve blood, as well as non-blood relatives, it may be possible to develOp extended family type support systems with individual community members, as well as in the university setting where groups of students organize support systems and utilize them to act as resource information sources to help counter the effects of their stressful or discrimina- tory environments. Therefore, it appears that social support systems are a powerful mechanism for assuring that basic needs are met and for giving its individual members a sense of solidarity and an Open information network that could pro- vide a potential direction for self-determination and psychological growth. As a result, it seems feasible that the development or restructuring of formal or informal support groups or workshOps would help to alleviate some of the stresses encountered by minority students. What is clear is that more research is needed to further assess what kinds of support is lacking for blacks 115 and other minority students and how the needed information and skills necessary to help minorities adapt to univers— tiy settings may be provided in a treatment package. APPENDICES 116 APPENDIX A ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BETWEEN BLACKS AND WHITES ON SPECIFIED DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES 117 “"7 TABLEZLll--Analysis of variance between blacks and whites on specified demographic variables Source of Variation df Mean F. Signifi— Square Ratio cance Age by race 1 15.414 8.605 .003* Sex by race 1 .007 .030 .863 Income by race 1 .640 .230 .632 Classification by race 1 36.542 46.423 .001** Family size by race 1 21.614 6.273 .013* Mother living at home by race 1 .002 .053 .818 Father living at home by race 1 3.293 15.847 .001** Mothers occupation by race 1 72.677 25.402 .001** Fathers occupation by race 1 .096 .043 .830 Mothers education by race 1 19.037 10.443 .001** Fathers education by race 1 .691 .260 .610 Birthorder by race 1 .485 .343 .550 Grade point average by race 1 8.730 7.296 .007* 1 292.549 2.537 .113 Residence by race *p < .05 **p < .001 118 a— .:;:~ .1 1, - APPENDIX B CLUSTER ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL CONSCIOUSNESS SCALE 119 w.—____.____—.__——‘-w~.~ w _w~ ._ .n—s... TABLE B.l.--Items which constitute the racial conscious- ness subscale Item , Number Question 1 Racial discrimination has effected my way of life. 6. White Americans are concerned with increasing the advancement opportunities of black Ameri- cans. 8. Blacks are more religious than whites. 9. Blacks have been socialized to keep them depend- ent on white producers for their goods and services. 11. Blacks have as equal an Opportunity to accom- plish their goals as whites. 13. Whites are socialized to believe their race and culture are superior. l4. Blacks should support and use black-owned . businesses, banks, and stores whenever poss1ble. 15. Whites feel blacks are basically inferior. l6. Whites manipulate rules and laws to suit their needs and purposes 17. Anthropological findings clearly show the first civilization was developed by blacks. 18. Blacks should be cautious when dealing with white institutions or businesses. 120 121 TABLE B.2.--Intercorrelations among the racial con- sciousness Item Number l8 l4 16 15 9 l3 6 11 1 l7 8 18 14 .64 16 .60 .48 15 .50 .49 .42 9 .44 .53 .37 .38 13 .36 .43 .38 .52 .47 6 .39 .46 .28 .36 .38 .34 11 .29 .30 .23 .26 .35 .22 .29 1 .32 .33 .26 .27 .30 .30 .12 .33 17 .38 .29 .30 .22 .22 .13 .13 .23 .14 122 TABLE B.3.--Items which constitute the racial tolerance subscale and intercorrelation table Item . Number Question 12. Most blacks would rather be white. 10. Blacks should accept their second-class status. 2. Blacks never had a civilized society until whites came along. 3. White Americans gained their power because they are superior. 4. PeOple should marry within their own racial group. 5. Blacks should try to act more like whites. 7. Blacks have not been able to acquire any effective power in America because they are inferior. Intercorrelations Item 5 2 12 4 Number 10 3 7 10 3 .63 7 .58 .53 5 .58 .57 .46 2 .56 .55 .40 .48 12 .46 .39 .45 .43 .27 4 -.03 .02 .13 -.13 .06 -.07 APPENDIX C ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BETWEEN THE SCALES, SUB- SCALES, AND RACE SIGNIFICANT DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES 123 TABLE C.l.--Ana1ysis of variance between the scales, subscales, and race significant demographic variables Source of Variation df Mean F Signifi- Square cance SC by Age 8 815.639 4.703 .001** SC by Classification 3 2555.071 15.836 .001** SC by Family Size 9 216.181 1.064 .392 SC by Father at Home 1 1637.260 9.683 .002* SC by Mothers Occupation 5 594.335 3.175 .009* SC by Mothers Education 6 205.528 1.016 .417 SC by Fathers Education 6 234.226 1.161 .330 SC by Grade Point Average 5 452.087 2.303 .047* SC by Race 1 11827.078 87.691 .001** SC by Institution 1 9195.695 61.717 .001** RC by Age 8 587.358 5.702 .001** RC by Classification 3 1904.592 20.972 .001** RC by Family Size 9 133.013 1.060 .395 RC by Father at home 1 528.533 5.100 .026* RC by Mothers Occupation 5 246.271 2.376 .043* RC by Mothers Education 6 156.836 1.513 .179 RC by Fathers Education 6 166.825 1.339 .243 RC by Grade Point Average 5 387.767 3.266 .007* RC by Race 1 9912.574 150.135 .001** RC by Institution 1 16.034 .243 .623 RT by Age 8 26.643 .792 .610 RT by Classification 3 44.585 1.356 .258 RT by Family Size 9 30.337 .906 .521 RT by Father at Home 1 34.184 1.162 .283 RT by Mothers Occupation 5 16.452 .559 .731 RT by Mothers Education 6 5.678 .193 .978 RT by Fathers Education 6 19.946 .582 .744 RT by Grade Point Average 5 8.210 .243 .942 RT by Race 1 60.012 1.784 .183 RT by Institution 1 7.332 .218 .641 S by Age 8 444.211 1.358 .219 S by Classification 3 267.743 .794 .499 S by Family Size 9 167.128 .489 .888 S by Father at Home 1 315.959 1.023 .314* S by Mothers Occupation 5 772-179 2-501 -034 S by Mothers Education 6 541-490 1:754 -114 S by Fathers Education 6 434.838 1-340 -243 S by Grade Point Average 5 617.144 1-889 ~099 5 by Race 1 332.012 1.061 .304** S by Institution 1 3701.402 11.829 .001 124 125 TABLE C.l.--Continued Source of Variation df Mean F Signifi- sQuare cance LS by Age 8 177.172 1.331 .232 LS by Classification 3 355.287 2.654 .050* LS by Family Size 9 120.196 .883 .541 LS by Father at Home 1 301.371 2.503 .116 LS by Mothers Occupation 5 253.813 2.108 .069 LS by Mothers Education 6 286.042 2.375 .033* LS by Fathers Education 6 275.949 2.140 .052* LS by Grade Point Average 5 355.233 2.748 .020* LS by Race 1 1211.440 9.352 .003* LS by Institution 1 106.989 .826 .365 SIR by Age 8 76.720 1.255 .271 SIR by Classification 3 180.188 3.016 .032* SIR by Family Size 9 57.213 .921 .509 SIR by Father at Home 1 1.791 .030 .864 SIR by Mothers Occupation 5 196.312 3.336 .007* SIR by Mothers Education 6 140.942 2.376 .032* SIR by Fathers Education 6 47.060 .762 .601 SIR by Grade Point Average 5 146.064 2.437 .037* SIR by Race 1 607.984 10.880 .001** SIR by Institution 1 2517.106 58.036 .001** SS by Age 8 42.864 3.180 .002* 88 by Classification 3 25.293 1.758 .157 SS by Family Size 9 19.256 1.317 .231 88 by Father at Home 1 8.076 .575 .450 88 by Mothers Occupation 5 31.612 2.250 .054* SS by Mothers Education 6 22.927 1.632 .144 SS by Fathers Education 6 50.677 3.648 .002* SS by Grade Point Average 5 22.520 1.740 .128 SS by Race 1 228.360 16.651 .001** SS by Institution 1 11.963 .872 .352 C by Age 8 18.808 1.218 .292 C by Classification 3 11.853 .762 .517 C by Family Size 9 19.242 1.250 .268 C by Father at Home 1 1.439 .098 .754 C by Mothers Occupation 5 7.889 .540 .746* C by Mothers Education 6 51.943 3.553 .003* C by Fathers Education 6 38-397 2:693 ~016 C by Grade Point Average 5 11-275 .708 -618 C by Race 1 1.074 .068 .795 C by Institution 1 5.920 .373 .23: D by Age 8 18.412 .888 . 5 D by Classification 3 9-579 :454 '71 126 C.l.--Continued Source of Variation df Mean Signifi- Square cance by by by by by by by by SMB UUUUUUUU Family Size Father at Home Mothers Occupation Mothers Education Fathers Education Grade Point Average Race Institution by Age SMB by Classification SMB by Family Size SMB by Father at Home SMB by Mothers Occupation SMB by Mothers Education SMB by Fathers Education SMB by Grade Point Average SMB by Race SMB by Institution SMF by Age SMF by Classification SMF by Family Size SMF by Father at Home SMF by Mothers Occupation SMF by Mothers Education SMF by Fathers Education SMF by Grade Point Average SMF by Race SMF by Institution ACH by Age ACH by Classification ACH by Family Size ACH by Father at Home ACH by Mothers Occupation ACH by Mothers Education ACH by Fathers Education ACH by Grade Point Average ACH by Race ACH by Institution DOM by Age DOM by Classification meHmmmmHmmeHWQGWHmwmHHWOO‘mHOWmHHmmmmHO 13.531 .034 8.174 30.358 17.987 33.492 63.440 3.688 565.270 185.810 793.185 205.236 719.082 733.381 624.993 283.045 138.857 .762 61.274 30.073 44.283 121.731 75.678 133.599 165.607 64.021 101.860 112.243 277.804 305.200 188.624 116.353 224.707 101.755 179.409 208.208 635.250 12.497 488.608 658.047 .643 .002 .002 1.375 .855 1.661 3.196 .186 1.184 .394 1.709 .470 1.647 1.680 1.349 .574 .284 .002 1.142 .545 .812 2.466 1.533 2.706 3.272 1.178 1.910 2.105 1.366 1.493 .907 .541 1.046 .473 .842 1.003 3.059 .060 1.353 1.844 .758 .969 .969 .230 .529 .146 .076 .667 .312 .756 .090 .494 .153 .132 .239 .719 .595 .969 .338 .652 .606 .119 .185 .017* .005* .322 .169 .149 .215 .219 .520 .463 .394 .827 .539 .417 .082 .807 .221 .141 TABLE C.1.--Continued 127 Source of Variation df Mean F Signifi- Square cance DOM by Family Size 9 407.997 1.118 .352 DOM by Father at Home 1 338.263 .899 .345 DOM by Mothers Occupation 5 685.544 1.822 .114 DOM by Mothers Education 6 222.956 .593 .736 DOM by Fathers Education 6 342.510 .912 .488 DOM by Grade Point Average 5 494.854 1.352 .245 DOM by Race 1 1401.688 3.861 .051* DOM by Institution 1 111.550 .305 .582 DEF by Age 8 53.692 .781 .620 DEF by Classification 3 20.743 .298 .827 DEF by Family Size 9 113.911 1.740 .084 DEF by Father at Home 1 5.382 .072 .789 DEF by Mothers Occupation 5 90.934 1.220 .304 DEF by Mothers Education 6 70.886 .951 .462 DEF by Fathers Education 6 53.596 .762 .601 DEF by Grade Point Average 5 43.501 .629 .678 DEF by Race 1 .670 .010 .921 DEF by Institution 1 374.230 5.557 .020 END by Age 8 217.427 .890 .526 END by Classification 3 379.854 1.563 .200 END by Family Size 9 98.206 .391 .938 END by Father at Home 1 30.489 .118 .732 END by Mothers Occupation 5 170.764 .659 .655 END by Mothers Education 6 57.178 .221 .970 END by Fathers Education 6 308.439 1.249 .284 END by Grade Point Average 5 85.363 .341 .887 END by Race 1 86.012 .353 .553 END by Institution 1 660.802 2.709 .102 ORD by Age 8 148.204 .853 .558 0RD by Classification 3 153.419 .882 .452 ORD by Family Size 9 76.487 .430 .917 ORD by Father at Home 1 45.203 -239 -625 ORD by Mothers Occupation 5 172.028 .909 -477 ORD by Mothers Education 6 40.309 ~213 -972 ORD by Fathers Education 6 192.113 1-098 .366 0RD by Grade Point Average 5 134-820 .768 -574 ORD by Race 1 168.583 .969 .326 0RD by Institution 1 180.693 1.039 .310 ABA by Age 8 69.085 .893 .524 ABA by Classification 3 9.626 -123 .947 ABA by Family Size 9 115.236 1.591 .137 ABA by Father at Home 1 100.569 1-161 '23: ABA by Mothers Occupation 5 85-064 ~982 '449 ABA by Mothers Education 6 83.953 .969 .438 ABA by Fathers Education 6 72.618 .9 . TABLE C.1.--Continued 128 Source of Variation df Mean F Signifi- Square cance ABA by Grade Point Average 5 37.489 .475 .794 ABA by Race 1 137.574 1.806 .181 ABA by Institution 1 204.610 2.686 .103 DIS by Age 8 27.170 1.289 .252 DIS by Classification 3 3.017 .139 .937 DIS by Family Size 9 10.126 .460 .899 DIS by Father at Home 1 6.816 .319 .573 DIS by Mothers Occupation 5 29.639 1.386 .234 DIS by Mothers Education 6 38.278 1.790 .107 DIS by Fathers Education 6 27.759 1.323 .250 DIS by Grade Point Average 5 15.801 .728 .603 DIS by Race 1 50.298 2.365 .126 DIS by Institution 1 42.288 1.988 .160 ST by Age 8 3.423 .358 .941 ST by Classification 3 3.849 .415 .742 ST by Family Size 9 8.456 .908 .520 ST by Father at Home 1 1.340 .128 .721 ST by Mothers Occupation 5 10.098 .965 .442 ST by Mothers Education 6 7.938 .758 .604 ST by Fathers Education 6 6.030 .632 .705 ST by Grade Point Average 5 4.238 .448 .814 ST by Race 1 15.429 1.652 .200 ST by Institution 1 .519 .056 .814 LCG by Age 8 92.506 1.793 .082 LCG by Classification 3 103.125 1.933 .126 LCG by Family Size 9 45.561 .844 .576 LCG by Father at Home 1 58.625 1.049 .308 LCG by Mothers Occupation 5 56.813 1.017 .411 LCG by Mothers Education 6 99.109 1.774 .110 LCG by Fathers Education 6 109.853 2.083 .058* LCG by Grade Point Average 5 54.164 1.006 .415 LCG by Race 1 1057.190 22.030 .001** LCG by Institution 1 14-417 .300 ~584 CO by Age 8 18.282 1.129 .347 CO by Classification 3 24.741 1.524 .210 CO by Family Size 9 12.613 .764 .649 CO by Father at Home 1 69.693 4.152 .044* CO by Mothers Occupation 5 5-725 .341 -887 CO by Mothers Education 6 10-174 ~606 .725 CO by Fathers Education 6 5.756 -347 ~911 CO by Grade Point Average 5 30.870 1.962 .087* co by Race 1 210.583 13.974 .001 1 2.897 .192 .662 CO by Institution TABLE C.l.--Continued 129 Source of Variation df Mean F Signifi- Square cance LCI by Age 8 39.408 1.204 .300 LCI by Classification 3 18.427 .564 .639 LCI by Family Size 9 62.397 1.987 .043* LCI by Father at Home 1 132.059 4.481 .036* LCI by Mothers Occupation 5 17.933 .609 .693 LCI by Mothers Education 6 80.657 2.737 .016* LCI by Fathers Education 6 43.520 1.386 .223 LCI by Grade Point Average 5 26.557 .793 .556 LCI by Race 1 2.170 .065 .799 LCI by Institution 1 94.510 2.645 .094 LCC by Age 8 70.226 1.640 .117 LCC by Classification 3 97.816 2.260 .083 LCC by Family Size 9 27.322 .606 .790 LCC by Father at Home 1 23.644 .578 .449 LCC by Mothers Occupation 5 17.302 .423 .832 LCC by Mothers Education 6 88.802 2.171 .050* LCC by Fathers Education 6 16.527 .375 .894 LCC by Grade Point Average 5 30.021 .676 .641 LCC by Race 1 7.146 .159 .691 LCC by Institution 1 11.514 .256 .641 LCP by Age 8 87.195 1.873 .068 LCP by Classification 3 30.182 .620 .608 LCP by Family Size 9 22.322 .447 .907 LCP by Father at Home 1 79.039 1.451 .230 LCP by Mothers Occupation 5 25.723 .472 .796 LCP by Mothers Education 6 34.855 ~640 -698 LCP by Fathers Education 6 10.531 .231 -972 LCP by Grade Point Average 5 106.049 2.250 .051* LCP by Race 1 51.074 1.045 .308 1 1.920 .039 .843 LCP by Institution APPENDIX D CORRELATIONS BETWEEN SCALES AND SUBSCALES AND DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES FOR EACH GROUP 130 m—mmflmh —. - .. —-—-._4 So . v m... mo. v N. mH.I OH. NO. mN. ON. 50. HH.I OH.I mo. mo. mH.I HH.I mH. mH. no.1 0H.I ON. mo. OH. HN.I HO.I no. «ON. OO.I 1&0 Ho. mH.I mo. HH.: OH. mo. OO.I 0H. HH. OH. nH. vo. NN. OH. mo. v0.1 MH. #0. VH.I HH.I can. 5H. mo. mo.l Om mN.I HN. HO.I NH. 50. VH.I nN.I NN.I vo.l OO.I On.l OH.I NO.I v0.1 no. NN.I MN. MN. mo. OH.I .mN.| OH.| mo. ON.I om ownmmumoswp can .monomndm .monom coo3uon mGOHuMHouuoonn.H.o nance 131 . u" 132 8o. v u... no. v Mr 0H.I HO. 00.! OH. OH. NO.I OH. OO.I NH. 00. OO. 00. OO.I 00. H0. 00. no. no. 00. H0. 0H.I Ho. HH. m0. tau HO. cON. NO. vH. OO.I N0. OO.I OO.I NO.I 00.: NH. OO.I 00. NO.I OO.I MN.I mH.I OO.I v0.l nH.I OH. HO. HO. no. on HO.I v0. ccHn.I m0.l 0H.I 0H.I mH.I no. NH.I 0H.I 0m. mo. m0.| OO.I 0H.I NO.I «NN.! v0.l no. 0H.I MH. OO.I 0H.i mH.I nm . 0H£muuooaoo mmHmomnsm can monom msouo mm on» How menMHum> 0Hsmmuoosoo 0:6 monomndm s MGHMOM C003H0fl mCOfiUMHflHHOUII . N oQ SSH. 133 H00. V not no . v m. mH. 0N. 0H. mv. Om. NH.! 00. H0. 0N.1!h0. £00.! 000. .00. vH. v0. VH.! 0H. 00. NM. QH.I 00. m0. Nv. 0H.I 4&0 0H.I HO.I NM. v0. mH. 0N. mN.l 00.! 0N.! 00.! HH.! 0H.I VH.I VN. m0. VN. 00. OH. v0.! VN.! 0H.I m0. 0N. NO.I 00 OH. 0m. 00. 00.! mo. vm.l m0.l NM. NN. 9N. HN. 0m. Hm. 0v. H0. 0v. HN.! 0H.I 0H.I 0N.! NO.I mm. 00. 0Nol omdm mm. 0H.I NN.! H0. 00. HN.! HH. 0N. VN. mm. MN. CNm. mm. CHO. HN.! OH0. HH. cHN.! c0m.! 0%.! m0. Hm. m0. NO.I QH‘S 00. HQ. mH. VH. 0H. mN.! 0H. HN. mm. vv. 00. 0H. 0v. mv. 0N.! Hv. 0N. NN. 0H.! vv.l NO.I Nm. NH. 00.! UO‘Q MN. vv. 00. NH. HH. NH. 00.! HH. 0H.I m0. m0. NH. mm.l MN. VM.! H0. .00. 0m.| mv.! 0H0.l 0H.I NH. 0H. N0. 00¢: NN.! 00.! NH. #0.! H0. 0m. HH.! 0N.l v0.l 00.! HN.! 0N.I NN.! NN.! mm. Hm.! 00.! NV. Nm. 0H. 0N.I vm.! 00.! NH. 03‘“ NH.! VN.! 0H. QH. HN. 0N. NN. 0H.I ON. 00. vm.l 0H.I NH.I NO.I 0N. HH.! 00. mv. 00. HH. 0H.I NO.I NH. NV. 0342 mv.l 00.! 0V. HO.I QN.! mm. VN. mH.l NH.I V0.! HH.! 0H.I vm.l HH.! mH. NO.I 00. NO.I VH. Nm.! 0H.! NH. 0H.! ‘00. Hath N0.! 0N. mn.l NN.! 0N.! NH. 0H. NO.I HN.! NO.I 0H. HN.! H0. H0.! 0v.l 0N. 00. NO.I 0H.I 0H.I v0. 0H.I mm.l 0N. 0440 0v. Om. VH.I HN. ON. v0. 00.! 00. NO.I 00.! OH. 00.! NM. 00. NN.! cHw. Hm.l «00.! mN.! VH. 00. mm. 0H.I H0. 02H Hv.! N0. 0H.I NN.! Vm.l 00.! ON. mm. 0H. mm. v0. NN. 00.! H0. HN.! v0.l VN.! Vm. 0N. 00. com. VN. Nm.l NH. XNW N0. mm. 0m. vm. «00.! 00.! 0N.l 0N. 0v.! NN.! mm. 00.! N0. HH.! «v0.l Hm. 0H. NN.! NN.! 0m.! 0H. VH. «00.! HN.! 00¢ a 0 mm mHm a am on <3. 98 ozm m3 mun 23 soc 03 00 am mod 03 Hun $6 66 m om 60H 03 56> monomnsm 0:0 memom 0H£mmu00800 mzoum 30 Gnu How moHanHm> UHLQQuNOEoU can mewomndm .wOHmom cwo3u0n mGOHumHmuuooun.m.0 wands APPENDIX E INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG SCALES AND SUBSCALES FOR EACH GROUP 134 ._.—_- __. ........ HOO. v 500 m0. v 00 9:388 v~.u acumen ON. 00. unonmsm HISUHuHan 00. 0oN. own. .IHQI OusuHuI:H!u:ooauu Ho. mH. .ch. 00mm. uuonmsw Oahu-GNHA GO. .3. no. vH. v0. conduOHOF HGHUIK can. «HH.! 00~.n .FN.! HN.! HH.! ance-soHocoo HaHuqu 0mm. 0mm.! NH. no.! mo.! 0H. nN. acalo-qn‘ 00. NN. 00.! vN. NH. vN. HH.! 00m. Hugo 0H. NH. 00.! NN. ma. 0Nn. No.! 000m. 0000. oucuusucu 0.mv. nv.n v0.3 HN.! NN.! mo.! cu. 00NN. mH. vN. acoucoouHa 00N. 0H.I OH. no. HH. NH. 00. 00.0.0. 00mm. 00mm. 000mm. OUCIHOUIO 00. 00M. o~.! 0cm. NN. HH. HH.! HH. 00NN. 000N. vH. mH. ounchloa 00. 0NN. 00.! 00m. HN. mH. NH.! NH. 00vm. 00cm. 0H. 0NN. 0000. 9.3.0.620: oH. Ho.u 00mm. ow. 00m. HH. NN.! 0H. 00.! oH.! NO.I HH. mH.! vH.! U!!~ouucou no uaoqu 0NN. 00Hv.! NH. 0mN.! OO.I 0Om.! NH. 0mN. HN.! HN.! 00m. 00N. 0HH.! 00N.! HH. NUHIHONCOU vH.! camv. N0. 0003. on. mo. ON.! 0H.I HN. HN. 0mN.! 0H.I 00Hv. 00m. HH. 000V! 9.5.8.!NHOM 0H.I 00N. HH.I 0N. NN. 0Nn. 9N.! 00.! 002.. 00Nv. mH.! N0. 00v. 00'. NH.! 00mm.! HN. NIIHOHUCOU «0 .503 NH.¢ cmN. m0. 2. NH. ON. 0mn.! 00N.! 0H . HH. 0mN.! me NN. vH. NH. 00N.! 9N. 00vm. OIIHOuucoo no .3009 mH. 00mv.! 00.! 0H.! 0mN.! H0.! ON. 0H. 00. NO. ON. ON. mo.! 00.! HN.! mH. 00m.! 00.! VN... 7309508 no 0:00..— 00v. 00mv.l Ho. NN.! 0H.! 00.! AN. 00Nn. HH.! 00.! 00mm. 00m. HN.! ON.! 00.! 0NN. mH.! 00H.! 03”.! 00. hocozvouh I uuouum NN. HN.! HH. 0H.! 00.! 00.! 0mN. 0ON. HN.! 01! NH. vN. 0NN.! VN.! no. 0:”. 00.! 03”.! 0ON.! ON. 000m. noise—on 2 3.05m «.0. MN. 0.00. 0000. 00mm. HH. coNf 00.! 2. .3. 3...! vH. NN. 0mN. 000m. NO.I 0:”. ON. 0H. HN.! NH.! HO.I yuan—5m 0cm. HN.! 0N.! NH.! HH.! 00v. 00mm. 0NN- N0. 00. vH. NH. mo-! NO.I me oo. vH.! HO.I NN.! 0H. NN. NN. HN.! 002.35.32.00 HGHOOm o U mm mHm 4 PM U: ¢Q¢ 9.0 020 WHO hue :00 :0: 80 00 Pm m3 8» H0... htm arm m Um nous-10: mcoHuaHunuouumVucH 0:0uu 33 any new noHNUunsu and uoHaow ocean acoHuaHouuoonou:ul!.Huu mqn0Hsu< NH. 00mm. 000m. No. 00. NO.I 00. H0. 00N. 00N. 00.! HH. vH. 0H. UIIHOHUGDO No 0:000 00. v0. v0.! NH. NO. v0.3 0H. 00. OH. v0.- NO.I mo. 00.! 0H.I 00vm. NUHIHHucoo 00.! 000m. NH. VH. 00N. 00. NH. mH.! 00N. 0HN. 0H.! 0H.! 0HN. 00N. 000m. 00N. nonhhluHow 0vN.! VH. 0H. 00. 00H. NH.! NH.! 0mN.! 0NN. 0HN. NH.! 00H.! 0NN. 00N. 00. 00N.! NH. mllHOuucou «0 0:004 0On.! 00. OH. HH. OH. No. 00. 00.! 0mN. 00N. 00. 00.! 00N. 0NN. v0. 0H.! mo. 000v. UlnHouucoo no .590H 00N- mH. HH. 00.! 00.! mH. 0H. 00N. 00.! mo.! 00. NH. NH.! NH.! Ho. vo. vo.! vo.! 00.! HIIHouucoo «0 IDUQH 0HN. HO. N0.! 0H.! 00N.! 00.! 00.! 00a. 00.! N0.- 00¢n. 00H. 00.! NO.! 00.! v0.! mH.I 00H.! 0H.! mo. Nocosvouh I Iuouuw 00-! OH. 00. 0H.! N0. NH.- Ho.! «0.- oo.! no. No. Ho.! mo. mo. No. 00.! Ho. NH. 0H. vo. 0NN. uoH>d£on I Iuouum oo.- 3. ten. :2. :8. no. .3. 8f .2. .3. .3.- oo. 2. S. 2. 3. .2. S. 2. 8.- .R.- 09- €3.55 8. no. 2. S. I. too. :8. vo. no. mo. 2.- no. no. 2. mo- mo. S. S.- S. S. 8.- 3.- .2. 32023038 1308 a 0 mm a a m 3 ex u: .34 95 nzm m S mun too :04 03 oo .5 08 03 HS $3 95 m 8 OOH—v.0! MdOH UMH OHHOUHOUCH macaw mm any uOu aoHuonnfln use MOHoom 0:020 ccoHuunnuoououcHlt.Nln Hunts 137 So. v m: 3. v m. 9:288 on. wean—00 oo.- 2...: 3.93.5 ngqudnn .- vnf .3. Jon 33337233: 3. Ho.- an. 2.3. tannin OHS-cu...— an an... .2. on. ou. cosh-HOB Haan-u Hots Ho. Q..- hn... no. no.1 nuns-533:8 H301: Hm. .no. nwf 2...- mn... 2.- pH. yen-8!: 2 . 8. no. 3 . 9. n... .- 2. on . .88 8.- 3. n1- 3. 2... 3: on. 3. :3. 5.398 an. In. an... :3.- .on.0 3... ca. «so. an? 2... anon—30:0 9. .8. 01- no.- 2: 3: an. :3. .3. 9. av. 8:388 a. .2. 3f 8i 3. .1..- «of ca. .3. 2.. Si 2. 8523 2. .3. 3: mo. 3. an: 8. an. :8. :3. SF on. :8. 2.13.23 2. 2f 8. 9. 3. 3. out no. .n. 3: mn.- 2. R.- 2: 0535on no :68 3. :3. 2”.- o~.- 8.- our 3. .8. 2. 2. on. «m. on. an. 8.- 338:8 3. «a. 3. 2. 3. ma. 8. o~.- 3. ma. 2; :- 2. R. 3... 2. yank-=3 m...- .2..- 2. 2. no. 3. Sr 3.- S.- St on; on; «Y- on.- 2. z..- 2.- miaoflcoo uo .33 an: .8: 2. no. 2. 3.- 3. on: S. 2. «.1- vn.- 8; 8.- 8.- .2..- S. .2. Y-Houucou we :68 2.- SF 3... If 3f 2... 8f .8.- vmf on.- 3. S.- 2- ca; 8.- Ha: Hm.- 3. 2. "333:8 «0 303 2. 2. 3? 8i .3: vnf on. .22 8f 3. 3. on. 2.- S.- R: an. St 3: mn.- 2”. >837». x :85 3. 3. 3. 3.- 3; .3.- S. .5. z. 2. 3. 3. Z. 3. .8.- nm. no. .2.- Si 3f mm. horizon x :38 3. 2.- mm. :3. :3. 3. 33 .3.- 2. S. 8.- 26 3. 2. mm. 3.- a. 2. 2. EB Sf 9f flak-.6 of- .3.- 8. S. .3.- .8. .3. .1- ...o.- S.- 3.- 2.- :- a? 2. 2f 3. 3. S. 01- 8. 2. 3.- :onnaoao-coo 138 a 0 mm 5m 4 .E 8 <9. 98 9a 2a ha :8 =3 8: 8 .5 .3 03 H3 in aa u on COB-1! DCOAUBHOHHOUHOUGH 9.0.3 In 3..» no.“ .310-A...- 93 03:0. acol- nccquaHouuoououcn-Iélu Ian‘s APPENDIX F GROUP MEAN RESPONSE DIFFERENCES TO INDIVIDUAL SCALE ITEMS 138 TABLE F.1.--Group mean response differences on the social conscious- ness itemsa Item Black White White F N Jer Institution Institution Institution R t' Significance Blacks Blacks Whites a lo 1. Racial Discrimination has effected my way of life 10. ll. 12. 4.17 4.33 3.14 7.040 .001** Blacks never had a civilized society until whites came along 5.63 4.75 4.96 5.97 .003* White Americans gained their power because they are superior 5.61 5.58 5.46 .395 .673 People should marry within their own racial group 3.16 2.83 3.67 1.97 .142 Blacks should try to act more like whites 5.79 5.83 5.00 21.68 .001** White Americans are concerned with increasing the advancement opportunities of black Americans 4.80 4.66 3.10 21.82 .001** Blacks have not been able to acquire any effective power in America because they are inferior 5.56 5.41 5.23 2.31 .102 Blacks are more religious than whites 4.34 4.41 3.43 5.38 .005* Blacks have been socialized to keep them dependent on white producers for their goods and services 4.72 4.25 2.89 23.82 .001** Blacks should accept their second-class status 5.91 5.75 5.44 7.17 .001** Blacks have as equal an opportunity to accomplish their goals as whites 3.82 2.66 2.83 6.373 .002* Most blacks would rather be white 5.31 5.16 5.10 .856 .426 139 140 TABLE F.l.—-Continued Item Black White White F N ler Institution Institution Institution R t' Significance Blacks Blacks Whites a lo 13. Whites are socialized to believe their race and culture are superior 5.46 5.00 4.37 12.350 .001** l4. Blacks should support and use black owned businesses, banks, and stores whenever possible 5.33 5.08 2.76 81.330 .001** 15. Whites feel blacks are basically inferior 5.08 5.41 3.76 23.920 .001** 16. Whites manipulate rules and laws to suit their needs and purposes 5.36 5.33 3.62 31.180 .001** 17. Anthropological findings clearly show the first civilization was developed by blacks 5.13 4.33 3.55 20.800 .001** 18. Blacks should be cautious when dealing with white institutions or businesses 5.08 5.41 2.60 85.520 .001** Note: The item responses are coded as follows: lfiDisagree Strongly, 2=Disagree Moderately, 3=Disagree Slightly, 4=Agree Slightly, 5=Agree Moderately, 6;Agree Strongly aItem numbers 2,3,5,6,7,10,11,12 code responses are reflected. * p_< .05 ** E.< .001 141 TABLEIAer—Group mean response differences on the environmental support scale itemsa Item Black White White F N ler Institution Institution Institution R t' Significance Blacks Blacks Whites a lo 1. This school has an excellent program in the area I wish to study 4.38 5.45 4.96 5.921 .003* 2. I am satisfied with my way of life 4.66 3.75 4.89 1.604 .204 3. My belief in God is a comfort and support for me 5.31 5.18 4.58 4.106 .018* 4. I have enough money to do the things I want 2.93 2.16 3.55 3.189 .044* 5. My love life is satisfactory 4.04 4.16 3.94 .733 .929 6. I feel I get appropriate credit for the quality of the school work I do 4.37 3.75 4.01 2.924 .056* 7. My social life is satisfactory 4.74 3.66 4.43 2.435 .091 8. My family doesn't like the major area of study I intend to pursue 5.18 5.83 5.23 .966 .382 9. My classmates and I cooperate together to complete assignments 4.37 3.08 4.05 3.473 .033* 10. It's hard for me to relate to most of my classmates 4.98 3.16 4.21 9.470 .001** 11. Most of the professors and students at this school have the same basic beliefs that I do 3.21 2.58 3.25 .871 .420 12. I feel at home in this community 3 80 3.25 4.89 9.792 .001** 13. I feel liked b m professors 4 90 Y Y 3.09 4.44 15.490 .001** 142 TABLE F-2.—-Continued Item Black . Whit? . Whit? . F Number Institution Institution Institution Ratio Significance Blacks Blacks Whites 14. The programs and curriculum of this school are very supportive of minority concerns and issues 4.84 3.08 4.53 9.507 .001** i 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. The financial package provided by this school makes it more supportive for me 3.31 2.33 3.25 1.631 .191 It seems that the professors have different standards for different students 3.54 3.25 3.78 .398 .672 The racial composition of this school makes it more supportive for me 4.72 2.58 4.08 11.380 .001** I don't really enjoy most of the classwork I do, but I feel I must do it in order to have other things that I need and want 2.83 3.16 3.14 1.566 .212 This is too large and impersonal a place to get to know people easily 5.37 4.33 4.00 17.200 .001** Everyone at this institution is treated the same regardless of race. 3.93 1.66 3.67 6.272 .002* If I had financial difficulties I could get assistance 4.17 3.16 4.32 2.218 .112 I have faith that God will help me get through difficulties 5.48 5.66 4.71 5.174 .006* I have decided upon a specific area of interest to study 5.14 5.00 4.89 .678 .509 re too busy to get help from PrOfeSSZrEOa 3.25 4.10 7.574 .001** 143 TABLE F.2.—-Continued Item Black White White F N Jer Institution Institution Institution Ratio Significance Blacks Blacks Whites 25. Class sizes at this institution are too big 5.03 3.25 3.03 40.630 .001** 26. The coursework at this institution is interesting 4.17 3.91 4.44 1.030 .359 27. The coursework at this institution is challenging 4.73 5.16 5.16 4.755 .010* 28. There are plenty (If intersting things to do in this community 4.23 4.83 5.08 5.124 .007* 29. If you trust in God, He will provide a way for a solution to your problems 5.33 5.83 4.27 11.200 .001** 30. Most of my coursework can be related to minority concerns 3.46 2.58 2.19 9.719 .001** 31. The location of this school makes it supportive for me 3.85 4.33 4.67 5.671 .004* Note: The item responses are coded as follows: 1=Disagree Strongly, 2=Disagree Moderatelyn 3=Disagree Slightly, 4=Agree slightly, 5=Agree Moderately, 6=Agree Strongly aItem numbers 8,10,16,18,19,24,25 responses codes are reflected. 144 TABLE F.3.--Group mean item responses to the terminal values scale Black White White Variable Institution Institution Institution . Signifi- Blacks Blacks Whites Ratio cance Comfortable Life 6.31 6.16 5.83 2.973 .053* Exciting Life 6.11 4.83 5.94 7.935 .001** Sense of Accomplishment 6.43 6.58 6.14 1.823 .164 Equality 6.28 6.50 5.75 5.118 .007* Family Security 6.61 6.75 6.14 4.512 .012* Freedom 6.61 6.00 6.32 4.845 .009* Happiness 6.50 6.58 6.39 .609 .544 Inner Harmony 6.57 6.16 6.12 4.897 .008* Mature Love 6.58 5.33 6.39 8.518 .001** Pleasure 6.20 5.58 5.87 2.181 .116 Salvation 6.15 6.33 5.16 7.221 .001* Self- Respect 6.78 7.00 6.33 10.570 .001** Social Recognition 5.48 5.41 5.10 1.279 .281 True Friendship 6.54 5.58 6.62 6.950 .001** Wisdom 6.56 6.75 6.19 3.493 .032* Note: Not at all important 1 2 3 4 5 6 The items are coded as follows: 7 Very much important 145 TABLE F.4.-—Group mean item responses to the instrumental values scale Black White White . . . Variable Institution Institution Institution Raiio ::32:fl— Blacks Blacks Whites Ambitious 6.17 6.25 5.80 2.444 .090 Broadminded 6.35 6.08 5.94 3.225 .042* ‘ Capable 6.43 6.66 6.28 1.234 .293 Courageous 6.28 6.16 5.92 2.241 .109 Forgiving 6.12 6.33 6.05 .324 .723 Helpful 6.36 6.50 6.07 2.264 .107 Honest 6.55 6.83 6.53 1.056 .350 Independent 6.40 6.16 6.17 .297 .276 Intellectual 6.05 6.33 5.96 .569 .567 Logical 6.20 6.25 6.01 .753 .472 Loving 6.61 6.41 6.51 .474 .622 Obedient 5.48 5.75 5.71 1.271 .283 Polite 6.21 6.75 5.69 6.014 .003* ReSponsible 6.52 6.66 6.55 .013 .907 Self- Controlled 6.23 6.75 5.89 5.780 .017* Note: Items coded as follows: Not at all important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very much important *p_< .05 **p < .001 146 TABLE F.5.—-Group mean item reSponses to the locus of control-God subscale Item BlaCk White White F s' . f. N ler Institution Institution Institution R t'o lgnl l— Blacks Blacks Whites a 1 cance 32. I believe that the world will come to an end according to the Will of God 5.13 5.27 3.83 10.28 .001** 33. God has and continues to act in the history of mankind 5.46 5.41 4.91 15.21 .001** 34. I believe in a power greater than myself, to which one day I shall be held accountable for my actions 5.62 5.50 4.54 15.50 .001** 35. Whether or not I get ahead in life depends on God's will 4.65 5.08 3.47 12.75 .001** 36. I strive to make God's will an important part of my way of life 4.87 5.16 3.80 8.69 .001** NOTE: The item responses are coded as follows: 1=Disagree Strongly, 2=Disagree Moderately, 3=Disagree Slightly, 4=Agree Slightly, 5-Agree Moderatley, 6=Agree Strongly *p_< .05 **p_ < .001 APPENDIX G ENVIRONMENTAL ADAPTATION QUESTIONNAIRE 147 TABLE G.l.--Subsca1e item designations Scale Name Subscale Item Numbers Environment Spiritual Support 3,22,29 Support Lifestyle Support l,27,26,2,12,28,5,18,4,11, 8,23,31,16,21,15 Student-Institute 25,10119,24,13,20,14,7,6,17 Relations Social Racial Consciousness 18,14,16,15,9,13,6,1l,1,17,8 Consciousness Racial Tolerance 10,3,7,5,2,12,4 Locus of Internal Locus of Control 1,4,5,9,18,19,2l,23 Control Powerful Others Control 3,8,11,13,15,17,20,22 Control by Chance 2,6,7,10,12,14,l6,24 Control by God 32,33,34,35,36 Conformity 26,27,30,31 Self—Trust 25,28,29 Self- Achievement 1,2,4,10,15,17,18,20,21,24, Descriptive 26,39,36,38,40,52,26 Dominance 1,2,3,4,7,9,10,15,18,21,24, 26,30,32,33,36,38,39,40,42, 46,56 Difference 5'6114119I25127'50151I53l55 Discontent 11:57:59160 Endurance 8r9rlollzll7I20122I261281291 30,34,35,36,38,41,42,48,49, 52,58 Order 8,13,19,20,23,26,29,30,36, 38,41,43,44,45,49,52 Abasement 16,25,27,37,47,50,51,53,55 cognitive coping 1I3I5I7I9I11I13I15I17I19 Processes Defending 2,4,6,8,10,12,l4,16,18,20 148 149 SUPPORT INSTRUCTIONS: For each question, circle the appropriate number in the position that typically describes your beliefs. 1. This school has an excellent program in the area I wish to study. 1. Disagree strongly 4. Agree slightly 2. Disagree moderately 5. Agree moderately 3. Disagree slightly 6. Agree strongly 2. I am satisfied with my way of life. 1. Disagree strongly 4. Agree slightly 2. Disagree moderately 5. Agree moderately 3 Disagree slightly 6. Agree strongly 3. My belief in God is a comfort and support for me. 1. Disagree strongly 4. Agree slightly 2. Disagree moderately 5. Agree moderately 3. Disagree slightly 6. Agree strongly 4. I have enough money to do the things I want. 1. Disagree Strongly 4. Agree slightly 2. Disagree moderately 5. Agree moderately 3. Disagree slightly 6. Agree strongly 5. My love life is satisfactory. 1. Disagree strongly 4. Agree slightly 2. Disagree moderately 5. Agree moderately 3. Disagree slightly 6. Agree strongly 6. I feel I get appropriate credit for the quality of the school work I do. 1. Disagree strongly 4. Agree slightly 2. Disagree moderately 5. Agree moderately 3. Disagree slightly 6. Agree strongly 7. My social life is satisfactory. 1. Disagree strongly 4. Agree slightly 2. Disagree moderately 5. Agree moderately 3. Disagree slightly 6. Agree strongly 150 SOCIAL CONSCIOUSNESS INSTRUCTIONS: For each question, circle the approrpiate number in the position that typically describes your beliefs. Racial discrimination has affected my way of life. 1. Disagree strongly 4. Agree slightly 2. Disagree moderately 5. Agree moderately 3. Disagree slightly 6. Agree strongly Blacks never had a civilized society until whites came along. 1. Agree strongly 4. Disagree slightly 2. Agree moderately 5. Disagree moderately 3. Agree slightly 6. Disagree strongly White Americans gained their power because they are superior. 1. Agree strongly 4. Disagree slightly 2. Agree moderately 5. Disagree moderately 3. Agree slightly 6. Disagree strongly People should marry within their own racial group. 1. Disagree strongly 4. Agree slightly 2. Disagree moderately 5. Agree moderately 3. Disagree slightly 6. Agree strongly Blacks should try to act more like whites. 1. Agree strongly 4. Disagree slightly 2. Agree moderately 5. Disagree moderately 3. Agree slightly 6. Disagree strongly White Americans are concerned with increasing the advancement opportunities of Black Americans. Disagree slightly Disagree moderately Disagree strongly 1. Agree strongly 4. 2. Agree modeately 5. 3. Agree sligtly 6. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 151 Disagree slightly Disagree moderately My family doesn't like the major area of study I intend to pursue. 1. Agree strongly 4. 2. Agree moderately 5. 3. Agree slightly 6 My classmates and I cooperate assignments. 1. Disagree strongly 4. Agree 2. Disagree moderately 5. 3. Disagree slightly 6. Agree It's hard for me to relate to 1. Agree strongly 4. 2. Agree moderately 5. 3. Agree slightly 6. Most of the professors and students . Disagree strongly together to complete slightly Agree moderately strongly most of my classmates. Disagree slightly Disagree moderately Disagree strongly at this school have the same basic beliefs that I do. 1. Disagree strongly 4. Agree 2. Disagree moderately 5. Agree 3. Disagree slightly 6. Agree I feel at home in this community. 1. Disagree strongly 4. Agree 2. Disagree moderately 5. Agree 3. Disagree slightly 6. Agree I feel liked by my professors. l. Disagree strongly 4. Agree 2. Disagree moderately 5. Agree 3. Disagree slightly 6. Agree The programs and curriculum of this supportive of minority concerns and 1. Disagree strongly 4. Agree 2. Disagree moderately 5. Agree 3. Disagree slightly 6. Agree slightly moderately strongly slightly moderately strongly slightly moderately strongly school are very issues. slightly moderately strongly The financial package provided by this school makes it more supportive for me. 1. Disagree strongly 4. 2. Disagree moderately 5. 3. Disagree slightly 6. Agree slightly Agree moderately Agree strongly 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 152 It seems that the professors have different standards for differentistudents. 1. Agree strongly 4. Disagree slightly 2. Agree moderately 5. Disagree moderately 3. Agree slightly 6. Disagree strongly The racial composition of this school makes it more supportive for me. 1. Disagree 2. Disagree moderately 5. 3. Disagree I don't really enjoy most of Agree slightly Agree moderately Agree strongly strongly 4. slightly 6. the class work I do, but I feel I must do it in order to have other things that I need and want. 1. Agree strongly 4. 2. Agree moderately 5. 3. Agree slightly Disagree slightly Disagree moderately 6. Disagree strongly This is too large and impersonal a place to get to know people easily. 1. Agree strongly 4. Disagree slightly 2. Agree moderately 5. Disagree moderately 3. Agree slightly 6. Disagree strongly Everyone at this institution is treated the same regardless of race. 1. Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Disagree strongly 4. Agree slightly moderately 5. Agree moderately slightly 6. Agree strongly If I had financial difficulties, I could get assistance. 1. Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Disagree I have faith culties. 1. Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Disagree strongly 4. Agree slightly moderately 5. Agree moderately slightly 6. Agree strongly that God will help me get through diffi— strongly 4. Agree slightly moderately 5. Agree moderately slightly 6. Agree strongly 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 153 I have decided upon a specific area study. of interest to l. Disagree strongly 4. Agree slightly 2. Disagree moderately 5. Agree moderately 3. Disagree slightly 6. Agree stongly Professors are too busy to get help from. 1. Agree strongly 4. Disagree slightly 2. Agree moderately 5. Disagree moderately 3. Agree slightly 6. Disagree strongly Class sizes at this institution are 1. Agree strongly 4. 2. Agree moderately 5. 3. Agree slightly 6. The course work at this institution 1. Disagree strongly 4. Agree 2. Disagree moderately 5. Agree 3. Disagree slightly 6. Agree The course work at this institution 1. Disagree strongly 4. Agree 2. Disagree moderately 5. Agree 3 Disagree slightly 6. Agree too big. Disagree slightly Disagree moderately Disagree strongly is interesting. slightly moderately strongly is challenging. slightly moderately strongly There are plenty of interesting things to do in this community. 1. Disagree strongly 4. Agree 2. Disagree moderately 5. 3. Disagree slightly If you trust in God, he will solution to your problems. 1. Disagree strongly 4. 2. Disagree moderately 5. 3. Disatree slightly 6. Most of my course work can be concerns. 1. Disagree strongly 2. Disagree moderately 5. 3. Disagree slightly 6. slightly Agree moderately 6. Agree strongly provide a way for a Agree slightly Agree moderately Agree strongly related to minority 4. Agree slightly Agree moderately Agree strongly 31. 32. The location me. 1. 2. 3. Of bLflND—‘O O 0 O O Disagree Disagree Disagree i—mfl—mr ,,....___. .._w_‘__fl . 154 of this school makes it supportive for strongly 4. Agree slightly moderately 5. Agree moderately slightly 6. Agree strongly the people close to you when you first came to this institution, what percentage are still attending this institution? 0% to 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 5. 60% 6. 70% 7. 80% 8. 90% 9. 100% 155 LOCUS OF CONTROL INSTRUCTIONS: For each question, circle the appropriate number in the position that typically describes your beliefs. Whether or not I get to be a leader depends mostly on my ability. 1. Agree strongly 4. Disagree slightly 2. Agree moderately 5. Disagree moderately 3. Agree slightly 6 Disagree strongly To a great extent, my life is controlled by acci- dental happenings. 1. Agree strongly 4. Disagree slightly 2. Agree moderately 5. Disagree moderately 3. Agree slightly 6. Disagree strongly I feel like what happens in my life is mostly deter- mined by powerful people. 1. Agree strongly 4. Disagree slightly 2. Agree moderately 5. Disagree moderately 3. Agree slightly 6. Disagree strongly Whether or not I get into a car accident depends mostly on how good a driver I am. 1. Agree strongly 4. Disagree slightly 2. Agree moderately 5. Disagree moderately 3. Agree slightly 6. Disagree strongly When I make plans, I am almost certain to make them work. 1. Agree strongly 4. Disagree slightly 2. Agree moderately 5. Disagree moderately 3. Agree slightly 6. Disagree strongly Often there is no chance of protecting my personal interest from bad luck happenings. 1. Agree strongly 4. Disagree slightly 2. Agree moderately 5. Disagree moderately 3. Agree slightly 6. Disagree strongly When I get what I want, it's usually because I'm lucky. Disagree slightly Disagree moderately Disagree strongly 1. Agree strongly 4. 2. Agree moderately 5. 3. Agree slightly 5- 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 156 Although I might have good ability, I will not be given leadership responsibility without appealing to those in positions of power. 1. Agree strongly 4. Disagree slightly 2. Agree moderately 5. Disagree moderately 3. Agree slightly 6. Disagree strongly How many friends I have depends on how nice a person I am. 1. Agree strongly 4. Disagree slightly 2. Agree moderately 5. Disagree moderately 3. Agree slightly 6. Disagree strongly I have often found that what is going to happen will happen. 1. Agree strongly 4. Disagree slightly 2. Agree moderately 5. Disagree moderately 3. Agree slightly 6 Disagree strongly My life is chiefly controlled by powerful others. 1. Agree strongly 4. Disagree slightly 2. Agree moderately 5. Disagree moderately 3. Agree slightly 6. Disagree strongly Whether or not I get into a car accident is mostly a matter of luck. 1. Agree strongly 4. Disagree slightly 2. Agree moderately 5. Disagree moderately 3. Agree slightly 6. Disagree strongly PeOple like myself have very little chance of pro— tecting our personal interests when they conflict with those of strong pressure groups. 1. Agree strongly 4. Disagree slightly 2. Agree moderately 5. Disagree moderately 3. Agree slightly 6. Disagree strongly me to play too far ahead It's not alwa s wise for y out to be a matter of good because many things turn or bad fortune. 1. Agree strongly 4. Disagree slightly 2. Agree moderately 5. Disagree moderately 3. Agree slightly 6. Disagree strongly 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 157 Getting what I want requires pleasing those peOple above me. 1. Agree strongly 2. Agree moderately 3. Agree slightly Disagree slightly Disagree moderately Disagree strongly ONU‘lsb Whether or not I get to be a leader depends on whether I'm lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time. 1. Agree strongly 4. Disagree slightly 2. Agree moderately 5. Disagree moderately 3. Agree slightly 6. Disagree strongly If important peOple were to decide they didn't like me, I probably wouldn't make many friends. 1. Agree strongly 4. Disagree slightly 2. Agree moderately 5. Disagree moderately 3. Agree slightly 6. Disagree strongly I can pretty much determine what will happen in my life. 1. Agree strongly 4. Disagree slightly 2. Agree moderately 5. Disagree moderately 3. Agree slightly 6. Disagree strongly I am usually able to protect my personal interests. 1. Agree strongly 4 Disagree slightly 2. Agree moderately 5. Disagree moderately 3. Agree slightly 6 Disagree strongly Whether or not I get into a car accident depends mostly on the other driver. 1. Agree strongly 4. Disagree slightly 2. Agree moderately 5. Disagree moderately 3. Agree slightly 6. Disagree strongly When I get what I want, it's usually because I worked hard for it. Disagree slightly Disagree moderately Disagree strongly 1. Agree strongly 4. 2. Agree moderately 5. 3. Agree slightly 6. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 158 In order to have my plans work, I make sure that they fit in with the desires of peOple who have power over me. 1. Agree strongly 4. Disagree slightly 2. Agree moderately 5. Disagree moderately 3. Agree slightly 6. Disagree strongly My life is determined by my own actions. 1. Agree strongly 4. Disagree slightly 2. Agree moderately 5. Disagree moderately 3. Agree slightly 6. Disagree strongly It's chiefly a matter of fate whether or not I have a few friends or many friends. 1. Agree strongly 4. Disagree slightly 2. Agree moderately 5. Disagree moderately 3. Agree slightly 6. Disagree strongly I accept my feelings as the surest guide to what is right. 1. Disagree strongly 4. Agree slightly 2. Disagree moderately 5. Agree moderately 3. Disagree slightly 6. Agree strongly I find myself imitating or agreeing with those I consider to be superior. l. Disagree strongly 4. Agree slightly 2. Disagree moderately 5. Agree moderately 3. Disagree slightly 6. Agree strongly I feel I have to prove myself in the presence of superiors. 1. Disagree strongly 4. Agree slightly‘ 2. Disagree moderately 5. Agree moderately 3. Disagree slightly 6. Agree strongly I have great faith in my own ideas and initiative. 1. Disagree strongly 4. Agree slightly 2. Disagree moderately 5. Agree moderately 3. Disagree slightly 6. Agree strongly 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 159 I stick to a job even when it results. 1. Disagree strongly 4. 2. Disagree moderately 5. 3. Disagree slightly 6. It is important to me that peOple in power positions approve of my way of life. 1. Disagree strongly 4. 2. Disagree moderately 5. 3. Disagree slightly 6. I would change my way of life peOple in positions of power. 1. 2. Disagree moderately 3. Disagree slightly Disagree strongly 4. 5. 6. I believe that the world will ing to the will of God. seems Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree Agree to be Agree Agree Agree I'm not getting slightly moderately strongly slightly moderately strongly accepted by those slightly moderately strongly come to an end accord- l. Disagree strongly 4. Agree 2. Disagree moderately 5. Agree 3. Disagree slightly 6. Agree God has and continues to act in the 1. Disagree strongly 4. Agree 2. Disagree moderately 5. Agree 3. Disagree slightly 6. Agree slightly moderately strongly history of mankind. slightly moderately strongly I believe in a power greater than myself, to which one day I shall be held accountable l. Disagree strongly 4. 2. Disagree moderately 5. 3. Disagree slightly 6. Whether or not I get ahead in will. 1. Disagree strongly 4. 2. Disagree moderately 5. 6. 3. Disagree slightly Agree Agree Agree for my actions. slightly moderately strongly life depends on God's Agree slightly Agree moderately Agree strongly 36. 160 I strive to make God's will an important part of my way of life. 1. Disagree strongly 4. Agree slightly 2. Disagree moderately 5. Agree moderately 3. Disagree slightly 6. Agree strongly 161 COGNITIVE PROCESSES INSTRUCTIONS: For each question, circle the appropriate 1. number in the position that typically describes your beliefs. I evaluate alternative solutions in stress situation. 1. Never 3. Sometimes 5. Always 2. Rarely 4. Usually When under stress it's hard for me to put ideas together for workable solutions. 1. Never 3. Sometimes 5. Always 2. Rarely 4. Usually I apply general but related ideas to deal with stressful situation. 1. Never 3. Sometimes 5. Always 2. Rarely 4. Usually I use thoughts and words to avoid my feelings when under stress. 1. Never 3. Sometimes 5. Always 2. Rarely 4. Usually I can predict accurate consequences and modify my behavior accordingly in stressful situations. 1. Never 3. Sometimes 5. Always 2. Rarely 4. Usually I give good reasons instead of real reasons for my actions when under stress. 1. Never 3. Sometimes 5. Always 2. Rarely 4. Usually I can tolerate undertainty in the structure and rules of stressful situations. 1. Never 3. Sometimes 5. Always 2. Rarely 4. Usually 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 162 I find that I am unable to commit myself to action in stress situations even when it is possible to act. 1. Never 3. Sometimes 5. Always 2. Rarely 4. Usually I try to understand other people's feelings and perceptions. 1. Never 3. Sometimes 5. Always 2. Rarely 4. Usually I become preoccupied with the possibility that others will act in their own interest. 1. Never 3. Sometimes 5. Always 2. Rarely 4. Usually I combine past memories with present experiences to improve my understanding of the stress situations. 1. Never 3. Sometimes 5. Always 2. Rarely 4. Usually I see myself as not being responsible for my behavior when under stress. 1. Never 3. Sometimes 5. Always 2. Rarely 4. Usually '1 organize myself to complete tasks according to plans. 1. Never 3. Sometimes 5. Always 2. Rarely 4. Usually I ignore aspects of stress situations that are potentially threatening. 1. Never 3. Sometimes 5. Always 2. Rarely 4. Usually I express my feelings in a variety of satisfying and socially acceptable ways. 1. Never 3. Sometimes 5. Always 2. Rarely 4. Usually 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. I redirect my anger to less threatening objects when under stress. 1. Never 3. Sometimes 5. Always 2. Rarely 4. Usually I regulate the expression of my feelings in pro— portion to the stressful situation. 1. Never 3. Sometimes 5. Always 2. Rarely 4. Usually I act in conformity with what is expected of me in stressful situations. 1. Never 3. Sometimes 5. Always 2. Rarely 4. Usually I control expressing my feelings when it is not appropriate to express them. 1. Never 3. Sometimes 5. Always 2. Rarely 4. Usually I try to forget the painful aspects of stressful situations. 1. Never 3. Sometimes 5. Always 2. Rarely 4. Usually 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 164 Blacks have not been able to acquire any effective power in America because they are inferior. 1. Agree strongly 4. Disagree slightly 2. Agree moderately 5. Disagree moderately 3. Agree slightly 6. Disagree strongly Blacks are more religious than whites. 1. Disagree strongly 4. Agree slightly 2. Disagree moderately 5. Agree moderately 3. Disagree slightly 6. Agree strongly Blacks have been socialized to keep them dependent on white producers for their goods and services. 1. Disagree strongly 4. Agree slightly 2. Disagree moderately 5. Agree moderately 3. Disagree slightly 6. Agree strongly Blacks should accept their second—class status. 1. Agree strongly 4. Disagree slightly 2. Agree moderately 5. Disagree moderately 3. Agree slightly 6. Disagree strongly Blacks have as equal an Opportunity to accomplish their goals as whites. 1. Agree strongly 4. Disagree slightly 2. Agree moderately 5. Disagree moderately 3. Agree slightly 6. Disagree strongly Most blacks would rather be white. 1. Agree strongly 4. Disagree slightly 2. Agree moderately 5. Disagree moderately 3. Agree slightly 6. Disagree strongly Whites are socialized to believe their race and culture are superior. 1. Disagree strongly 4. Agree slightly 2. Disatree moderately 5. Agree moderately 3. Disagree slightly 6. Agree strongly Blacks should support and use black owned businesses, banks, and stores whenever pOSSible. l. Disagree strongly 4. Agree slightly 2. Disagree moderately 5. Agree moderately 3. Disagree slightly 6. Agree strongly 15. 16. 17. 18. 165 Whites feel blacks are basically inferior. l. Disagree strongly 4. Agree slightly 2. Disagree moderately 5. Agree moderately 3. Disagree slightly 6. Agree strongly Whites manipulate rules and laws to suit their needs and purposes. 1. Disagree strongly 4. Agree slightly 2. Disagree moderately 5. Agree moderately 3. Disagree slightly 6. Agree strongly AnthrOpological findings clearly show the first civilization was developed by blacks. 1. Disagree strongly 4. Agree slightly 2. Disagree moderately 5. Agree moderately 3. Disagree slightly 6. Agree strongly Blacks should be cautious when dealing with white institutions or businesses. 1. Disagree strongly 4. Agree slightly 2. Disagree moderately 5. Agree moderately 3. Disagree slightly 6. Agree strongly 166 STRESS MANAGEMENT INSTRUCTIONS: 1. For each of the feelings below, indicate in column A how frequently you've experienced that feeling in the past month. VERY FREQUENT = 4 FREQUENT = 3 INFREQUENT = 2 (10 or more times) (4—9 times) (1-3 times) NOT AT ALL = 1 (0 times) 2. For each of the feelings below, indicate in column B what you do when your feeling that way. TRY TO IGNORE IT = 1 GET HIGH = 2 WORK HARDER = 6 (alcohol, pills, marijuana) TALK TO FRIEND = 7 SMOKE = 3 THINK IT OVER = 8 (tobacco) CREATIVE ACTIVITIES = 9 EAT = 4 (craftes, hobbies) PRAY = 5 OTHER (specify) FEELINGS A B FEELINGS A B ANGRY INSECURE JEALOUS THREATENED ANXIOUS CONFUSED GUILTY BETRAYED AFRAID NERVOUS INDECISIVE LONELY REJECTED DEPRESSED SUSPICIOUS 167 TERMINAL VALUES INSTRUCTIONS: Read through all the values first, think about all of them and then for each value, circle the number in the position that indicates its importance to you. NOT AT ALL VERY MUCH IMPORTANT l 2 3 4 5 6 7 IMPORTANT 1. A COMFORTABLE LIFE a prosperous life 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. AN EXCITING LIVE a stimulating, active life 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. A SENSE OF ACCOMPLISHMENT lasting contribution 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. EQUALITY equal Opportunity for all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. FAMILY SECURITY stable family support system 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. FREEDOM independence, free choice 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. HAPPINESS contentedness 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. INNER HARMONY _ freedom from inner conflict 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. MATURE LOVE physical and emotional intimacy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. PLEASURE an en'o able, leisurely life 3 y l 2 3 4 5 6 7 11. SALVATION saved, eternal life 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. SELF-RESPECT self-esteem 13. SOCIAL RECOGNITION respect, admiration l 2 14. TRUE FRIENDSHIP ' close companionship 15. WISDOM . . 2 3 mature understanding of life 1 168 INSTRUMENTAL VALUES INSTRUCTIONS: Read through all the values first, think about all of them and then for each value, circle the number in the position that indicates its importance to you. NOT AT ALL VERY MUCH IMPORTANT l 2 3 4 5 6 7 IMPORTANT 1. AMBITIOUS hard-working, aspiring 1 3 4 5 2. BROADMINDED open-minded 1 3 4 5 3. CAPABLE competent, effective 1 3 4 5 4. COURAGEOUS standing up for you beliefs 1 3 4 5 5. FORGIVING willing to pardon others 1 3 4 5 6. HELPFUL working for other's welfare 1 3 4 5 7. HONEST sincere, truthful l 3 4 5 8. INDEPENDENT . . self-reliant, self—suffiCient l 3 4 5 9. INTELLECTUAL . intelligent, reflective 1 3 4 5 10. LOGICAL consistent, rational l 3 4 5 11. LOVING affectionate, tender 1 3 4 5 12. OBEDIENT 5 dutiful, respectful 1 3 4 13. POLITE courteous, well-mannered l 3 4 5 l4. RESPONSIBLE . 3 4 5 dependable, reliable l 15. SELF-CONTROLLED ' 1f- restrained, se 1 3 4 5 disciplined INSTRUCTIONS: LEAST LIKE ME 1. Aggressive 2. Assertive 3. Bossy 4. Confident 5. Conventional 6. Cooperative 7. Demanding 8. Deliberate 9. Dependable 10. Determined ll. Distractible 12. Adaptable 13. Consistent 14. Dependent 15. Dominant l6. Emotional 17. Efficient 18. Enterprising l9. Cautious 20. Conscientious 21. Forceful 22. Flexible 23. Foresighted 24. Independent 25. Inhibited 26. Industrious 27. Obliging 28. Objective \1 H F4 H +4 H +4 H +4 H +4 H +4 H +4 H +4 H +4 H +4 H +4 H +4 H +4 H +4 SELF-DESCRIPTIVE NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN MOST LIKE ME wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww bubbfiubtbbbthbrbbbnbnbbbubh-bbsbhrbnhfibbb U1U1U1U'IU1U1U1U'IU1U10101U1U1U1U'IU1U1U1U1U1U1U1U'IU'IU'IU'IU'I For each Adjective, circle the number in the pos1tion that typically describes you. mmmmmmmmmmmmmmammmmmmmmmmmmm \l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\) 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 170 Practical Organized Opportunistic Opinionated Outspoken Perceptive Patient Persistent Pessimistic Planful Powerful Resourceful Reliable Responsible Rational Orderly Logical Self—confident Self-pitying Subborn Self—controlled Submissive Suggestible Thorough Timid Withdrawn Worrying Initiating Impulsive Reflective Complaining Dissatisfied H +4 H +4 H +4 H +4 H +4 H +4 H +4 H +4 H +4 H +4 H +4 H +4 H +4 H +4 H +4 H +4 NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwuwwwww bbbhbbbbpbbhfibDhrb-bshrbtbbubsbobbbobvbbobb UIU'IU1U1U1U'IU'IU'IU'IU'IU'IU1U1U1U1U1U1U'IU1U1U1U1U1U‘IU1U1U'IU1U1U1U1U1 mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm \l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\l\)\l\l\l\l\l\l\l APPENDIX H DEPARTMENTAL RESEARCH CONSENT FORM 171 1. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Department of Psychology DEPARTMENTAL RESEARCH CONSENT FORM I have freely consented to take part in a scientific study being conducted by: under the supervision of Academic Title: The study has been explained to me and I understand the explanation that has been given and what my participation will involve. I understand that I am free to discontinue my partici- pation in the study at any time without penalty. I understand that the results of the study will be treated in strict confidence and that I will remain anonymous. Within these restrictions, results of the study will be made available to me at my request. I understand that my participation in the study does not guarantee any beneficial results to me. I understand that, at my request, I can receive addi- tional explanation of the study after my participation is completed. Signed: Date: 172 APPENDIX I VOLUNTEER REGISTRATION FORM 173 Dear Student: I am a graduate student in Clinical Psychology interested in minority student concerns. One particular concern is that of the large number of Black students who have problems adjusting to the large white university setting and as a result drop out. I am attempting to try to research this problem by studying the methods and beliefs that indi- vidual's use to adapt to the university environment. Presently, I am seeking volunteers to fill out my questionnaire. This questionnaire is to assess the different strategies used for adjustment and it takes from one half hour to an hour to complete. All respondents will have complete anonymity since they are not required to put their name on the questionnaire. I would appreciate your support and cooperation in this endeavor so we may be able to help brothers and sisters adapt to the university environment in the future. Three dates have been scheduled, February 11 at 10:00, 11:00, and 12:00. February 12 at 4:00, 5:00, and 6:00, February 15 at 3:00, 4:00, 5:00 and 6:00 in Snyder Hall Classroom B (in the basement). Thank you Joycelyn Landrum (337—7323) Name February 11 10:00 11:00 12:00 February 12 4:00 5:00 6:00 February 15 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 174 REFERENCES 175 REFERENCES Allen, V. L. Social support for nonconformity. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.) Advances hiexperimental social psy- chology (Vol. 8). New York: Academic Press, 1975. Ashmore, R. D., & DelBoca, F. K. Psychological approaches to understanding intergroup conflicts. In P. A. Katz (Ed.), Towards the elimination of racism. New York: Pergamon Press, 1976. Bandura, A. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 1977, g3, 191-215. Bandura, A. Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1977. Bandura, A., Adams, N. E., & Beyer, J. Cognitive processes mediating behavioral change. Journal of Personalityfiand Social Psychology, 1977, 3;, 125-139. Bandura, A. The self system in reciprocal determinism. American Psychologist, 1978, 344—358. Berkowitz, L. Aggression: A social psychological analy- sis. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1962. Berry, J. W. On cross-cultural comparability. Inter— national Journal of Psychology, 1969, 4, 119-128. Berry, J. W. Ecological and cultural factors in spatial perceptual develOpment. Canadian Journal of Behav- ioral Science, 1971, 3, 324—336. Berry, J. W. Culture and cognitive style. In A. J. Marsella, G. Tharp, T. J. Ciborowski (Eds.), Egr- ceptives on cross-cultural psychology. New York: Academic Press, 1979. Blauner, R. Internal colonialism and ghetto revolt. Social Problems, 1969, (Spring), 393-408. 176 177 Borkovec, T. S., Weerts, T. C., and Bernstein, D. A. Assessment of anxiety. In A. R. Ciminero, K. S. Calhoun and H. E. Adams (Eds), Handbook of behavioral assessment. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1971. Brock, T. C., & Buss, A. H. Dissonance, aggression and evaluation of pain. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1962, fig, 197-202. Brock, T. C. & Buss, A. H. Effects of justification for aggression in communication with the victim on post- aggression dissonance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1964, gg, 403-412. Caditz, J. Ethnic identification, interethnic contact and belief in integration. Social Forces, 1976, 54. Campbell, A. White attitudes toward black people. Ann Arbor, Mi.: Institute for Social Research, 1971. Caplan, G. Support systems and community mental health. New York: Human Sciences, 1974. Chang, E. C., & Ritter, E. H. Ethnocentrism in black college students. The Journal of Social Psyphology, 1976, 100, 89-98. Chesler, M. A. Contemporary sociological theories of racism. In P. A. Katz (Ed.), Towards the elimination of racism. New York: Pergamon Press, 1976. Clark C. (X), McGee, D. P., Nobles, W. W., & Weems, L. (X). Voodo or IQ?" An introduction to African psychology. Journal of Black Psychology, 1975, 1, 9-29. Cobb, S. Social support as a moderator of life stress. Psychosomatic Medicine, 1976, ;§, 300—314. Comer, J. P. White racism: Its root, form, and function. In R. L. Jones (Ed.), Black psychology. New York: Harper and Row, 1972. Cone, J. H. A black theology of liberation. New York: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1970. Coyne, J. C., & Lazarus, R. S. Cognitive style, stress perception and coping. In Irwin L. Kutash, L. D. Schlesinger et al. (Eds.), Handbook on stress and anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishing Co., 1980. 178 Davis, K. E., & Jones, E. E. Changes in interpersonal perception as a means of reducing cognitive disso- nance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1960, 61, 402—410. Dixon, V. J. Afro-American and Euro-American approaches to research methodology. In L. King, V. J. Dixon & W. W. Nobles (Eds.), African philosgphy: Assumptions and paradigms for research on black persons. Los Angeles, Calif.: Fanon Center Publication, 1976. Eitzen, S. E. (Ed.). Social structure and social problems in America. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1974. Erikson, E. H. The problem of ego identity. Psychologi- cal Issues, 1969, l. Fairchild, Halford, H. and Gurin, Patricia. Traditions in the Social-Psychological Analysis of Race Relations. American Behavioral Scientist, 21 (5), 1978. Feather, N. T. Assimilation of values in migrant groups. In M. Rokeach (Ed), Understanding human values: Individual and societal. New York: The Free Press, 1979. Ford, A.PL Some correlates of black consciousness, internal-external control, and family ideolggy among Afro—American college students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1972. Garcia, C., & Leverson, H. Differences between blacks and whites expectations of control by chance and powerful others. Psyghological Reports, 1975, g1, 563-566. Gilman, S. C. Alternative life—worlds for blacks and whites: A research note. Ethnicity, 1978, g, 14-19. Glass, D. C. Changes in liking as a means of reducing cognitive discrepancies between self—esteem and aggression. Journal of Personality, 1964, 32, 520—549. Glass, D. C., & Singer, J. E. Behavioral after effects of unpredictable and uncontrollable aversive events. American Scientist, 1972, 69, 457-465. 179 Gough, H. G., & Heilbrun, A. B. The adjective checklist manual. Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1965. Greenberg, J., & Rosenfield, D. Whites ethnocentrism and their attributions for the behavior of blacks: A motivational bias. Journal of Personality, 47, 643-657, 1979. Haan, Norma. Coping and defending: Processes of self— environment organization. New York: Academic Press, 1977. Hamburg, D. A., & Adams, J. E. A perspective on coping behavior: Seeking and utilizing information in major transitions. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1967, 12, 277—284. Hamilton, D. L. A cognitive—attributional analysis of stereotyping. In L. Berkowitz, (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1979, 12. Hunt, L. L., & Hunt, J. G. Black religion as both opiate and inspiration of civil rights militance: Putting Marx's data to the test. Social Forces, 1977, gs, 1—14. Jackson, B. Black identity development. Journal of Edu- cational Diversity, 1975, 2, 19-25. Johnson, J. H., & Sarason, J. G. Recent develOpments in research on life stress. In V. Hamilton and D. M. Warburton (Eds.), Human stress and cognition: An information procession approach. London: Wiley, 1979. Jones, James C. A study of the attitudes of black students in integrated universities comparadwith their counter- parts in black universities. Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971. Jones, J. M. Prejudice and racism. Boston: Addison- Wesley Publishing Co., 1972. Jordan, J. E., & Brodwin, M. C. Racial prejudice and word symbolism. Journal of Social Psychology, 1975, ‘95, 291-292. Kaplan, H. B. Sociological theories. In I. L. Kutash, L. B. Schlesinger, & Associates (Eds.), Handbook on stress and anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1980. 180 Katz, 1., Glass, D. D., & Cohen, S. Ambivalence, guilt and the scapegoating of minority group Victims. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1973, 2, 423-436. Langer, E. J. The illusion of control. Journal of Person— ality and Social Psychology, 1975, 42, 311-328. Lazarus, R. S. Psychological stress and the coping process. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1966. Lefcourt, H. Internal versus external control of rein- forcement: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 1966, 45, 206-220. Lessing, E. E., & Zagorin, S. W. Black power ideology and college students attitudes toward their own and other racial groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1972, 34. Levenson, H. Activism and powerful others. Journal of Personality Assessment, 1974, 44, 377-383. Levine, R. A. Biennial Review of Anthropology, 1973, 4, 107—145. Maehr, M. L. Sociocultural origins of achievement moti— vation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 1977, 4, 81-104. Marden, C. F., & Meyer, G. Minorities in American society (3rd ed.). New York: American Book Company, 1968. Martin, Elmer, P. & Martin, Joanne Mitchell. The black extended family. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978. Maykovich, Minako, K. Reciprocity in racial stereotypes: white, black, and yellow. American Journal of Sociol- Ogy 77 (5), 1972, pp. 876—897. Mayovich, Minako K. Stereotypes and racial images-—white, black and yellow. International Journal of Social Psychiatry 18 (4): 239-253, 1973. Maykovich, Minako, K. Correlates of racial prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 32 (6): 1014—1020, 1975. 181 Maykovich, Minako, K. Reactions to racial trespassing. Journal of Social Psychology, 1978, 106, 93—101. Mechanic, D. Social and psychological factors in stress. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970. Meichenbaum, D. Cognitive—behavior modifications: An integrative approach. New York: Plenum Press, 1977. Meichenbaum, D., Gilmore, B., & Fedorauicius, A. Group insight vs. group desensitization in treating speech anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy- chology, 1971, 44, 410-421. Miller, I. W. III, & Norman, W. H. Learned helplessness in humans: A review and attribution-theory model. Psychological Bulletin, 1979, 44, 93-118. Mirels, H. L. Dimensions of internal versus external control. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy- chology, 1970, 44, 226-228. Moos, R. Conceptualizations of human environments. American Psycholggist, 1973(3),.g§, 652-665. Mosby, D. P. Toward a theory of the unique personality of blacks: A psychocultural assessment. In R. L. Jones (Ed.), Black Psychology. New York: Harper and Row, 1972. Mueller, J. H. Anxiety and encoding processes in memory. Personalityyand Social Psychology Bulletin, 1979, g, 288—294. Myers, J., Lindenthal, J., & Pepper, M. P. Life events, social integration and psychiatric symptomatology. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 1975, 16, 121-127. ‘— Nobles, W. W. African consciousness and liberation strpggles: Implications for the development and construction of scientific_paradigms. Unpublished paper presented to Fanon Research and Development Conference on "The Theory and Practice of the Social Scientist in the Context of Human Development: DevelOping PeOple and Institutions for Creative Struggle," Port of Spain, Trinidad, February, 1978. Novaco, R. Anger control: The development and evaluation of an experimental treatment. Lexington, Mass.: Heath & Co., 1975(a). 182 Pearlin, L. I., & Schooler, C. The structure of c0ping. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 1978, 42, 2—21. Pfeifer, M. C., Jr., & Schneider, B. University climate perceptions of black and white students. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1974, s2, 658-662. Rabkin, J. G., & Struening, E. L. Social change, stress and illness: A selective literature review. Psy- choanalysis and Contemporary Science, 1976(b), 2, 573-624. Rokeach, M. Value survey. Sunnyvale, Calif.: Halgren Tests, 1967. Rokeach, M. Beliefs, attitudes and values: A theory of organization and change. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, 1968. Rokeach, M. The nature of human values. New York: Free Press, 1973. Rokeach, M. Understanding human values. New York: Free Press, 1979. Rothman, R. A. Inequality and stratification in the United States. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice- Hall, 1978. Rotter, J. B. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psycho- logical Monogtaphs, Whole No. 609, 1-28, 1966. Rotter, J. B. Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct of internal versus external control of reinforcement. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1975, 43, 56—67. Ryan, W. B1aming_the victim. New York: Pantheon Books, 1971. Sarason, I. Test anxiety and cognitive modeling. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, 44, 58—61. Schuman, H. Sociological racism. Trans—Action, 1969, 7, 44—48. 183 Schuman, H., & Hatchett, S. Black attitudes toward white peOple. Ann Arbor, Mi.: Institute for Social Research, 1974. Schwartz, M. A. Trends in white attitudes toward negroes. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center, 1967. Schwartz, B. N., & Disch, R. White racism: Its history, pathology and practice. New York: Dell Publishing, 1970. Sears, D. 0., and McConahay, J. B. The politics of Violence. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1973. Segall, N. H., Campbell, D. T., & Herskovits, M. J. The influence of culture on visualyperception. Indian- apolis, In.: Bobbs-Merrill, 1964. L Seligman, M. E. P. Depression and learned helplessness. In R. J. Friedman & M. M. Katz (Eds.). The psychology of depression: Contemporary theory and research. Washington: Winston-Wiley, 1974, 83-113. Seligman, M. E. P. Heiplessness: 0n depression, develop- ment and death. San Francisco: Freeman, 1975. Smith, M. B. Competence and socialization. Social psy— chology and human values. Chicago: Aldine, 1969(a). Smith, W. D., Burlew, A. K., Mosley, M. H., & Whitney, W. M. Minority issues in mental health. Boston: Addison—Wesley, 1979. Stotland, E., & Blumenthal, A. L. The reduction of anxiety as a result of the expectation of making a choice. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1964, 18, 139-145. ’— Sue, D. W. Eliminating cultural oppression in counseling: Toward a general theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1978, 4;, 419—428. Suinn, R., & Richardson, F. Anxiety management training: A nonspecific behavior therapy program for anxiety control. Behavior Thergpy, 1971, 4, 498—510. Terry, Robert W. For whites only. Detroit, Mi.: William B. Eerdman's Publishing Company, 1975. 184 Triandis, H. C. Cultural influences upon cognitive processes. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 1). New York: Academic Press, 1964. Wade, Gwendolyn G. Psychological needs, black conscious— ness and socialization practices among black adolescents in Nova Scotia, Canada and Michigan, U.S.A. Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State Uni- versity, 1972. Wilcox, R. (Ed.). Theppsychological conseqpences of being a black American. New York: Wiley, 1971. Williams, J. Connotations of color names among negroes and caucasians. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 164, 44, 721-731. Williams, J. Connotations of racial concepts and color names. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 4, 531-540. Wills, T. & Langer, T. S. Socioeconomic status and stress. In I. L. Kutash, L. B. Schlesinger and Associated (Eds.), Handbook on Stress and Anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1980. Zuckerman, M. The development of an affective adjective checklist for the measurement of anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1960, 24. 457-462. _ STATE U 1111111“) 11111111111111le 3 3 0 8 5 5 9 14 1293 0