. . .ii. 3 ifmwmmm Q. . . tun»... M... 3.31%.. ...3.. .ué 3. a. l. g. . J. .. figfifi. A; Fanny. unis. .l¢4h!.i¥ . ... txpflhhsrmv‘ ‘14.! :3. 34:... s: 9‘ '19 ZII. I a.) 3.. o I.) .5. . L. NI .2. «prawn AL. u,nm.hmwv.nn(.mnfl1aflnnu.h:.mmflm 1.“...qn 1... 1.111... 2.. .xpgahflnvii...‘ « . J 3%.! 131.. : .. 53m ‘Hou :1!!! :1 . I I. ck....f, . (.7 . . iv 9. . . . , (l‘lfii‘x) LIBRARY Michigan State Unlverslty This is to certify that the dissertation entitled THE EFFECTS OF RACIAL ISSUES ON BLACK COUPLE RELATIONSHIPS presented by ' SHALONDA KELLY has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. . Psychology degree In £17294 WV llllllllllllllllI‘lllllllllllillIIIIHIIIHIIHHIHII 301766 2457 rofe sor Michael II.” m er Date 11/12/98 MS U i: an Affirmative Adieu/Equal Opportunity Institution 042771 PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. To AVOID FINE return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE A A fif L" MAY 1 4 2002 180 MM“ THE EFFECTS OF RACIAL ISSUES ON BLACK COUPLE RELATIONSHIPS BY Shalonda Kelly A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Departments of Psychology and Urban Studies 1998 pr..— .u" -..._4 A' A -o.‘ .- "‘ A I u--dv-- .v.’ Av... -,~- "p ‘x U-vIQVAV O ' :- "~~... ,‘H_ -..J‘ ' - dug: a A re— F! "' J";- .u- -H A-‘_‘" I V . n a 'fi‘ ‘V‘v—.o- nu -‘-‘ s. . o-m .~_ ‘V T '5- - q 51"” ‘ ~ ’: c t. ‘- l I'- YA A A t“ kn y x... ABSTRACT THE EFFECTS OF RACIAL ISSUES ON BLACK COUPLE RELATIONSHIPS BY Shalonda Kelly Black couples are marrying less and divorcing more than in previous years. While racial group has been linked to relationship outcomes for Black couples, few have investigated how Blacks' views of racial issues impact their couple relationships. Accordingly, this study tested a model proposing that Afrocentric persons who were also spiritual and bicultural would have positive individual and couple outcomes, whereas Afrocentric persons who held high stereotypes, immersion racial identity attitudes, anger, and irrational relationship beliefs would have poor individual and couple outcomes. Ninety-three married and 19 seriously dating Black couples completed questionnaires measuring these constructs. Using regressions, the results showed partial support for the proposed interaction effects of Afrocentricity with negative stereotypes, immersion attitudes and anger, particularly for the married couples. Further, gender differences implied that Afrocentricity was more problematic for the men. Findings were moderated by socioeconomic status (SES), such that at higher SES levels the predictors tended to be related to better relationship outcomes. Future studies need to refine current race-related ;models and test these models on larger, more diverse samples. Q.- Copyright by SHALONDA KELLY 1998 A.» Ah» .L .1 .Nu r~ a. C ‘C l“ A: Q “I M Dedication I dedicate this dissertation to my mother, and I cherish my memories of her. I know that she is looking down and smiling upon me. iv 1. O-r-zr- - 5‘0“.- A I o. A. cu; ~ ”g \uouVA — art “A“. o.‘ Vvo).._. _ QFfiA.~‘-; banyv¢‘_ I ‘P-F‘ A -..:.,,-_ i- A”, ‘.~,‘ vfi.. A “ ‘ H SA|rVV C.“ ~.‘ \4 ~. I. Ii." “TRAP “‘C‘C': .' ~AK“ H a "Va; 3" | ..\" -.__ ~‘.d‘c-~ N. h~h ~‘-.. 5 .r‘-. N § . ‘C-Jf . - 8“, a A». . \ fi‘ _ . “Let" A ‘H_\ .y; ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First, I thank my parents who lovingly raised me with an eye towards this goal, and my sister who supports and inspires me. I thank my committee who has guided me through both degrees. I thank my chair Michael Lambert, who has exposed me to the excitement of international research. I thank my guidance committee chair Gary Stollak who is most accessible and encouraging of new experiences. I thank Maxie Jackson who has supported and advocated for me within the Urban Affairs Programs. I thank Harriette McAdoo who helped me to grow as a researcher on her own project. I thank Dozier for recruiting me to MSU and participating in these key aspects of my development. Committee, without you, I would not have gotten my own academic position! Thanks to the students on my project. Thanks to MSU support staff, especially Suzy Pavick and Fran Fowler. You significantly smoothed out my path to success at MSU! I also thank my friends in my dissertation support group: Stephen Jefferson, Pamela Martin, Heather Mikkelson, and Tracy Thompson. You have greatly stimulated my thinking. Well wishes to you in your own careers. Finally, I want to thank my great friend and mentor, Dr. Frank Floyd. Despite leaving MSU years ago, you continue to play a crucial role in my development and motivate me to continually strive for excellence! 'v‘afl" A \ L‘U- V -v J..- -‘9~H\"‘ Id -.§-. v... Ill [4 ") . ! II) '1’ t - H’ O’- "A A a '— h... 0', ’1 t ) TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ................................................. ix LIST OF FIGURES ................................................ xi INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ....................... 1 Black Couple Issues and the Contemporary Literature ........ 2 Socioeconomic Issues ... .................................... 8 Society’s Negative Evaluation of Blacks and Their Effects..12 Black Male to Female Ratio ................................ 14 The Means by Which Black Couples Relate to One Another ....16 Afrocentricity and Black Couple Relationships ............. 20 Racial Identity and Its Relationship with Afrocentricity and Black Couple Relationships ................................ 25 Convergence of Two Theories: Multiple Paths to Internalized Blackness ................................................. 32 The Self Affirming to Afrocentricity and its Concomitants .34 The Negative Path to Afrocentricity and Its Concomitants ..46 Conclusion ................................................ 53 Hypotheses ................................................ 55 METHOD ........................................................ 56 Subjects .................................................. 56 Procedure ................................................. 6O Demographic Measures ...................................... 61 Socioeconomic status .. .............................. 61 Religion and Spirituality Measure ................... 62 vi A WV Dr, D" H Racially Oriented Measures ................................ 63 Biculturalism ....................................... 63 Anger Towards Whites ................................ 65 Racial Identity Attitudes ........................... 67 Stereotypes .................... ..................... 68 Cultural Orientation ........... A ..................... 69 Couple Measures ............................... A ............ 7O Length/type of relationship .... ...................... 7O Irrational Standards that the partner must meet ..... 70 Relationship quality ................................ 71 Trust in One’s Partner .............................. 72 Individual Psychological Adjustment/Symptoms of Distress ..73 The Brief Symptom Inventory ......................... 73 RESULTS ........................................................ 74 DISCUSSION .................................................... 103 Investigation of the Hypotheses .......................... 105 Gender Similarities and Differences ...................... llO Findings Regarding Each Predictor and Its Relationship with Afrocentricity ........................................... 114 Limitations of the Study ................................. 146 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ....................................... 154 APPENDICES ..................................................... 158 Appendix A: Tables 1—19 ................................... 159 Apendix B: Figures 1-33 ................................... 179 Appendix C: Demographics ................................. 213 vii Appendix D: Spiritual Well Being Scale .................... 214 Appendix E: African American Acculturation Scale & Anger Scale .................................................... 215 Appendix F: Black Racial Identity Attitudes Scale ........ 217 Appendix G: Stereotype Scale ............................. 219 Appendix H: Cultural Worldview Scale ..................... 221 Appendix I: Relationship Beliefs Inventory ............... 226 Appendix J: Dyadic Adjustment Scale ...................... 229 Appendix K: Trust Scale ..... . ............................ 231 Appendix L: Brief Symptom Inventory ...................... 234 LIST or REFERENCES ....... . .................................... 236 viii Ch: on ft 71; 4 ca ‘H ‘ 10 ll 12 13 14 15 LIST OF TABLES Couple Demographics ...................................... 160 Paired T-Tests and Correlations Between Males and Females on Demographic Data .......................................... 161 Chronbach’s Alphas for Men and Women on the Research Scales ........................ ' ........... 162 Means, Standard Deviations, Ranges and Male—Female Differences on the Research Scales ....................... 163 Correlations Between the Men and Women on the Research Scales ................................................... 164 Correlations Between Scores on the Research Scales and Afrocentricity Scores .................................... 165 Correlations Between Scores on the Predictor Scales and the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) Scores ..................... 166 Correlations Between Scores on the Predictor Scales and Couple Trust and Relationship Quality Scores ............. 167 Significant Interactions Between Afrocentricity and the Predictor Variables on Individual Symptoms of Distress and the Couple’s Trust and Relationship Quality .............. 168 correlations Between the Participants’ Socioeconomic Status and Their Own or the Couple’s Scale Scores ............... 169 Correlations Between the Participants’ Socioeconomic Status and Their Partners’ Scale Scores ......................... 170 Regressions in Which Socioeconomic Status Mediates Between the Predictors & the Women’s Symptoms of Distress ........ 171 Significant Interactions Between Socioeconomic Status and the Predictor Variables on the Men’s Symptoms of Distress ....172 Significant Interactions Between Socioeconomic Status and the predictor Variables on the Women’s Symptoms of Distress ..173 Significant Interactions Between Socioeconomic Status and the Predictor Variables on the Couple’s Trust ................ 174 ix .. CC 'C 1... a A ..Hu s ‘ “\v 34 ... v. u: .1 A: 16 17 18 19 Significant Interactions Between Socioeconomic Status and the predictor Variables on the Couple’s Relationship Quality .175 Differences Between Married and Unmarried Participants on Demographic Indices ...................................... 176 Differences Between Married and Unmarried Couples on the Research Scales ......................... . ................. 177 Significant Interactions Between Afrocentricity and the Predictor Variables on the Outcome Variables for the Married Sample .................................. . .................. 178 «I; m: C... ..L. I ’“o r v «.1. D... ~‘“ 1. .fi. ‘%.~ 7. 2. 2. r0 :~ a i. r v. n» £~ T~ E .... .: a. .7. a. E .s. .. c. T \~§ ‘y Nag N~o Ls u - CK 1 KL «C «d. 10 11 12 LIST OF FIGURES Two Types of Couples Who Are Highly Afrocentric ........... 180 Effects of the Interaction Between the Women’s Irrational Relationship Beliefs and the Women's Afrocentricity on their own Symptoms of Distress. ........... . ..................... 181 Effects of the Interaction Between the Women’s Negative Stereotypes and the Women’s Afrocentricity on their own Symptoms of Distress ...................................... 182 Effects of the Interaction Between the Men’s Spiritual Well— Being and the men' Afrocentricity on the Couples’ Trust...l83 Effects of the Interaction Between the Men’s Spiritual Well~ Being and the Women’s Afrocentricity on the Couples’ Trust ..................................................... 184 Effects of the Interaction Between the Men’s Spiritual Well— Being and the Men’s Afrocentricity on the Couples’ Relationship Quality ...................................... 185 Effects of the Interaction Between the Men’s Anger Against Perceived White Racial Injustice and the Men’s Afrocentricity on the Couples' Relationship Quality ...................... 186 Effects of the Interaction Between the Men’s Immersion Attitudes and the Women’s Socioeconomic Status on the Men’s Symptoms of Distress ...................................... 187 Effects of the Interaction Between the Men’s Irrational Relationship Beliefs and the Men’s Socioeconomic Status on the Men’s Symptoms of Distress ............................ 188 Effects of the Interaction Between the Women’s Irrational Relationship Beliefs and the Women’s Socioeconomic Status on the Men’s Symptoms of Distress ............................ 189 Effects of the Interaction Between the Men’s Irrational Relationship Beliefs and the Women’s Socioeconomic Status on the Men's Symptoms of Distress ............................ 190 Effects of the Interaction Between the Men’s Negative Stereotypes and the Men’s Socioeconomic Status on the Men’s Symptoms of Distress ...................................... 191 xi . II I_. III II,IL II“ .I. .I. II.. . .I. I. .. . t . . .. n. J; ..I n 5‘ ..L :2 v. .s. r; ._ A II ... f. ..J J. .. .H. ... .. .J :. L. ... J. ._ .3 c. ._ ... .: E .r.. c. A» : :. .. .1 c. I. c. :C r. :1 E um :11 r f. .3 r3 7. Cc C. 3. CC C. .L .2 CC BL .h Ce “L L“ Cc C. 2... T. “L Co Th PE CC CC CL ..C PC 2. C KL 3. Q 51 put 6.. . a 3 4 C 4 r0 71 CC 3 4 a U . . E a 4 a t v ..u. C...» T. «I. 1..-. n 1... . ¢ .. ‘ 54 a/s fi.‘ a/s Nd n/k 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Effects of the Interaction Between the Women’s Negative Stereotypes and the Women’s Socioeconomic Status on the Men’s Symptoms of Distress ...................................... 192 Effects of the Interaction Between the Women’s Negative Stereotypes and the Men’s Socioeconomic Status on the Men’s Symptoms of Distress ...................................... 193 Effects of the Interaction Between the Men’s Negative Stereotypes and the Women’s Socioeconomic Status on the Men’s Symptoms of Distress ...................................... 194 Effects of the Interaction Between the Men's Spiritual Well Being and the Women’s Socioeconomic Status on the Men’s Symptoms of Distress ...................................... 195 Effects of the Interaction Between the Women’s Immersion Attitudes and the Women’s Socioeconomic Status on the Women’s Symptoms of Distress ...................................... 196 Effects of the Interaction Between the Women’s Immersion Attitudes and the Men’s Socioeconomic Status on the Women’s Symptoms of Distress ...................................... 197 Effects of the Interaction Between the Women’s Irrational Relationship Beliefs and the Men’s Socioeconomic Status on the Women’s Symptoms of Distress .......................... 198 Effects of the Interaction Between the Women’s Negative Stereotypes and the Women’s Socioeconomic Status on the Women’s Symptoms of Distress .............................. 199 Effects of the Interaction Between the Women’s Negative Stereotypes and the Men’s Socioeconomic Status on the Women’s Symptoms of Distress ...................................... 200 Effects of the Interaction Between the Men’s Afrocentricity and the Men’s Socioeconomic Status on the Couple’s Trust..201 Effects of the Interaction Between the Men’s Anger Towards Perceived White Injustice and the Men’s Socioeconomic Status on the Couple’s Trust ..................................... 202 Effects of the Interaction Between the Men’s Anger Towards Perceived White Injustice and the Women’s Socioeconomic Status on the Couple’s Trust .............................. 203 Effects of the Interaction Between the Men’s Anger Towards Perceived White Injustice and the Men’s Socioeconomic Status on the Couple’s Relationship Quality ...................... 204 xii E r. c. C ”L .F. S. I» CC _. ,4 .«u :. a. f. ..t. 3.2 ~L A: a: .2 a... WA AI/h «(a «11. :5 E 3 ~h~ Ru. A.» .29 a: 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 Effects of the Interaction Between the Men’s Anger Towards Perceived White Injustice and the Women’s Socioeconomic Status on the Couple’s Relationship Quality ............... 205 Effects of the Interaction Between the Women’s Negative Stereotypes and the Women’s Socioeconomic Status on the Couple’s Relationship Quality ............................. 206 Effects of the Interaction Between the Men’s Immersion Attitudes and the Women’s Afrocentricity on the Women’s Symptoms of Distress.......................... ............ 207 Effects of the Interaction Between the Men’s Negative Stereotypes and the Men’s Afrocentricity on the Couple’s Trust ............. - ........................................ 208 Effects of the Interaction Between the Men’s Anger Towards Perceived White Injustice and the Men’s Afrocentricity on the Couple’s Trust ................................. . ........... 209 Effects of the Interaction Between the Men’s Spiritual Well— Being and the Men’s Afrocentricity on the Couple’s Trust .210 Effects of the Interaction Between the Men’s Spiritual Well- Being and the Women’s Afrocentricity on the Couple’s Trust ..................................................... 211 Effects of the Interaction Between the Men’s Anger Towards Perceived White Injustice and the Men’s Afrocentricity on the Couple’s Relationship Quality..- .......................... 212 xiii ‘ t O; ne relatic ample e {/7 CV“, g “ b 4:“ r»: N‘.‘ bsovw.s ~ INTRODUCTION Families are considered as the major socialization agents of any society, and the fact that Blacks comprise approximately 12% of the American population makes their couple and family relationships a significant sub-population to study. However, ample evidence indicates that there is a dearth of research on both Black couples and families (e g. Johnson, 1988). In regards to couple relationships, the scant research that has been done involving Black marriages and divorces indicates that Black couple relationships are doing poorly as compared to those of Whites (e.g. Benett, Bloom & Craig, 1989). This indicates a strong need to deternune factors that inhibit the creation and maintenance of stable Black families. Some researchers have noted that Black couples suffer from some of the same problems as all couples (e.g. Oggins, Veroff & Leber, 1993), as well as several other factors germane to Blacks in particular. This literature largely takes ahistorical perspective (Edsall & Edsall, 1991; Lawson & Thompson, 1994), and shows the value of examining Black couples separate from Whites, in order to investigate the rich variation in their feelings, thoughts, and behaviors. Studies of Black couple relationships also have yielded a partial picture of the experiences and problems common to these relationships. Yet while some of 1 A.V‘AO' v..\—\'“ C ..0- of c--- rut-\- 5‘on ‘ u H .u a:‘. do 2, r3 1. V‘“" ‘-¥‘ 2. a: L. C. ‘ n. a. .Qt- Put Ya r-V ‘“ d5; ’ a Q 3,5 these studies implicate racial issues as being of particular concern within Black couples, few researchers have begun the task of outlining the meaning of race in the lives of Black couples, and how it impacts their relationships (e.g. Taylor & Zhang, 1990). Thus, this study seeks to understand the meaning of Afrocentricity, an important race-related variable, in the lives of Black couples, by examining its relationship to other racial, spiritual, and relationship beliefs. This study will investigate how Afrocentricity’s relationship to these beliefs is associated with personal adjustment and couple outcomes. In addition, demographic factors will be examined to determine their effects on the above relationships. Black Couple Issues and the Contemporary Literature There has been a general neglect of Black couples and families in the marital and family literature. In reviewing the 3,547 empirical family studies published in thirteen journals from 1965-1978, Johnson (1988) found that articles on Black families represented only .03% (107) of those studies. Excluding the Journal of Marriage and the Family and the Journal of Comparative Family Studies, which respectively published 4.9% and 6.0% of their articles on Black families, 57% of the empirical Black family studies were written in Black journals. Since Black ‘n.., ~6— .‘AVEDV “\' ‘v- ago“ \K". 3 t. ~'~m ' ‘0' I ‘L’W V‘s-“ 3‘“ journals represent a very small portion of the literature base, it seems that until now, Black families are rarely studied. As a result, issues that are uniquely important to Black families, such as stability in Black couple relationships, are not being investigated. In addition, a search in the Psych~Info database reveals that for the more recent twelve year span from 1986-1998, there are only 286 article abstracts that can be found from a search using the following keyword phrases: “(Black or African adj American) and (couples or dyad or marri? or mari?).” Moreover, many abstracts found from this search focused primarily on topics thought to be problems in the Black community. The problems focused upon include gender roles and division of labor, as well as demographic variables and their impact on Black couples. Also included were developmental processes, such as teen pregnancy, the timing of marriage, birth, and divorce within Black couple relationships. Since this search was designed to be over- rather than under-inclusive, the results of the search revealed that sixty-six (23%) of the articles investigated neither race nor couple relationships, or else they discussed them only tangentially. Seventeen (6%) of the papers focused almost exclusively on couple issues, with little or no inclusion of race, and ten (3%) of the 286 papers in this search focused upon .— Mr Q ~— ar: €22 .. ‘. o.“e .t* b V f" l 1.". b.“‘. \ “"0 “v a W l- the Ex : r C . - .... E S a o .. . C T 1 a .. E M... as C S .K S .. .1 . a. E c r e .I/ A.» ‘ 4 “L. w? e {1‘ Nu .... a... a. a. a. .1. s Aka N . ~ ~— 11 B .C .P. C F S .mw .mc interracial couples, rather than Black couple relationships. While the vast majority of the papers included race and racial issues as their primary focus, 107 of them (37% of the total) had little or no discussion of couples. However, eighty—six (30%) of the articles did investigate Black couples to a significant degree, though twenty-four (28%) of these were dissertations. Excluding the dissertations, fifty (72%) of the eighty—six papers made extensive comparisons between Black and White couple relationships, or even described Black couple relationships without making comparisons with other racial groups. However, in these cases, race was discussed as a demographic factor, and the abstracts did not investigate race as an issue. In fact, only ten (4%) of all of the papers examdned the impact of racial issues on Black couple relationships. It must be noted that no matter what their race, every couple deals with many of the same issues, such as commitment, trust, and happiness. Because these common issues are germane to all couples, both Black and non-Black couples face similar challenges. For example, the predictors of marital happiness are largely the same for both Black and White couples (Oggins et al., 1993), and so if couples of either race have problems with a common marital issue such as managing conflict constructively, then they will have problems in their relationship. However, Black couples have ‘§- V ‘“N .“F~ ..q ‘.“ ’71 historically had unique experiences, and the way that they are perceived by society is different than the way the average White American is perceived (Erikson, 1950). Not only do they have different experiences than Whites, but as a group, they also perceive and respond differently than Whites to various situations. Thus, due to a combination of factors, Blacks often find themselves disproportionately in some circumstances that lead to marital dissolution. This review will present a summary of some of the major factors that are implicated in the problems uniquely affecting Black couples, which will allow the reader to discover why Black couples and their issues deserve to be studied in isolation from other sub-samples of the American married population. An examination of the relative marriage patterns of Blacks and Whites reveals alarming statistics about Black couples. According to the US Census Bureau (1991), in 1970, 68% of Black families were headed by two parents, but by 1990, only 50% of Black families were headed by married couples. An additional 44% of Black families were female headed, and 6% were male headed. - Conversely, married couples headed 83% of White families in 1990. Compared to Whites, lower proportions of Blacks marry, and the never married Black adult population is significantly higher for Blacks than Whites. Furthermore, the magnitude of the differences ‘ . ~~uf\‘*" «us—«-5 , . o ”..A Lvi~c- (l) ‘ . r-Q-v-N Iv- “v-..” 8r. ..r ‘o- ' G‘ \v ‘0‘4‘ in marriage rates between the two groups continues to widen (Bennett et. al., 1989). Black women without a high school education are significantly less likely to marry than their White female counterparts, and they have the greatest chance of never being married than any other group (Bennett et al., 1989). Though higher educated Black women with college degrees are more likely to marry than lower educated Black women without any degrees, they are still significantly less likely to marry than White women. Thus, although Bennett and colleagues recognize that an overwhelming majority of Americans continue to perceive marriage as a desirable option, they suggest that the institution of marriage is a less central feature in the lives of Blacks as compared to Whites (Bennett et al., 1989). Marriage trends may lead some to infer that the problem with Black couple relationships is due to their choosing not to marry more often than Whites, when much of the single-hood of African Americans is actually due to divorce (Lawson & Thompson, 1994). In general, America’s divorce rate has been rising for years, and currently, one half of all first marriages end in divorce (Lawson & Thompson, 1994). Multiple studies have revealed that as compared to Whites, Blacks are significantly less happy in their marriages (e.g. Oggins et al., 1993; Powers & Olson, 1989). This is not surprising, given that for every 1,000 married Blacks, the Vv A‘srflY’TD u$vv- It i'Ay- o .v- .%5» ..C‘: K. divorce rate increased from 92 to 233 between 1971 and 1981, and Black separations increased from 127 to 255 per every 1,000 married Blacks. Again, White rates are much lower. For example, Whites only experienced 28 separations per every 1,000 marriages in 1981, which is a relatively small rise over their rate of 21 separations per every 1,000 marriages in 1971 (Lawson & Thompson, 1994). More recent data indicates that 36% of Blacks and only 22% of Whites married between 1980 and 1985 divorced within five years. The rate was twice as high for Black women who had attended college as compared to White women who had attended college (Davis & Strube, 1993). Relative to Whites, Blacks also have a decreased likelihood of remarrying after divorce (Lawson & Thompson, 1994). While 66 percent of White women remarry within ten years of divorce, only 32 percent of Black women do so (Cherlin, 1992), and Black women are more likely to express dislike for the institution of marriage after having experienced it (Lawson & Thompson, 1994). The combination of literature on the decline in Black marriage rates and the increase in Black divorce rates reveal that the problems that Black couples face are primarily related to developing positive, stable units as opposed to difficulties in meeting and forming a relationship. Therefore, the unique problems Black couples encounter are discussed next. “--bOV—‘d Q. ‘v-b cry-cr- -.O'V‘uw :9“. yey—fiu o e V I ‘ w v’ a aha - - b..\,fi‘ YHI" \n‘d .- LO E“ Th“ ‘\ l h .e.. T! ‘\ “sis-“so, “NI“. ‘ ‘-V. '5‘. V u ‘ '-r\ Socioeconomic Issues Poverty is one of the most commonly asserted reasons for the difficulties that Black couples face, perhaps because divorce is inversely correlated with income (Lawson, & Thompson, 1994). Poverty has also been a large part of the historical experiences of Blacks, and Lawson and Thompson (1994) provide an appropriate synopsis of this association. They note that despite the encouragement of the Freedmen’s Bureau and Black community groups to encourage institutionalized marriage of former slaves, the post-Civil War period saw Blacks being economically exploited and subordinated to the larger society. Black men often had to reside in areas away from their families so that they could work to support them, which resulted in increased separation and desertion in the Black community. During the migration of southern Blacks to the north and west, family life was again disrupted because of the rough conditions of northern urban life, and so desertion and illegitimacy further increased. Lawson and Thompson (1994) further wrote that World War II had an even greater negative impact on Black family life. Economic conditions were such that Black men earned one-half the income of White men,.and the unemployment rate of Black women was at least three times that of foreign-born White women. Housing discrimdnation against Blacks v 0—” who cg... h—“\ ,- r‘ a .- JI‘J‘IS k..-::_ UA‘. . M H v fnvv "L‘gv 5' ps4— W..--e L..‘: V VI «1'. was also prevalent at that time. These conditions have each been proposed as contributors to the higher divorce, separation and widowhood rates of Blacks as compared to the same rates for Whites (Lawson & Thompson, 1994). Still, prior to the 1960's, 75% of Black families included both a husband and a wife (Franklin, 1988). Before the 1960's, less educated Black men were able to get labor and manufacturing jobs that were less available to Black women. Therefore, some Black women have historically been encouraged to go to school, where they could achieve on an income level approaching that of their husbands (Chapman, 1988). Since both Black men and women worked at that time, they contributed to the economic well being of their families. It was not until the 1960's that drastic change in Black couple functioning occurred. Beginning in the 1960's, many racially hostile governmental and societal practices, policies, and attitudes wore down the Black family (Chapman, 1988; Franklin, 1988). Although in the sixties the vast majority of Whites were in favor of the principle of equality, this same majority was strongly opposed to the enforcement mechanisms that the federal courts devised to make this principle a reality. 'One example of this was the busing designed to bring Blacks into previously all- White schools, and desegregated housing (Edsall & Edsall, 1991). WI... 4 We.“ -.‘i-As I .~.v~‘. h. CO. ,‘n-w “ ~— p L a. . .a s Ix vb P... -.- “YA“ O-r‘ K—o. 1"" ' s- y ‘ “ 1'1..- Le: a. E c H .. s C i _ . . L Y. Av a r s. \ A .. r Mw E a a e . e a a c ..w t a Q» xii MG» DE A» n~ 5c m? :L U. .3 V. s Ga & .3» U u. . a ~L‘ {I'M ”*4 LU mi. Thus, while many legislative gains were made for the Black community, such as with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the VCting Rights Act of 1965, there was still strong White resistance to Black advancement which increased throughout the 1960's (Edsall & Edsall, 1991; Chapman, 1988). Simultaneously, the 1960’s formed the backdrop of Black protest and a decline in Black functioning at a time when many ,Whites thought Blacks were doing better.(Edsall & Edsall, 1991). Major riots broke out nationally in poor Black ghettoes from 1965- 1968 (Edsall & Edsall, 1991). In the decade from 1960 to 1970, Black rates of illegitimate births and single parenthood climbed dramatically from 21.6% in 1960 to 34.9% in 1970, as compared to 2.3% and 5.7% respectively, for Whites. The number of households on welfare nearly tripled (Edsall & Edsall, 1991). 'From 1960- 1966, crime grew by 60%, and Blacks allegedly committed a disproportionate share of these crimes. For example, the Black arrest rate increased by 130% during that time (Edsall & Edsall, 1991). Ironically, the 1960's was also a time when many Blacks did in fact attain middle and upper-class status. At the same time when poor Blacks began to do worse, the not-so—poor Blacks began to do well. Because of new legislation and affirmative action, many Blacks gained new opportunities, such as admittance into 10 pf. .» ‘ ~. .s1 4 F. E S H C I ya 1% NC .G‘ ha: . E E C i i i .1 i e C .. -. C. t . c C I T E ~ 3 I p E .I . S e Z a c . i P. .8 5. .L C. L 1. 3 l X 3.... C C x; E L-.. E i r. i e O 5. . . w... a i “a. "J. wt 3. J. 5 .C.. t ..e. mu. 4a.. n he 9 m.» .n. e . C H .. a A 9 Ce . .1 - .. a ”w . 1. C I . . . . O O . . 5 wk C. ~ ,. . SV 5. mu M“ We wk NW. C. E .N E . c S C ..n a: r 1. E .l t . public sector jobs (Edsall & Edsall, 1991). Thus, as compared to the pre—60's era when most Blacks were struggling within the working class (only 20% were upper or middle—class), the post-60's era led to the bifurcation of the Black community. The poor became poorer, and those who attained at least a middle-class status became richer (Edsall & Edsall, 1991). Because Blacks are poorer on average than Whites, and society compares the advancement of Black men to the advancement of Black ~ women, changes in the Black economic situation may have pitted Black couples against each other, causing increased tension and reduced trust within their relationships. For example, Black men are often likely to be unemployed more than other groups (Chapman, 1988). As the rising rate of unemployment and the increased emphasis on education forced many Black men out of the job market in the sixties, there was also a simultaneous increase in society's valuation and highlighting of the Black female's educational and economic attainments (Chapman, 1988). For example, to date, society perpetuates the myth that Black women earn more than Black men, though Black women are actually doing worse (Aborampah, 1989). Chapman (1988) notes that the percentage of Black women who are obtaining degrees in higher education is rising, while the percentage for Black men is declining, because they are encouraged ll less to go to school. With increased college enrollments for Black women in the seventies and eighties, Black women are able to get a job quicker than Black males and count as a double minority for quotas. However, Black women continue to make less than White males, Black males, and White females (Aborampah, 1989). The effects of these myths and stereotypes pitting the successes of Black men and women against each other appears to have had devastating effects on Black couples, especially because of the changes in the American economic structure, since Blacks are worse off economically than any other group (Aborampah, 1989). In addition, the stress of the poor socioeconomic status of both seems to have caused severe consequences for the family. That is, lower socioeconomic status, which leads to poorer family functioning, may have decreased the couple’s cohesion and trust in one another. As discussed below, these problems are related to society’s negative evaluations of Blacks. Society’s Negative Evaluation of Blacks and Their Effects Stability in Black male-female relationships has been negatively affected by society’s negative evaluation of Blacks as a whole. As early as 1950, Erikson (1950) noted the continued efforts of American society to strip Blacks of their identity. He also discussed the entertainment industry’s extensive attempts to 12 disseminate negative racial caricatures and stereotypes of Blacks. Lawson and Thompson (1994) have also theorized that racial discrimination on the job may have “carry home effects” by depleting the psychological resources of Black couples. Oggins and colleagues (Oggins et al., 1993) suggest that the decreased marital happiness of Black couples relative to Whites that is independent of marital interaction and demographic variables may be due to the greater social pressures they face, such as discrimination and lack of opportunity. In addition, on the basis of historical analysis and clinical experience with Black clients, Willis (1990) proposed that racism has caused some Black males and females to feel inferior to Whites. For these people, he proposes that racism engenders a rage that they feel is unsafe to vent towards society, so they instead displace their anger and frustration towards each other. These assertions are supported by reports of dual career Black couples indicating that racial discrimination issues on the job do indeed spill over into their family lives in a negative manner. These couples also reported that they sometimes compete with each other and experience resentment over the prevalent stereotype that Black women can advance further in the job arena. They further reported concerns regarding how to reach a balance between Black and White culture (Thomas, 1990). 13 Black Male to Female Ratio It is obvious that many tensions between Black males and females appear to be caused by a distressing economic situation, racist practices and society’s negative evaluation of Blacks as a whole. In addition, the disproportionate high death, incarceration, and substance abuse rates of Black males which climbed so drastically in the sixties is at least partially responsible for the present sex—ratio imbalance which began as early as 1850. Black females aged 35—45 are about eight times more likely to be widowed as compared to Whites in the same age group. Between the ages of 45-54, they are ten times more likely to experience the death of a spouse (Lawson, & Thompson, 1994). In 1990, 23 percent of Black males between the ages of 20 and 29 were in jail, and these men are in the marriageable age group (Lawson & Thompson, 1994). In addition, over 200,000 of the nearly 500,000 regular crack users are Black, and the vast majority of these users are males in the marriageable age range (Lawson & Thompson, 1994). In 1972, not counting dead, incarcerated, or homosexual persons, the number of Black males was 64 per 100 Black females. In 1986, this number had risen to only 69 Black males per 100 Black females, and this ratio is again worse for Blacks in their twenties and thirties, the age range in which people are most 14 Q ‘ . u v d . 1‘ J—a v r I “.."- v "VF-".- q f. 1". '~ Iv—‘v l-qu-.. “H'WC- s 6“ ’V A. ‘4.» “A-.. “‘5. ‘ a k -c: ”w ‘V. V \ ‘0~ Q- Q V‘ ‘- .. C. ‘y ’ £19.: an likely to get married (Aborampah, 1989). The limited availability of Black men also produces intense competition between Black women for Black men, and increased pressure for Black women to entice Black men with sex or to share Black men (Aborampah, 1989). Black men have also tended to take advantage of the higher number of available Black females, and have thus had difficulties in committing to Black women (Lawson & Thompson, 1994; Staples, 1981). The sex ratio imbalance has also been suggested as a partial cause of unmarried motherhood (Aborampah, 1989). In his interviews conducted with Black singles, as compared to women with high school diplomas, college educated Black women appeared to have a particularly difficult time because of the dearth of available Black men having similar educational levels to be their counterparts (Staples, 1981). For Blacks who are fortunate to be in relationships, societal pressures, including racism may negatively impact their unions. In regards to Black dating couples, the Black male to female ratio may be associated with decreased commitment to the relationship for Black men. In one study, unlike White male reporters, Black males reported that their commitment to their relationships were not associated with their levels of satisfaction with the relationship (Davis & Strube, 1993). It has been inferred that this difference may be caused by the shortage 15 of Black men. That is, Black men reasonably assume that_other partners are always available to them, and that they may be more satisfied by those alternatives (Davis & Strube, 1993). Thus, it appears that the combination of being a male in a male-dominant society and being Black and “in demand” does give Black males an advantage over their Black female counterparts. Further, these results imply that other issues, such as those associated with positive values, may be needed to increase the commitment of Black males in the dating process. The Means by Which Black Couples Relate to One Another Though few empirical studies focus on Black couples, when combined, investigations have yielded a partial picture of how Black couples relate to one another, as shown above regarding dating couples. Several studies imply that there is a relatively higher importance of Black males in Black couple relationships as compared to Whites. Black husbands have reported receiving more affirmation from their wives than their wives reported receiving from them, as well as more affirmation than White husbands reported receiving from their wives (Oggins et al., 1993). This is ironic, since for Black wives, a strong correlation between affective affirmation (which indicates that the partner validates the self) and marital well being has been found (Oggins et al., 16 \K) \K‘) \A) ) . p. ‘ IN!“ 'V‘ D V yv¢~-w - :- cf one: way-g ‘A" ‘v-\- finds- ‘H rho .- -06 bat- C ‘t 0 P‘ .' “mtg: V» 1993). In addition, despite common beliefs that egalitarian couple relationships are most positive, across multiple measures of power processes within-Black couples, husband—dominant couples were found to have consistently higher marital quality than both wife-dominant and egalitarian couples. This is especially salient in the areas of decision making, which was by far the best predictor of both spouses’ marital quality in the study. For this sample of Black couples, participants who described husband- dominance in decision making also reported the most positive regard for their spouses (Gray-Little, 1982). Black couples also significantly differ from Whites in their general perceptions about their marital interactions. Black couples’ narratives show that they use less cooperative styles of interaction and have greater conflict than do White couples (Veroff et. al., 1993). Black partners report higher levels of disclosure to each other than do Whites. Yet as compared to Whites, they also report that they have an easier time talking to outside people than with their spouses (Oggins, et al., 1993). Though they do not differ significantly in the overall frequency of conflict reported, Black couples report that they disagree on fewer issues than do Whites. Blacks are also more likely than Whites to report that they deal with conflict in the relationship by withdrawing or leaving the scene of conflict to cool down. 17 . ‘ FI‘ brag"! 5.5.“... \A- [A ~9V‘: 1“ “u-..v v—v -fi ' 4 I‘ :A r, Hw.s V 5‘ - A4 LH‘“ ,A" ‘M- Vvs " V “Ha "\ _ H h‘ ’_ So“- a-» ‘ . "figv . h‘ '.“' ‘.A‘ ””3”“ .._ ‘ A vvzw); “\' § kh- - ‘\ ‘ v- \v‘ S“ Itn‘. O '..‘L V“: w..~ a: ._ . Q“‘4~ \- c‘ 5- ‘thOr 1 ' CAM“: V. "e 8;: vg.£e “a I .‘v: P‘~k ne‘er ‘0. I .1; and v5 CHS’ Further, they evaluate their sexual relationships more positively than do Whites, although their overall marital quality is poorer. As compared to Whites, Blacks further report higher levels of egalitarianism in housework. Lastly, Blacks appear to report both more positive and more negative aspects to marriage than do Whites (Oggins, et al., 1993). Thus, it appears that the dynamics of Black couple relationships are very different from the dynamics that occur in White couple relationships. The authors reported that Blacks are more likely than Whites to expect their partners to share and express with them (Oggins et al, 1993). Accordingly they interpreted the findings to mean that Blacks are more communicative, tolerate more expressed sexual interest, may express more affective intensity, and value avoiding conflict with their spouses and expressing negative feelings too frequently more than Whites. Unfortunately, while each of the above studies presents race as a variable that is related to the findings, none of these studies actually looks at race as more than just a demographic factor. One can argue that much of the uniqueness of the Black couple situation is not just due to being Black in the demographic .sense, nor is it merely due to the experience of hardship. Rather, it comes both from one’s demographic (i.e., racial) status and one’s reaction to being Black in terms of how one deals with 18 "f‘. A SJV-': p f‘O .' V- . FL. .' C b..e.. .— “- r-m‘ G~-~ ,‘y, ‘ 15.9 c: “v‘ Q “A ‘ u‘bvgvy- ‘. - ‘ :‘h 'Uu an ‘H w ‘v societal derision and negativity, as well as how one sees one’s self and one’s partner as Black people. For example, perhaps much of the differences in interactions between Blacks and Whites as reported by Oggins and colleagues (Oggins et. al., 1993) may be due to how Blacks deal with racial issues. Perhaps Blacks expect to share more with each other because they feel a need to testify or vent about their experiences with racism and oppression. Because of these experiences, they may have a stronger need than Whites to feel that their spouses support them, and thus each may dichotomize their spouse’s responses to them, and label them as being either “with me or against me." This may also influence their stronger need to reduce conflicts as compared to their White counterparts. As was just demonstrated, exploring possible race related dynamics in Black couple relationships might give researchers a new, more enlightened perspective on how race influences Blacks' methods of dealing with conflict. This might be important, since couples who believed that conflict should be avoided reported decreased marital happiness as much as two years later (Crohan, 1992). In addition, while these assertions are admittedly speculative, when viewed in light of the literature regarding Black history and Black couple relationships, they do reveal a previously neglected need for the literature to explore the 19 . ”FY .‘av‘ h I: 5.!” E F cc..- “\—d.h . x; y- F‘s-QC: \ 1‘": ‘ “ ‘. b.- ~. 1 CK.“ importance of racial issues in Black couple relationships. These issues deserve further study both in regards to how Black men and women perceive these issues, as well as how they impact Black couples. Very few researchers have empirically investigated these issues, but the few who have investigated them (e g. Taylor & Zhang, 1990) have found implications for Afrocentricity, racial identity, and the internalization of stereotypes. Starting with Afrocentricity and Black couples, these studies are discussed next. Afrocentricity and Black Couple Relationships Afrocentricity is one racial construct which several researchers (e.g. Bell, Bouie, & Baldwin, 1990) have hypothesized to be related to positive Black couple relationships. Afrocentricity is a personality construct theoretically derived from African values. That is, an Afrocentric worldview is defined by two guiding principles: "oneness with nature" and "survival of the group." This worldview prioritizes the survival of the group over the individual, which is consistent with such cultural values as interdependence, cooperation, unity, mutual responsibility, and reconciliation (Bell et al., 1990). Baldwin and colleagues contrast Afrocentricity with Eurocentricity, which refers to having a worldview that causes Blacks to operate according to 20 ..'* 'v.A/- up“ six— A “AM A .- ~' I I l ‘8'“ e. Jfi‘ ‘ “A White values and norms, such as attitudes that emphasize individualism, exclusiveness, materialism, and control over nature (Baldwin & Hopkins, 1990). In order to study the concepts of Afrocentricity and Eurocentricity, Baldwin and Bell (1985) developed the 42-item African Self Consciousness Scale. The scale measures four competency dimensions. They are: (a) awareness and recognition of one's African identity and heritage, (b) overall ideological and activity commitment as exhibited by belief in Afrocentric values and customs and participation in Afrocentric institutions, (c) activity toward attaining self knowledge and self affirmation, and (d) resistance to general threats to Black survival. These competency dimensions are manifested in the areas of education, family, religion, cultural activities, interpersonal relations, and political orientation (Baldwin & Bell, 1985). Since these researchers conceptualize Afrocentricity and Eurocentricity as being on the opposite ends of a continuum, higher scores on this scale reflect an Afrocentric worldview, while lower scores reflect a Eurocentric worldview. While Baldwin & Bell (1985) purport that this construct accounts for a significant amount of the variance in any psychological research that is done with Blacks, there are few existing studies which test the behavioral and attitudinal concomitants of attitudes measured by the African Self 21 Consciousness Scale (Sabnani & Ponterotto, 1992). One of these few studies is described below. In their study on Afrocentricity and relationships, Bell and colleagues (1990) found that as compared to Eurocentric Blacks, Afrocentric Blacks endorsed items indicating that they would be more supportive of a hypothetical partner who is unable to carry out typical functions due to an illness or unemployment. These results imply that Afrocentric persons may be better able to depend on their partners in their time of need. Thus, Afrocentric couples may be more trusting and trustworthy in their relationships than Burocentric couples. The results also imply that Afrocentric couples might have better relationship quality than Eurocentric couples, because Afrocentric participants tended to report that they would be committed to supporting each other through difficult times. Based upon these findings and the positive implications of Afrocentric theory, Kelly and Floyd (1995, 1998) sought to determine whether or not Afrocentricity had positive effects on Black heterosexual relationships that both partners considered to be "serious." First, contrary to predictions,.Afrocentricity was negatively correlated with aspects of trust and dyadic adjustment in Black couples. Most notably, Afrocentricity was negatively associated with each participant's own beliefs that his or her 22 07v", f‘.~¥\" ' '.| 8 a: \ h ¢- H ‘d ‘.. c. ‘3 ‘VV ITE- “s; we»- partner is dependable, and both partners' satisfaction with their relationship. Further, other results were consistent with the hypothesis that for each partner, trust mediated the negative effects of Afrocentricity his or her relationship satisfaction. Afrocentricity was also the only predictor variable in the study significantly associated with either partner’s faith in the relationship. Specifically, the men’s levels of Afrocentricity were negatively correlated with their wives’ faith that these relationships would continue. Next, Afrocentricity’s relationship with internalized negative stereotypes was assessed. As expected, Afrocentricity was negatively correlated with internalized negative stereotypes for the women, though this relationship did not hold true for the men. Yet contrary to theory regarding.Afrocentricity, a number of participants of both genders received scores indicating that they were highly Afrocentric and that they also endorsed a high number of negative stereotypes about Blacks. Similarly, some participants were Eurocentric and reported low negative stereotypes about Blacks. For the men, high Afrocentricity and high stereotype scores predicted decreases in both partners' dyadic adjustment and the women's trust. Regression analyses indicated that when the men had both high.Afrocentricity and high stereotypes, the relationship satisfaction and levels of couple 23 1 A“‘~ ‘Vv. C .2? \“ F‘H L131 H ‘ ‘vi. at? h ‘\- l fl re 9 agreement reported by both partners was negatively affected, as well as the women’s reports of the men’s predictability (Kelly & Floyd, 1996). Overall, Kelly and Floyd’s (1998) study demonstrated that contrary to theory and predictions, Afrocentricity has negative effects on Black couple relationships. In the interest of exploring more in—depth how racial issues affect Black couple relationships, the proposed study seeks to determine why Afrocentricity was not found to be a positive construct in the lives of African American couples. Specifically, this study will explore the construct more in-depth, to find out which characteristics (such as racial identity and expectations of one’s partner) are associated with Afrocentricity, and which of these specific characteristics are related to positive or negative relationship outcomes. For example, this study will determine the racial identity attitudes held by Afrocentric participants, and will assess whether or not specific combinations of racial beliefs (which include Afrocentricity) can discriminate between distressed and nondistressed couples. One method of further understanding Afrocentricity is to understand it in the context of theory regarding racial identity. In addition to Afrocentricity, racial identity is also a key factor that affects how Blacks feel about themselves and relate to 24 1.. . . . Ce 5. . - . .1. r c . . . . 3 ~ .. r S A. v: .c .v S S C S W 0 § ‘. s \‘ Q» .‘$ -5 s ‘ w . a. s‘l ~\~ «\~ £§ I 2% R- ~fiu . ‘C s y . m L y \fiu s~ .; . . . E .-x E E a. .3 . T. . a P. 5 e ..t. fix .1 a 1 2 7 C E 2. L c. a. i .1 C C .4 .3. m. 0.. C. . C I 9 C 7 a . . a & C a C r t a 5. C H ex .3 C . . Y. .7 C .. ow : Z h. n a; E .l ~ 1 a: g m. C“ fl .. . C; .a. S .n S S . .1. DJ 8 S in ; . kw a {M one another. Thus, as discussed next, racial identity may also affect intimate relationships for Black couples. Racial Identity and Its Relationship with Afrocentricity and Black Couple Relationships The most popular of the racial identity models is Cross' (1971) model of psychological “Nigrescence,” which describes the process of becoming Black in an oppressive society. Cross' (1971, 1978) model proposes that individuals progress through five stages, during which they experience radical changes in emotions, beliefs, and behaviors associated with being Black. In the first stage, called pre-encounter, Black persons adhere to White standards, values and beliefs, which themselves are inherently anti-Black (Cross, 1971). Thus, in this stage, Black people think in individualistic terms, degrade and think negatively about Blackness, and try to assimilate into White society. In the second stage, encounter, Black persons encounter an adverse situation that shatters their basic assumptions regarding Blackness and causes them to begin to question the previously held identity. .Third is the immersion-emersion stage, wherein Blacks become immersed in a new Black identity. In this stage, they have a rigid perception of what Blackness is, which is not fully internalized. Further, a high level of anger, and strong negative 25 c...€-, Erna- ‘ ‘o‘§' ‘V‘... naval“ buoovv *' . . u s . g g < u E a. . 1 y r y . C. v. .2“ r «T. J4 .5 h. t “we afiu n» S v." V v bl» h“ bk .. . J x . N... a m: S C M». m you r a a: a H C h. C a» Q» S ., . 4 .. C. C. e a» u ..x s C my. S FL “Ru .5.» an“ . (l I“ O .\ ‘ NV fin Q Be. nl‘ \q .. .. t l C t C P... MW Q. as». 4- . concomitant sentiments towards Whites characterize this stage. In the fourth stage, internalization, Black persons incorporate some of their new Black identity into their self—concept. However, ~while they are psychologically and spiritually changed by their new positive views of themselves, their cosmology remains the same, and they are not committed to plans of action to changing the Black situation (Cross, 1971). In the fifth and final stage, internalization-commitment, Blacks not only have internalized a Black perspective, but they are also committed to action towards the advancement of Black people, while being simultaneously appreciative of the contributions of other races and cultures (Cross, 1978). While some Afrocentric researchers have critiqued racial identity theory (e.g. Akbar, 1989), as of yet, no one has striven to converge the two largely separate yet related bodies of literature on Afrocentricity and racial identity to form a coherent picture of how Black couples see racial issues. Thus, this review will compare the literature and findings on these two constructs, and then a model will be presented which describes how they might be related, as well as how they might apply to Black couple relationships. Since both constructs are usually discussed in separate bodies of literature, many theorists clearly believe that instruments assessing Afrocentricity and Nigrescence are 26 thought to measure somewhat different aspects of Black people’s perspectives on Blackness. Yet as evidenced by periodic references to Afrocentric literature during discussions of racial identity (e.g. Sellers, 1993), perhaps there is some overlap in these perspectives, and it may be possible that the two constructs may be brought together to fit into a more comprehensive yet concise paradigm (Sabnani & Ponterotto, 1992). Before proposing how the.Afrocentricity and racial identity constructs might intersect, it is important to understand the similarities and differences between the two paradigms. The Nigrescence model and the Afrocentric worldview construct are both similar in that they each propose that persons who are well adjusted see their Blackness as primary. Further, persons who are highly Afrocentric and persons who are in the final internalization-commitment stage are both thought to understand the prevalence of White supremacy and its negative effects on Blacks, and thus are committed to actions designed to end the oppression of Black people and facilitate their advancement. Yet theory regarding the two constructs differs in that Afrocentricity is thought to be part of one’s personality (Baldwin, 1981) and therefore it is viewed as a state of being or worldview. Conversely, original theory on racial identity purports that it is a stage phenomenon that is directly affected by environmental 27 bar-“*V‘ 'bvzfiwbb ' - r finfi‘.‘-Lv $it-‘ux—o do “9 (T U \r a (I) ‘ r. CO mt: r1: rcycgv- C v-.. A? Pia.- “ V‘ say 5. ‘- w‘bk—er "Av-q by: .;9“‘ C 2‘ ‘ I f‘ * ~ at: ‘A H l‘JQu‘. . VJ] l - influences (Cross, 1971). So one critical issue becomes whether the internalization of Blackness that is ascribed to by both constructs is a naturally occurring affirmation of one’s core self, or whether it is a response to negative environmental influences (Akbar, 1989), which is largely a nature or nurture debate. Another critical difference between the two constructs has to do with reference group orientation. Theories regarding the Afrocentricity and racial identity constructs differ as to whether or not Blacks having an internalized sense of Blackness relate better to Whites. Some Afrocentric theorists state that the only concern is that Afrocentric Blacks relate to their own racial group better, and they imply that those with an internalized sense of Blackness may still have a negative view of Whites (e.g. Akbar, 1989). However, other Afrocentric theorists (e.g. Asante, 1988) do not equate Afrocentricity with anti—White sentiments. Thus, Afrocentricity’s relationship with sentiments about Whites and participation in White American culture needs to be assessed further. Conversely, racial identity theorists generally agree that not only should those having an internalized sense of Blackness relate to their own racial group more positively, but that these Blacks should also relate to Whites and other racial groups more positively as well (e.g. Cross, 1971). 28 b—v‘ ‘4"9HV V4 a ‘ H l) I I 1) J . ”to .2. - ' r- ...V -9 B 43 :J ‘n n '~ . s ‘ S~ GZ‘: Lue “VA“ b‘v~' .~ : “E«S , ‘ H N‘V“ “‘Uhy f‘v. s \a~‘ VVhfl‘. . ‘ ‘9b‘r-s‘... 'L'v‘.‘ H «.‘e Q, a ' u “e. “‘0‘. “1)— V‘ e‘s‘x‘ .5. C1“ t‘I ‘ However, while theory intimates that there are fundamental conceptual differences between.Afrocentricity and racial identity, the theoretical and empirical critiques of each construct tend to bring them closer together conceptually. In regards to reference group orientation, the literature indicates that racial identity theory is beginning to converge with Afrocentricity theory. Some racial identity theorists also have the perspective that immersion into Blackness (which is accompanied by a withdrawal from Whites) may be a stable phenomenon that allows for harmony and positive relations with one’s own racial group (Parham, 1993). Moreover, theorists are beginning to realize that it is not clear what out— group preferences mean in regards to one’s perspective on Blackness. This implies that reference group orientation might vary in both highly Afrocentric persons, as well as persons in the most advanced stage of racial identity (internalization). Thus, the proposed study seeks to determine which combinations of beliefs regarding Afrocentricity, racial identity, and reference group orientation are related to optimal individual and couple functioning. The above critiques also indicate that in reality, racial identity and.Afrocentricity constructs are probably very similar. For example, both Afrocentric and racial identity theorists have critiqued original racial identity theory (e.g. Cross, 1971) by 29 \ A AA‘ Sv.‘v‘a- *v‘vsv-r‘“ ' Gus}- V4{s_ b - ‘ Q ‘ . an, v".- - ‘ -‘V..-"fi . "h ban ‘2 N ‘ ‘ Q. ~‘N \‘1 h‘ me: \ ‘*. ‘H‘k “'QL h use s ¥ v- L‘ V asserting that a positive racial identity is more than just a reaction to a negative encounter with Whites (e.g. Nobles, 1989; Parham, 1989; Smith, 1989). Cross (1989) also noted that when a social movement is not present, racial identity stages begin to approximate worldviews, implying that the stages become more like changes in personality. Further, while Afrocentric theorists (e.g. Akbar, 1989; Nobles, 1989) rightfully note that racial identity researchers fail to use an African centered model in their study of racial identity, even in the racial identity model, Blackness becomes central and internalized as the person progresses (Cross, 1971). Therefore, there is evidence that both groups of theorists are beginning to view internalized Blackness as a naturally occurring phenomenon. As such, this orientation to Blackness appears to be best characterized by the Afrocentric paradigm. Thus, Afrocentricity will remain the focus of this study, which will investigate how other racially influenced factors, such as identity, are related to this construct. Unfortunately, though the Afrocentric paradigm makes more conceptual sense in its constant focus upon the centrality of Blackness in a Black person’s life and worldview, it too has flaws that need to be revealed. As previously mentioned, while Afrocentricity has a weak but significant negative correlation with the internalization of negative stereotypes, contrary to 30 e. V. ‘r. A.» .w~ I C. a T a Q l . . L C. t . 1. E T. & B. L\—‘ V 1 sz~ "sg" “ .1 '0 . a t L s “A theory, there are groups of highly Afrocentric people who do endorse a high number of negative stereotypes about Blacks (Kelly & Floyd, 1998). Further, Black men who fit the profile of high Afrocentricity and high negative stereotypes tend to be in relationships in which their wives tend to report that their partners are less predictable. In these relationships, both partners tend to disagree more and be less satisfied as compared to relationships in which Black men do not fit the profile of both highly Afrocentric and endorsing negative stereotypes about Blacks (Kelly & Floyd, 1998). Thus, these findings imply that a number of Afrocentric persons are still conflicted in regards to their feelings about Black people. They further imply that some negative racial identity processes may be occurring for some Afrocentric people. Lastly, these results also imply that though Afrocentricity may be a naturally occurring phenomenon, unlike racial identity theorists, Afrocentric theorists may have significantly minimized or underestimated the extent to which Afrocentricity is significantly impeded by societal forces, such as White supremacy; The above comparisons and critiques of Afrocentricity and racial identity theory enable one to consider the possibility that perhaps both Afrocentric and racial identity processes can occur at the same time for some people. The fact that one’s 31 H . YV‘" *-..\‘ r “I ag~ F b. . ~GCWEQ“ 2. ... E Z i . E E a: \\ S s. ‘ I. V‘ %A« C... .... a 1 L i C C .L l w . . ‘ C a: C 1: E .Q 5 . . .Q .I I E 2 E r a C. .Q Afrocentricity score does not guarantee that one will refrain from internalizing negative stereotypes about Blacks or have positive relationship outcomes (Kelly & Floyd, 1998) implies that a single score is not illuminating enough in determining what Afrocentricity means in a person’s life. Theory also indicates that one can cycle back and forth between racial identity stages (Parham, 1989). It is clear that being categorized into one stage does not allow one to get a full picture of one’s mental state, nor one’s views on raCe, as described in the above controversy regarding out-group preferences. Therefore, it appears that a new model is needed to help more fully explain how Blacks see racial ‘issues. Such a model would need to explain the relationship between Afrocentricity and racial identity, as well as how these constructs influence Black life and couple relationships. Convergence of Two Theories: Multiple Paths to Internalized Blackness This study proposes a model in which there are two ways to becoming Afrocentric, as seen in Figure 1. Perhaps one set of Blacks who become Afrocentric may have grown up in a positive racial environment in which their identity as Black people was affirmed and supported. Because of this, these Blacks were well prepared to negotiate through their environments, which includes dealing with other races in a positive manner. Although their 32 A ‘ _..~V ’- -9 «.5: as.“ ‘. v A Q 5.56- p 2' 'C v ' ~ ‘ o . Y t“. u ... 3. Ce 3 ‘ x ‘2 C; a» 4: . . at 3. 3. a positive developmental experiences may have led this group to develop an internalized sense of Blackness, because Afrocentricity is not theoretically associated with anti-White sentiments (Asante, 1988), it will be argued below that the methods by which Afrocentric people interact with Blacks and Whites can be perceived as bicultural. Since their Blackness was positively affirmed by those around them, they might have also developed their internal sense of Blackness through a positive spiritual awakening. This pathway would be consistent with Afrocentric theory, in that one’s environment is naturally supportive and affirming, which leads the person to become naturally affirming of the self as Black as well. However, given that most Blacks in the United States face the “African Praxis,” that is, how to reproduce themselves in a non— African reality (Nobles, 1989), then it is expected that most' Blacks will have to struggle to obtain a worldview that is affirming of the self as a Black person. Because of this, an even larger group of Blacks are expected to develop an internal sense of Blackness as a reaction to negative racial encounters with the larger society. It is expected that these Blacks will undergo the stages of Nigrescence,.and so they may continue to be conflicted in regards to their views of Black people. These conflicts are expected to be manifested in their internalization of negative 33 8' a Pl“ VU "YA .-V PO-“ “VA”; . I. :g‘vr- hi ‘8Q‘ ““V v ‘Vfi—u e 5. by F L. ‘ S VAA ‘V¥ Ir stereotypes, and high levels of anger which have been generated because of their recognition of oppression, and the frustrations they have experienced in unsuccessfully trying to negotiate through Black and White environments. Further, these persons may actually be in the immersion stage of Nigrescence, and in their struggle to replace old Eurocentric views, they develop unrealistically high standards of how Black people should think and behave, which they expect Blacks to meet. This model also proposes that each of the above tendencies held by those in taking either pathway have implications for Black couple relationships. This model will be described in further detail below. The Self Affirminquath to Afrocentricity and its Concomitants The first proposed path refers to the development of Afrocentricity within the supportive context of one’s environment. A supportive environment might include a family in which children receive positive racial socialization (Smith, 1989), since the support of one’s culture is thought to facilitate the development of an African identity (Akbar, 1989). As a consequence of residing in such a family, Blacks might be more prone to have learned about their own history and culture through their families or Afrocentric schools by the time they have reached adolescence. This is important, because if an African identity is formed during the adolescent period, then it will remain essentially intact 34 ”In?" hr“ ‘ or“. Huh-J .C C u-» t V! .2 ..F-fi _._,u . § S -.w- ..QK' v.‘ v‘! nN; :4 P‘“ ‘o‘. I" ‘V. throughout the life cycle (Akbar, 1989). This group of Blacks’ family members and surrounding community would also serve as positive role models. Further, as role models, they would be experienced as buffering mechanisms that would decrease exposure to and counteract negative stereotypes about Blacks disseminated by the popular media (Spencer & Markstrom5 V“ by. ' Q. _ ‘V‘fi‘Qr‘ -.Au-d- ‘.“ ”Ir A” ‘ 1.: Ev- A "5 T'Q‘ . ‘V‘atlfi ‘» ‘: oriented variables such as racial identity seem to be similar to Afrocentricity or at least related to it in some way. However, few persons have examined how various racial beliefs relate to one another. As suggested by the literature, (e.g. Kelly & Floyd, 1998), once the various ways that Black couples perceive racial issues are identified, it will be possible to determine if certain constellations of racial views are associated with a person’s individual or relationship adjustment. The purpose of this study is to examine how racial issues affect Blacks and their couple relationships, by determining whether or not various constellations of perspectives involving Afrocentricity are associated with positive or negative psychological adjustment and couple outcomes. Towards that end, a model was developed for this study, as presented in Figure 1. This model presents two distinct pathways to becoming Afrocentric, and proposes particular outcomes related to one’s personal and relationship adjustment based upon the combination of Afrocentricity and other key variables. Though this model is developmental in nature, this study will only investigate the expected outcomes of the respective paths of AfrocentriCity, and not their theorized development. Two hypotheses follow which predict the aforementioned processes: 54 :. ‘. ,V fl‘v-‘r- --..u‘..~ s Aha vn Y" bu..¢"\,‘ § A) Hypotheses 1. It is hypothesized that participants who are highly Afrocentric and who are bicultural will report having significantly higher psychological adjustment than participants who are not both highly Afrocentric and bicultural. Similar findings will also be reported by participants who are highly Afrocentric and who report high levels of spiritual well being. Conversely, participants who are highly Afrocentric and who have high levels of stereotypes will report having significantly poorer psychological adjustment than participants who are not both highly Afrocentric and who endorse many negative stereotypes about Blacks. Similar findings will be reported by participants who are highly Afrocentric and who also report high levels of immersion attitudes, anger towards Whites regarding racial injustices, and who have irrational relationship beliefs. 2. It is also hypothesized that the group of Afrocentric Blacks characterized by high levels of biculturalism and spirituality will also be part of a couple relationship in which the couple reports having more trust and higher relationship quality than participants who are not both highly Afrocentric and bicultural. Similar findings will be reported by participants who are highly Afrocentric and who report high levels of spiritual well being. Conversely, participants who are highly Afrocentric 55 and who have high levels of stereotypes will be part of a particular type of couple relationship. In this relationship, the couple will report having significantly decreased trust and poorer relationship quality than couples who are not highly Afrocentric and who do no simultaneously hold negative stereotypes about .African.Americans. Similar findings will be reported by participants who are highly Afrocentric and who also report high levels of immersion attitudes, anger towards Whites regarding racial injustices, and who have irrational relationship beliefs. 3. Because previous research reveals the importance of demographic factors in the lives of Blacks, an additional research question was asked regarding the role of socioeconomic status and the couple’s relationship status. This study will control for the effects of socioeconomic status (e.g. education, occupation and income) as well as explore its possible effects as a moderator or mediator on the associations between the above variables. This study will also include analyses to help determine whether or not the couple’s relationship status (e.g. married or unmarried) is a factor in deterwdning the specific results that are found. Method Subjects The participants were 112 couples recruited from the Greater Lansing area of Michigan. As an incentive to participate, all 56 , . C E I Z .3 . E I C E .c t . 1. C . . ..r .. . e e m. H» n .l v. 8 NJ. .7. S S C We . we a kw mm 5 i . M“ .w. .2“ . . S .Q a m. R; & a». S E s- ' ‘4‘“ 3. vi ‘ . ~ .‘ Q» i c S .c E 9‘ ya ~.., an. subjects were entered into a lottery, in which a single randomly chosen couple won $100.00. All couples contacted were included as subjects if they indicated through self report that they are part of the African Diaspora, in a relationship which both partners define as "serious" that has lasted at least six months, and if both partners completed the measures administered. Advertisement flyers were distributed throughout the area, which stated, “Couples who are either married or in serious relationships are needed for a study on values, culture and heterosexual relationships. volunteer participants will complete confidential questionnaires. Participating couples will be entered into a $100.00 lottery. Chances to win are approximately one out of 100. For more information, contact Shalonda Kelly, Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, (517) 353-6640." Also, all known organizations in the area having a large Black clientele or membership, such as Black fraternities and sororities, Black churches and Black professional associations were contacted in person or by phone. They were told about the study, asked to post flyers, provide the names of possible participants, and allow the investigators to attend their meetings and to solicit the participation of their membership. During meetings with group members, they were given a five-minute presentation in which they were told the purpose of the study as written on the flyer. The researchers stressed that their participation would add to the literature base and help to better 57 FA hr» cheer Volvuu vvé‘- w--.e ”flab f“ Luv; . v u ,_ A “ "~ Sr; f~vb~u understand Black couple relationships, and it was mentioned that the project was conducted by an.African American graduate student to obtain her Ph.D., with the help of African American research assistants. During the presentation, questions were answered, a sheet was passed out to allow interested members of a couple to write their names and phone numbers down so that they could be re- contacted, their additional questions could be answered, and they could be scheduled to participate in the study. These couples who signed up were then contacted and their participation was solicited. If they agreed to participate, then the administration procedure mentioned below was followed. Further, snowball sampling was used, in which couples who already participated in the study were asked to provide the names and numbers of their friends and acquaintances who might be interested in participating. Participant recruitment was done by the principal investigator and eight African American student research assistants. Of the research assistants, four participated in data collection during the spring term; one volunteered, and three received course credit for their assistance. As the data collection period was extended for one month beyond the school term, four additional students received payment of $10 per couple scheduled and $10 per couple to whom they administered 58 g. y e‘ 2.188 O . .. ~. 3 g . .G V. .L w. , a C r i r S .e e Z c . .. . . . 2 E l C C V. E I a... T. S F 2,: E z E F C. T S C. S e. e 2. .3 ..u C . i E i E T Z r .4 "i e C T H .2 ..u a. C .1 C 4 .I 4. ..l S E 2 w.“ r. r» 4- .1 -.. S «Q Cg . C ~u. w». y x .L .. .- .N a» questionnaires. As a number of organizations had been contacted by that time, these four research assistants primarily recruited couples based upon lists of potential participant names and numbers obtained from snowball sampling. The original four research assistants received six hours of initial training on topics such as confidentiality, understanding the research instrument, making presentations, handling questions, and the importance of uniform in—person and phone recruitment methods. They also met two hours per week during the school term for supervision, which included instruction, discussion, role plays, and supervised practice regarding these issues. The remaining four research assistants received five hours of training in the above mentioned topic areas prior to participating in data collection. The eight research assistants administered questionnaires to fifty—eight (52%) of the couples, and the principle investigator administered questionnaires to fifty four (48%) of the couples. As reported by the females, the mean (or average) length of time the partners had known each other was for 19.80 years (80:13.17). Of the 112 couples, 93 (83%) were married, 2 (1.8%) were engaged, 7 (6.3%) were living together, and 10 (8.9%) of the couples were seriously dating. They reported being in their current type of relationship.for an average of 14.68 years 59 . . fl:*nr\ VHVQAV- n A abvtauv. . V EDGE: di"erss St tuse ». ~ . 7“ ~h ‘A‘u‘. :- ‘5 h A H.“ ~“f. rh“’ A “‘ ‘ g ‘\ (SD=12.69). Seventy-five [67%] of the participants were Protestants (including: 49 Baptists, 12 Methodists, 8 Protestants, 3 Episcopalians, 3 Pentecostals, and 0 Apostolics), 9 [8.0%] were Catholic, 23 [20.6%] were unspecified Christians (17) or nondenominational (6), and 5 [4.5%] did not answer the question about religion. Table 1 contains further demographic information for the couples.' As shown in the table, the couples were very diverse with respect to their ages, number of children, job statuses, and income, as well as the length of time they had known each other and had been in the relationship. The average participant had a college degree, and as indicated by the standard deviation, the participants generally had some education beyond high school. Table 2 presents t-tests and correlations between the partners on the demographic variables. The partner’s scores were significantly correlated in regards to their ages, education levels, personal incomes, job status, and frequency of religious practices. The t-tests revealed that the men were significantly older than their wives, t(108)=-3.88, p<.001, and they made significantly more money than their wives, t(60)=-2.052, p<.05. Eigocedure The subjects had the option of completing the measures at the sitne in which they were contacted, during home visits, or in the 60 project office. Each session lasted approximately one to two hours. Prior to participating in the study, each couple was informed of their rights as volunteers, reassured as to the confidentiality of their responses, and was asked to complete informed consent forwe. Each couple was told the general purpose of the study and the time it takes to complete the questionnaires. Their questions were also answered. For the assessment, each partner individually completed a battery of questionnaires assessing demographic information, religion and spirituality, biculturalism, racial identity attitudes, stereotypes, cultural worldview, anger, irrational or unrealistic standards that the partner is expected to meet, trust in one another, and relationship quality. Each measure is described below. For the purpose of this study, only the total scale scores were used so as to increase the study’s power to detect significant effects, and because the research hypotheses could be answered using the total scales. Demographic Measures Socioeconomic Status. Subjects were administered a one-page demographic sheet (see appendix A) containing items asking the subject to state their age, city of residence, education, occupation, personal and family of origin income, number of dependents, religion, and relationship status. Occupations were 61 coded into categories according to the Duncan (1961) scale of occupational status. Religion and Spirituality Measure. The Spiritual Well Being Scale (Paloutzian & Ellison, 1982—see Appendix B) was used to assess religious and existential well being. This 20-item scale has two ten-item subscales; it measures religious well being, or one’s sense of well being in relationship to God, as well as existential well being, or one’s perception of life’s purpose and satisfaction aside from religious references. Items are presented on a Likert—type scale, ranging from 6 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree). Factor analysis using varimax rotation revealed the following three factors underlying the scale: All of the scales’ religious items load on one factor, while the existential items load on two factors, one indicating life direction, and one connoting life satisfaction (Paloutzian & Ellison, 1982). The scale as has a test-re-test reliability ranging from .86 to .93 for the entire scale and the religious and existential well being scales, and its internal consistency ranges from .78 to .89 for the three scales (Paloutzian & Ellison, 1982). The scale is widely used (Ellison, 1983). People who receive high scores on it tend to be less lonely, more socially skilled, higher in self—esteem, more intrinsic in their religious commitment, and tend to receive high scores on the Purpose in Life Test 62 (Paloutzian & Ellison, 1982), as compared to those who receive low scores. Racially Oriented Measures Biculturalism. In order to measure each participant’s degree of acculturation to both Black and White cultures, the 33-item short form of the African American Acculturation Scale (AAAS-33; Landrine & Klonoff, 1995-see appendix C) was used. The African American.Acculturation Scale was empirically derived from a factor analysis of the longer 74bitem.AAAS (Landrine & Klonoff, 1994), and scores on the two versions are correlated at .94. The AAAS- 33 has ten subscales, assessing Preference for African American Things (6 items), Religious Beliefs/Practices (6 items), Traditional Foods (4 items), Traditional Childhood (3 items), Superstitions (3 items), Interracial Attitudes/Cultural Mistrust (3 items), Falling Out (2 items), Traditional Games (2 items), Traditional Family Values (2 items), and Family Practices (2 items). Responses to the subscales are scored according to a Likert—type scale ranging from 1 (I totally disagree, this is not at all true of me) to 7 (I totally agree, this is absolutely true of me). The split—half reliability of the scale is .78 (Landrine & Klonoff, 1995). The alpha for the total scale is .81. Blacks score significantly higher than non—Blacks on the total scale, as well as on nine of the ten subscales (Landrine & Klonoff, 1995). 63 Further, Blacks who live in all—Black neighborhoods score significantly higher than Blacks who live in White/integrated neighborhoods on all subscales except for the Interracial Attitudes/Cultural Mistrust and Family Values subscales (Landrine & Klonoff, 1995). These findings represent adequate concurrent validity, because they support the authors’ (Landrine & Klonoff, 1995) theory that those who live in the constant presence of Blacks should engage in more practices and have more values typical of Black than those who do not live in the constant presence of Blacks. In addition, higher scores on each of the subscales are not associated with education, income, nor are they associated with family of origin income (Landrine & Klonoff, 1995). These findings indicate that consistent with theory, acculturation as measured by this scale is not related to most socioeconomic status variables. Importantly for this study, Landrine and Klonoff’s scale (1994, 1995) measures Black and White acculturation on a continuum. The authors assert that if one scores highly on the scale, one has a high level of African American acculturation and little White American acculturation, and that the reverse is also true regarding low scores on the scale. They also assert that a person is bicultural if they receive moderate scores on the scale (Landrine & Klonoff, 1994, 1995). Accordingly, this study 64 investigates the effects of a curvilinear relationship between biculturalism and the predictor variables on the participants’ symptoms of distress and couple outcomes. In this case, optimal outcomes should result from the interaction between high Afrocentricity and a moderate level of African American acculturation (which means that the participants are bicultural). Conversely, less optimal outcomes should occur if the participants have either high or low acculturation scores. Because investigations involving all other predictor variables presume a linear relationship, the acculturation variable was transformed so as to function as a linear variable. As Landrine and Klonoff (1995) validated the scale on a sample of Blacks who had a mean score of 146.53 on the scale, the new biculturalism variable was computed to equal the absolute value of each participant’s acculturation score after 146.53 was subtracted. Thus, zero for this variable equals the mean score as obtained by Landrine and Klonoff’s (1995) sample, reflecting a bicultural orientation. Alternatively, higher scores for the bicultural variable represent increasingly less biculturalism, in which the participants reported either increasingly higher or increasingly lower levels of acculturation to African American culture. Anger Towards Whites. Although a number of scales assess racial group preference, mistrust of Whites and similar constructs (e.g. Parham & Helms, 1981; Terrell & Terrell, 1981), no scale to date measures anger that Blacks have towards Whites regarding perceived White racial injustice. Thus, the three—item.Anger Towards Whites Scale was created to assess the degree of anger that Blacks feel regarding common perceived injustices perpetuated by Whites against Blacks. This scale is based upon the 3-item Interracial Attitudes/Cultural Mistrust subscale of Landrine & Klonoff’s (1995) African American.Acculturation Scale-33. The' Interracial Attitudes subscale was designed to measure common negative attitudes about Whites and White institutions in regards to their perpetuation of racism. The items read, “IQ tests were set up purposely to discriminate against Black people,” “Most tests (like the SATs and tests to get a job) are set up to make sure that Blacks don’t get high scores on them.”, and “Deep in their hearts, most White people are racists.” After being presented with each of the three items, participants were asked to rate how angry the belief makes them feel. Similar to the original subscale, responses were rated on a Likert—type scale that ranges from 1 (not angry at all) ,to 7 (extremely angry). Participants were instructed to circle “1” (not angry at all) for each item which presents a belief about White racism that the respondent does not have. Though this scale was created specifically for this study and is therefore not previously standardized, it appears to directly measure the construct in question, and thus has good face validity. In addition, as presented in Table 3 and as calculated for the 112 couples in this study, the alphas for this scale were .75 for men and .82 for women. Racial Identity Attitudes. In order to measure each participant’s racial identity attitudes, the 50-item Black Racial Identity Attitude Scale (RIAS-B; Parham & Helms, 1981-see Appendix D) was used. Each of the RIAS-B subscales was developed to measure one of the stages of Cross’ theory: Pre—encounter, Encounter, Immersion, Emersion, and Internalization. The final stage, Internalization-Commitment, has been eliminated from the RIAS—B because of measurement difficulties (Cross, 1978). Participants are asked to respond to the degree that the statements provided describe themselves, and the responses are coded on a 5—point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The internal reliability of each subscale ranges from .50 (Encounter) to .79 (Internalization; Helms, 1990). In examining the construct validity of the RIAS-B via factor analyses with alternative factor solutions, strong support was found for all stages except the Encounter stage (Ponterotto & Wise, 1987). Further, Sabnani & Ponterotto’s (1992) review of literature regarding the convergent validity of 67 the RIAS-B, indicate that its subscales are correlated in the expected direction with the Developmental Inventory of Black Consciousness (DIB-C; Millones, 1980), a measure of Black consciousness that assesses stages similar to those in Cross’ (1971) model. There is also evidence that the RIAS-B measures a stage-wise developmental process, and that racial identity is bidimensional, in that it measures attitudes about both Blacks and Whites (Helms, 1990). Lastly, the subscales of the RIAS-B are associated with preferences for White or Black counselors (Parham & Helms, 1981), and they are related in the expected directions with the self-actualization and emotional states of Blacks (e.g. Parham & Helms, 1985). These associations provide empirical support for the underlying model that Cross (1971) has devised. For this study, only the immersion racial identity attitude scale was used, as it is the only racial.identity attitude scale measured by the RIAS—B that is directly related to the hypotheses. Stereotypes. The subjects' internalization of negative myths were measured by three checklists of adjectives that represent stereotypes often found in both research and popular literature iregarding Blacks in general and Black males and females separately he.g. Allen & Hatchett, 1986; Jewell, 1983; Taylor & Zhang, 1990). Pkelly (1994) adapted this measure from Allen and Hatchett's (1986) ”Keasure of "Black group perception" (see Appendix E, items one 68 through ten), which had a reliability estimate Chronbach's alpha of .71. Kelly (1994) wanted to determine whether negative myths or stereotypes are more damaging to the relationship when they are gender specific, as opposed to those myths regarding Blacks and Black culture. So she added other stereotypes to Allen and Hatchett’s (1986) original scale, and asked participants to answer questions about Black males and females separately as well as for the group. The three questions regarding each subscale regarding Blacks in general, Black men, and Black women are worded, "Most Black people/Black men/Black women (respectively) ." The respondents were instructed to respond to each of the adjectives that followed according to a five point Likert-type scale, in which 1=strongly agree, and 5=strongly disagree overall (see Appendix E). Kelly (1994) reported Chronbach’s alpha coefficients for the scale as a whole to be .94 and .93 for men and women, respectively. .Further, the alphas for the men and women on each of the subscales ranged from .79 to .87. Consistent with theory about the internalization of negative stereotypes, scores on the total scale and its subscales were negatively correlated with trust, dyadic adjustment, and Afrocentricity (Kelly, 1994; Kelly & Floyd, 1998). Cultural Orientation.. In order to determine each subject's Jfirvel of.Afrocentric cultural orientation, Baldwin and Bell's 69 (1985) African Self Consciousness (ASC) Scale was used. As described above, the ASC Scale is a 42—item personality questionnaire designed to assess a Black person's degree of African versus European oriented values, attitudes, and beliefs (see Appendix F). The scale measures four competency dimensions as manifested in six areas of Black life. The six-week test re- test reliability and internal validity coefficients of the ASC scale were .90 and .70, respectively (Baldwin & Bell, 1985). The ASC scale items alternate from being positively and negatively worded towards the ASC construct. Responses are anchored on an eight point scale, with 1-2=strongly disagree, and 7—8=strongly agree. In this study, the title of the scale was changed to the Cultural Worldview Scale, so as not to bias the subjects. Couple Measures Length/type of relationship. Respondents were asked to indicate the type of relationship in which they are involved: (1) a serious dating relationship, (2) living together, (3) engaged, and (4) married. They were also asked to indicate the length of time they have: (1) known each other, (2) dated, (3) lived together, and (4) been married (see appendix A). Irrational Standards that the partner must meet. In order to assess expectations that one’s partner must meet unrealistic standards, the Relationship Beliefs Inventory (RBI; Epstein & 7O ~~y~ I-‘oo “A” s » Cx Eidelson, 1981; see appendix G) was administered. The RBI is a 40—item scale which measures standards and assumptions about relationships, and is based upon unrealistic relationship themes often observed in distressed couples (Baucom & Epstein, 1990). It is also the only validated and standardized measure of unrealistic relationship schemata that tend to be associated with marital dysfunction (Baucom & Epstein, 1990). The RBI is comprised of five eight-item subscales: (a) disagreement is destructive; (b) mind reading is expected; (c) partners cannot change; (d) sexual perfectionism; and (e) sexual role rigidity. Each of these subscales is significantly and negatively correlated with marital adjustment, and they also correlate significantly and positively with scales measuring irrational beliefs (Epstein & Eidelson, 1981). Alpha coefficients for the five subscales range from .72 to .81 (Baucom & Epstein, 1990). Relationship quality. In this study, the terms relationship quality and dyadic adjustment were used synonymously, and this construct was measured using the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS; Spanier, 1976). The DAS is a 32-item scale which has well established validity and reliability in distinguishing distressed from nondistressed couples-(e.g. Margolin, Michelli & Jacobson, 1988), both married and unmarried. This scale is a commonly used measure of marital quality, and it assesses couples on the at: A. d-- \r~ - Q up” ..a ( , -0 a. c. u-.- ;A .. ‘ ~Vr G... *h‘nb b-uay “r; '7- .u L; What. "‘35 a '1 Se .~ “.2 :~~-‘,. ‘. y- . ‘2‘ Y ““ ‘ 736‘} , . § Q ‘ . ~ dimensions of dyadic satisfaction, consensus, cohesion, and affection (see Appendix H). It produces a score for overall dyadic adjustment as well. In a sample of Black couples, the alphas on the DAS and its subscales ranged from .65 to .92, including separate data from both sexes (Kelly, 1994; see Table 3 for alphas obtained in the current study). Trust in One’s Partner. In order to assess the degree of trust that each subject has in his/her partner, Rempel, Holmes, and Zanna’s (1985) Trust Scale was administered. The 26-item trust scale was designed to measure trust according to its components of predictability, dependability, and faith, as theorized by Rempel et al. (1985). The scale consists of statements about the trustworthiness of each subject's partner (see Appendix I). The ten items constructed to measure the "faith" component of trust deal with the subjects' confidence in their relationships, and their expectations that their partners will be responsive and caring despite an uncertain future. The nine items designed to evaluate the "dependability" component of trust assess whether the subject feels that the partner has traits that will lead him/her to behave honestly and reliably during times when there is a potential for the-partner to hurt the subject. The seven items designed to measure the "predictability" component of trust assess the stability and consistency of the 72 partner's behaviors that are based upon past experience (Rempel et. al., 1985). The responses are anchored on a seven point scale, with 1=strongly disagree, and 7=strongly agree. The reported Chronbach's alpha for the scale is .81, with reported subscale reliabilities of .80, .72, and .70 for the faith, dependability and predictability subscales, respectively. The items on each subscale receive a factor loading of .43 or greater for their respective subscales and less than .33 on the other subscales. Each item also correlates at the .33 level or greater with the other items in the same subscale. Trust is strongly related to viewing one's partner's motives for being in the relationship as intrinsic and self-affirming (Rempel et al, 1985). Further, reported feelings of love and happiness have been found to relate to faith, a developmentally mature form of trust as measured by the Trust Scale (Rempel et al., 1985). Individual Psychological Adiustment/Symptoms of Distress The Brief Symptom Inventory. .The Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI; Derogatis, 1983; see Appendix J) is a 53—item measure of an individual’s levels of distress. In addition to a global measurement of symptom severity, the BSI has 9 subscales measuring the following types of symptoms: Somatization, Obsessive- Compulsive, Interpersonal Sensitivity, Depression, Anxiety, Hostility, Psychoticism, Phobic Anxiety, and Paranoid Ideation. 73 v.” $$ov w! m Diu~ - ‘h. -c A. > \4’, l 0‘ The scale is commonly used, and the alphas for it’s subscales range from .71 to .85. The test re-test reliability for these symptom dimensions ranges from .68-.91. Results To determine the internal consistency of the items in each scale, Chronbach's alphas for the current study were computed for each of the total scales used. These computations are presented in Table 3. As shown in the table, the alphas were acceptable for all total scales, including the newly developed Anger Towards Whites Scale (range: .75 to .97). The means, standard deviations, and ranges of the participants’ scores on each of the scales are presented in Table 4, as calculated separately for the males and females. Table 4 also indicates whether the differences between the men and women on these scales are significant. As shown in Table 4, the women endorsed significantly more anger towards Whites regarding perceived racial injustice than as compared to the men. The partners did not differ significantly in their reports of their own levels of any of the other constructs measured. As the couple unit is of primary interest, correlations were computed to determine whether the partners’ scores were significantly related. These results are presented in Table 5. 74 we ,J “A: P“\ ‘V‘ P‘ : A!- V\ '«.""~ ~ I(, O I .As presented in table 5, both partners’ levels of Afrocentricity were highly correlated (per Cohen, 1992), and the men and women’s levels of biculturalism and immersion racial identity attitudes were also significantly correlated. Table 5 shows that the participants’ reports of their relationship quality and trust were highly correlated with their partners’ reports on the same scales, though their reports of their irrational relationship beliefs were not correlated with their partners’ irrational relationship beliefs. In addition, the partners’ levels of stereotypes and anger regarding perceptions of White racial injustice were not significantly correlated, nor were the partners’ reports of their own levels of personal adjustment and spiritual well being correlated (See Table 5). For the entire sample, correlations between Afrocentricity and the research scales were calculated in order to determine how Afrocentricity is generally related to the other research scales. These correlations are presented in table 6, where the men’s’ scores on the research scales are correlated with the men and the women’s Afrocentricity (columns one and two), and the women’s scores on the research scales are correlated with their own and their partner’s Afrocentricity scores (columns three and four). As presented in Table 6, both partners’ Afrocentricity was positively correlated with the women’s anger towards White 75 E m: r ya injustice. Their levels of Afrocentricity were also positively correlated with their own immersion racial identity attitudes, and the men’s Afrocentricity were positively correlated with the women’s immersion attitudes. Lastly, the women’s levels of Afrocentricity were negatively correlated with both their own and their partners’ stereotypes. Afrocentricity was not correlated with biculturalism, personal symptoms of distress, spiritual well being, irrational relationship beliefs, relationship quality, or trust in one’s partner. Hypothesis number one involves the investigation of the effects of a number of predictor variables on the partners’ personal maladjustment. Accordingly, the first step in examining the veracity of this hypothesis is to assess the correlations between the predictor variables and each partner’s maladjustment. These correlations are presented in Table 7. The correlations in Table 7 indicate that anger towards perceived White racial injustice was not associated with either partner’s psychological adjustment/distress. For each partner, spiritual well being was inversely associated with their own psychological distress, while biculturalism, immersion racial identity attitudes, irrational relationship beliefs, and the endorsement of negative stereotypes about Blacks were each positively associated with one's own psychological distress. In addition, the men’s level of 76 biculturalism, the men’s immersion attitudes, the men's stereotype endorsement, and the women’s irrational relationship beliefs were also positively associated with their partners’ symptoms of distress. Thus, it appears that the participants’ symptoms of psychological distress were positively associated with their own and sometimes their partners’ level of biculturalism, immersion attitudes, stereotypes and irrational relationship beliefs. They were further negatively correlated with their own spiritual well being when their level of Afrocentricity was not also taken into account. The first hypothesis investigated the relationships between the research scales and psychological distress when Afrocentricity is taken into account. Specifically, the first hypothesis stated that participants who are highly Afrocentric and bicultural or highly spiritual will report significantly better psychological adjustment than participants who are not both highly Afrocentric and either bicultural or highly spiritual. It also stated that participants who are highly Afrocentric and who endorse negative stereotypes about Blacks, are in the immersion stage of racial identity, have high levels of anger towards Whites, and who have irrational relationship beliefs will report significantly poorer psychological adjustment than participants who are highly .Afrocentric and who do not have these negative concomitants. This 77 hypothesis proposed separate interactive effects of Afrocentricity with the six additional predictor variables of biculturalism, spirituality, endorsement of negative racial stereotypes, inversion attitudes, levels of anger regarding White racial injustice, and irrational relationship belief scores received by each partner on each partner’s reports of personal adjustment. The significance of the interactive effects was evaluated in a series of regression analyses. These analyses tested whether the interaction terms for the men and women contributed significantly to the prediction of the relationship variables after accounting for the variance explained by the main effects of Afrocentricity and the other six aforementioned predictor variables. Prior to running the regressions for hypotheses one and two, a power analysis was done. For this study, the goal was to have .70 power per regression run for both hypotheses to detect a medium sized effect. This means that there would be a 70% chance of detecting any medium sized significant results that exist. Per regression, the seven main effect variables and the six interaction terms yielded thirteen independent variables. Cohen (1992) presents a table in which one can determine the N needed to have .80 power and to detect small, medium or large effects with regressions involving up to eight independent variables. From this table, it was determined that the sample size needed 78 increases fairly consistently per independent variable that is added. Thus it was conservatively extrapolated that at .80 power, one would need a sample size of 127 to detect a medium effect at the .05 significance level with a regression involving 13 independent variables. The following two formulas were used to determine a) the approximate N (variable y) needed to obtain .70 power, and b) the approximate power (variable x) obtained with the current sample size of 112 couples: a) 80 70 b) 80 x 127 y 127 112 Mathematical calculations indicated that y=111, and that x=70.55. This means that a) a sample of 111 couples would be needed, and b) 112 couples yields an approximate power of .71, and thus the goal of .70 power was obtained for this study. Six cross—product interaction terms were computed in order to evaluate the interaction of Afrocentricity with each of the six predictor variables. The dependent or criterion variables were the husband's personal adjustment and the wives’ personal adjustment. For every regression, first, Afrocentricity and the six predictor variables were force entered into the first block of the equation. For the next block of the regression equation, the interaction terms between Afrocentricity and each of the other six predictor variables were entered using the stepwise method. 79 Because of a possibility of interaction effects both within and across gender, this regression was repeated four times. Thus, for each separate regression, only the men’s predictor scores were used, only the women’s predictor scores were used, only the men’s main effect variables with the women’s interaction terms were used, and only the women’s main effect variables with the men’s interaction terms were used. In addition, these four regression analyses were conducted first with the men's personal adjustment as the criterion variable, and then they were again conducted with the women’s personal adjustment as the criterion. Thus, eight regressions were run for hypothesis number one. All variables were standardized within gender, which means that they were converted to z—scores before running the equation. As recommended by Cohen and Cohen (1983), the method of plotting the associations between the scores on the predictor variables and the dependent or criterion variables at three levels of Afrocentricity was used to interpret all significant interactions. In regards to plotting, “high” = 1 SD above the mean, “medium” = at the mean, and “low” = 1 SD below the mean. There were two significant interaction effects, which are respectively presented in Figures 2 and 3. As shown in figure 2, the interaction between the women’s irrational beliefs and the women’s levels of Afrocentricity significantly predicted their own 80 symptoms of distress. Just as the correlations revealed, the women’s irrational relationship beliefs were positively associated with their symptoms of distress. As shown in Figure 2, however, when the women had high levels of Afrocentricity, the strength of the positive association between their irrational relationship beliefs and their symptoms of psychological distress decreased. Yet when they had medium or low levels of Afrocentricity, as their irrational relationship beliefs increased, their psychological" distress sharply increased. Similarly, perusal of Figure 3 indicates that no matter what their level of Afrocentricity, negative stereotypes were positively associated with symptoms of distress for the women. However, when the women were highly Afrocentric, the strength of the positive association between their internalized negative stereotypes and their own psychological distress decreased. Conversely, when they had medium levels of Afrocentricity or low levels of Afrocentricity (i e. were Eurocentric), the association between the women's stereotypes and their symptoms of distress was stronger, as evidenced by the steeper slope. The findings show that hypothesis number one was not supported. First, none of the interactions predicted the husband’s personal adjustment. Also, there were no significant effects for the prediction of the interaction of either partner’s 81 Afrocentricity with either partner's level of biculturalism, spirituality, endorsement of negative stereotypes about Blacks, immersion racial identity attitudes, or anger on either partner’s personal adjustment scores. Second, for the only significant regressions, female participants with high levels of Afrocentricity and high levels of irrational relationship beliefs or negative stereotypes had better psychological adjustment than those who had lower levels of Afrocentricity and high levels of irrational relationship beliefs, which is contrary to predictions. In fact, it appears that for the women, not only was Afrocentricity inversely correlated with negative stereotypes (see Table 6), but at high levels of Afrocentricity, their irrational relationship beliefs and stereotypes were not as strongly associated with their own psychological distress. Table 9 presents the significant statistics for all significant interaction regressions, including these two. The second hypothesis stated that participants who are highly Afrocentric and bicultural or highly spiritual will be in a couple relationship in which the partners report significantly better trust and relationship quality than do the couples in which the members are not both highly AfrocentriC'and either bicultural or highly spiritual. It also stated that participants who are highly Afrocentric and who endorse negative stereotypes about Blacks, are 82 in the immersion stage of racial identity, have high levels of anger towards Whites, and/or who have irrational relationship beliefs will be in a couple relationship in which the partners report significantly decreased levels of trust and relationship quality as compared to couples in which the members are highly Afrocentric and do not also have.these negative concomitants. As with hypothesis one, correlations were first computed in order to determine the direct relationships between the predictor and outcome variables. Table 8 presents these correlations. In Table 8, the data reveal that immersion attitudes, negative stereotypes and irrational relationship beliefs held by either partner were associated with the couple’s decreased trust and relationship quality, except for the lack of a relationship between the women’s immersion attitudes and the couple’s relationship quality. The women’s biculturalism was also inversely associated with trust within the couples. Conversely, the men’s spiritual well being was associated with the couples’ increased trust and relationship quality. Like hypothesis number one, the second hypothesis also proposed separate interactive effects of Afrocentricity with the six additional predictor variables of biculturalism, spirituality, endorsement of negative racial stereotypes, immersion attitudes, levels of anger regarding White racial injustice, and irrational 83 relationship belief scores received by each partner. Afrocentricity was hypothesized to have interactive effects with each of these predictors on each couple’s reports of trust and relationship quality. For the second hypothesis, the analyses were conducted similarly to the analyses for the first hypothesis, with the following exception. Given that the focus of the second hypothesis was on the couple relationship rather than individual reports, couple scores were computed separately for trust and relationship quality. As noted by Lavee and Olson (1993), many studies which use couples data use either the couples’ mean score or the discrepancy between the husband and wife scores. The limitations of these methods are that the mean score ignores major differences between the partners, and the discrepancy score only gives information on how different the partners are without providing a location for the couple on a scale. Thus, they suggested using the mean couple's score which and correcting it downward by subtracting half of the absolute discrepancy between the partners from the mean. Per Lavee and Olson’s (1993) suggestion, the couple’s scores for trust and relationship quality were derived from the following equation in which “C” = the couple’s score, “h” = the husband’s score, and “w” equals the wife’s score: 84 C = h + w - h — w (absolute value) 2 2 Similar to hypothesis number one, four regressions were run with the couples’ trust scores as the criterion variables and four regressions were run with the couples’ relationship quality as the criterion variables, each at .71 power. There were four significant interaction effects, presented in Figures 4-7, and Table 9. As presented in Figures 4 and 5, when either partner was highly Afrocentric, the couples’ level of trust was unrelated to the men’s spiritual well being. .Yet when either partner was Eurocentric or moderately Afrocentric, the men’s spiritual well being was positively associated with the couple’s trust levels, as was shown in the correlations presented in Table 7. Figure 6 reveals that at all levels of Afrocentricity, the couple’s level of trust increased when the men’s spiritual well being increased, though this association was relatively weak when the husbands had. high levels of Afrocentricity. Unlike the other significant interactions for hypotheses number one and two, Figure 7 presents data in which the interaction between Afrocentricity and the men’s anger towards perceived White racial injustice supported the hypothesis. At high levels of Afrocentricity, when the men’s anger increased, the couple’s relationship quality dropped sharply. At medium levels of Afrocentricity, this association was slight, and at low levels 85 th :5 M4,, Os‘H“ .4 Qf‘yhi ‘« of Afrocentricity, as the men’s anger increased, their relationship quality also increased. In sum, hypothesis two was only partially supported. First, there were no significant effects regarding the predicted interactions of either partner’s Afrocentricity with either partner’s level of biculturalism, endorsement of negative stereotypes about Blacks, immersion racial identity attitudes, anger or irrational relationship beliefs on either partner’s personal adjustment scores. Second, for three of the significant regressions, when the men had high levels of Afrocentricity and high levels of spiritual well being, their trust scores were actually lower than those who were Eurocentric or were moderately Afrocentric. In addition, at high levels of Afrocentricity by either partner, the association between the men’s spiritual well being and the couples’ outcomes decreased. However, when the men were highly Afrocentric and they had high levels of anger, the couple’s relationship quality dropped sharply, as predicted. The remaining analyses address the research question of how' socioeconomic status (SE8) and the couple’s relationship status are related to the above findings. To determine the level of association between SES and the research scales, correlations were computed. Table 10 presents correlations between the participants’ SES and their own or the couple’s scale scores. From 86 Table 10, one sees that spiritual well being was not significantly correlated with any aspects of socioeconomic status for either partner, and that the women’s income was unrelated to either partnerts reports on the research scales. For both partners, there was a consistent small to moderate significant negative association between both their stereotypes and irrational relationship beliefs and all aspects of their socioeconomic status except the women’s income. The education and job statuses of both partners were negatively correlated with their symptoms of personal distress, while their job statuses were positively correlated with their levels of trust in one another. Unlike the women, the men’s anger towards Whites and their biculturalism were negatively correlated with aspects of their socioeconomic status, their job status was positively related to the couple's relationship quality, and their immersion attitudes were negatively correlated with each aspect of their socioeconomic status. Unlike the men, the women’s Afrocentricity was positively assoc1ated with their education level, and their anger towards Whites was positively rather than negatively correlated with their education levels. Table 11 presents cross-partner correlations between each participant’s scores on the research scales and aspects of their partner’s socioeconomic status. Neither participant’s 87 Afrocentricity or anger towards Whites was associated with their partner’s socioeconomic status. All significant cross partner correlations were negative. One or more aspects of the socioeconomic status of the participants were negatively correlated with their partners’ biculturalism, immersion attitudes, and internalized negative stereotypes. In addition, the women’s psychological distress, their irrational beliefs, and their spiritual well being were inversely correlated with the men’s socioeconomic status. Because socioeconomic status indicators appeared to be consistently associated with the research scales, the next step was to determine if there was a need to control for the effects of socioeconomic status on individual and couple outcomes. This was done by force entering socioeconomic status along with each of the other seven predictor variables: Afrocentricity, anger, immersion attitudes, stereotypes, biculturalism, irrational relationship beliefs, and spiritual well being in the first step of four regressions. Per regression, one of the following criterion variables was used: the men’s distress, the women’s distress, the couple’s trust, and the couples’ relationship quality. In every case, socioeconomic status was not a significant contributor to the criterion variables of symptoms of distress and the couples’ trust and relationship quality (Betas ranged from -.14 to .09). 88 The third step was to determine if socioeconomic status mediated between the predictor and outcome variables. According to Baron and Kenny (1986), the criteria for establishing indirect effects are that both predictors (i.e. the individual predictors in the hypotheses and the demographic variables) have to be significantly correlated with each criterion (i e. the outcome variables of trust, relationship quality, and personal adjustment). In addition, Baron and Kenny (1986) indicate that for mediation to be established, the direct association between the exogenous predictor and the criterion must be reduced when the relationship between the mediator (socioeconomic status) and the criterion was accounted for. In order to test this effect, the variable which is hypothesized to be the mediator is entered first in the regression, and the variable hypothesized to have an indirect relationship with the dependent variable is entered second. Indirect effects are present when the exogenous predictor no longer contributes significant additional variance to the criterion, or its contribution is substantially reduced from the direct effects. There were a total of forty-five regressions run, which means that there were forty-five times when one of the socioeconomic status indicators (education, occupation, and income) was correlated with both a predictor variable and an outcome variable 89 ‘- v. 5. an a. as identified in the hypotheses. As indicated by Baron and Kenny (1986), in each case, the predictor and outcome variables were also correlated with one another. Results revealed seven cases in which the predictor variable was unable to be entered into the second block of the regression after the socioeconomic status indicator was entered into the first block of the regression. As shown in Table 12, these seven cases were episodes in which the participants’ education and job statuses mediated the relationship between predictor variables and the both partners’ psychological distress. In no instance did socioeconomic status mediate between the predictor variables and the couples’ trust and relationship quality. However, the education and job statuses of the men mediated between the men’s biculturalism and both partners’ symptoms of diStress. The women’s jobs mediated between the men’s biculturalism and the women’s distress. Lastly, the education of the men mediated between the women's biculturalism and the women’s distress, while the men’s job statuses mediated between the men’s immersion attitudes and the women’s distress. In each case, when the mediation variables were accounted for, the remaining predictors no longer accounted for significant negative variance in the partners’ reported symptoms of distress. In sum, the results indicated that the participants’ psychological distress was not only correlated with both partners’ levels of 90 biculturalism and the.men’s immersion attitudes, but that the negative relationship between these variables appeared to be significantly mediated by relatively poor levels of education and relatively low job statuses. In order to determine if socioeconomic status moderated the associations between the predictor and the criterion variables, regression analyses were computed. For these analyses, a single composite socioeconomic status score was computed by adding the z-scores for number of years of education, occupation as measured by the Duncan (1961) scale of occupational status, and reported yearly income. Per regression, the socioeconomic status score and one predictor variable were entered first, and the interaction between the socioeconomic status score and the same predictor variable was entered second, yielding three predictors per regression and excellent power to detect any medium sized effect. Regressions of this type were run for all seven predictor variables both within and across gender on each of the criterion variables measuring the psychological distress of each partner, as well as on the criterion variables measuring the couples’ trust and relationship quality. Thus, 112 regressions were run. As with the regressions involving interactions between Afrocentricity and the predictor variables, there were thirteen variables regressed on the four criterion variables or each partner’s symptoms of distress, the 91 couples’ trust and relationship quality. Moderation effects were found when the interaction between socioeconomic status and any predictor accounted for a significant portion of the variance in psychological distress and/or couple outcomes after the main effects of the same predictor variable and the composite socioeconomic status variable were each taken into account. In regards to the outcome or criterion variable of the men’s psychological distress, nine significant regressions were computed. Table 13 and Figures 8—16 present these regressions. As presented in Figure 8, one sees that immersion attitudes were positively associated with psychological distress for the men (see also Table 7). However, this association progressively decreased as the women’s socioeconomdc status increased. Thus, it appears that when the women had higher socioeconomic statuses, the association between the men’s psychological distress and the men’s immersion racial identity attitudes decreased. Figures 9-11 present the effects of the significant interactions between socioeconomic status and irrational relationship beliefs on the men’s psychological distress. As also shown in Table 7, these three figures show that when either partner had a lower socioeconomic status level, the relationship between either partner 3 irrational relationship beliefs and the men’s symptoms of distress increased. In these cases, as the 92 partners’ irrational relationship beliefs increased, the men’s psychological distress also increased. Further, at higher socioeconomic status levels, the association between irrational relationship beliefs and the men’s psychological distress either decreased or no longer existed. This was true both within and across gender, except for the case involving an interaction between the women’s irrational beliefs and the men’s socioeconomic status. As shown in Figures 12-15, at higher socioeconomic status levels, the positive association between either partner’s negative stereotypes and the men’s psychological distress decreased within and across gender. At higher socioeconomic statuses for either partner, the positive association between the women’s negative stereotypes and the men’s psychological distress sharply decreased. In these cases, when either partner’s socioeconomic status was high, the women’s negative stereotypes were no longer associated with the men’s psychological adjustment (See Figures 13 and 14). This is unlike the cases involving the men’s stereotypes, where at higher socioeconomic status for either partner, the positive association between the men’s negative stereotypes and the men's psychological distress decreased moderately (See Figures 12 and 15). As shown in Figure 16, there was one significant case in 93 which high socioeconomic status levels did not predict a decrease in the men’s psychological distress. In this case, the men’s spiritual well being was associated with a decrease in the men’s psychological distress across all socioeconomic status levels of the women. However, when the women had higher socioeconomic status levels, the inverse association between the men’s spiritual well being and psychological distress decreased, and the men were more distressed when their spiritual well being was high. Thus, it appears that in the case of the men’s spiritual well being, at high socioeconomic status levels for the women, a negative but beneficial association was decreased. In sum, at higher socioeconomic statuses, the positive association of African American acculturation, immersion attitudes, irrational relationship beliefs, and internalized negative stereotypes with the men’s symptoms of psychological distress decreased. The women’s socioeconomic status interacted in a cross gender fashion with the men’s African American acculturation and immersion attitudes, while the significant interaction between the participants’ socioeconomic status and both their irrational relationship beliefs and internalized negative stereotypes occurred both within and across gender. In addition, at higher socioeconomic statuses of the women, the negative but beneficial association between the men’s spiritual 94 well being and the men’s psychological distress decreased. In regards to the women’s psychological distress, there were five cases in which the interaction between socioeconomic status and the predictor variables was associated with this variable, as presented in Table 14 and Figures 17-21. Figures 17 and 18 show that at higher levels of either partner’s socioeconomic status, the women’s immersion racial identity attitudes were positively associated with their own psychological distress. When the participants had low socioeconomic status levels, as the women’s immersion attitudes increased, so did the women’s psychological distress. When the participants’ socioeconomic status was average or high as compared to the total sample, the positive association between the women’s immersion attitudes and their psychological distress was weaker. As presented in Figure 19, at high socioeconomic status levels of the men, the positive association between the women’s irrational relationship beliefs and the women’s own psychological distress decreased. At all socioeconomic status levels of the men, as the women’s irrational relationship beliefs increased, their psychological distress increased. However, when the men’s socioeconomic status levels were higher, this association was decreased. Figures 20 and 21 show data in which at high socioeconomic 95 status levels for both partners, the positive association between the women’s negative stereotypes about African Americans and the women’s psychological distress decreased. In sum, as with the men, at higher socioeconomic status levels, the positive relationships between some predictor variables and the women’s symptoms of distress decreased. Unlike with the men, where this was true at times for all types of combinations both within and across gender, for the women, this was true in the cases involving only the women’s reports on the predictor variables measuring immersion attitudes, irrational relationship beliefs, and internalized negative stereotypes. In addition, in regards to the women’s symptoms of distress, at higher socioeconomic status levels, only positive but unhealthy associations decreased, unlike with the men. In regards to interactions between socioeconomic status and predictor variables affecting couple outcomes, there were five significant regressions in which socioeconomic status moderated the associations between the predictor variables and the couple’s trust. These regressions are presented in Table 15. Although Table 6 revealed no direct associations between Afrocentricity and trust, Figure 22 presents data showing that when the men had high socioeconomic statuses, the men’s Afrocentricity was unrelated to the couple’s reports of trust. Yet at medium and low 96 socioeconomic statuses, as the men’s Afrocentricity increased, the couples’ reports of trust decreased. Figures 23 and 24 show that when either partner reported moderate socioeconomic status levels, the men’s anger towards perceived White injustice was unrelated to the couples’ trust. Yet when either partner reported high socioeconomic status levels, increases in the men’s anger was associated with increased trust among the partners, and when either partner reported low socioeconomic status levels, increases in the men’s anger was associated with decreased reports of trust within the couple. This is despite the fact that there were no direct correlations between the men’s anger and the couple’s trust (see Table 8). In sum, when the partners had higher socioeconomic status levels, Afrocentricity and anger were positively associated with the couple’s trust, and when they reported lower socioeconomic status levels, increases in these predictors were associated with decreased trust within the couple. These relationships were manifested within gender for the men in the case of the men's Afrocentricity, and across gender in the cases of the men’s anger. There were three significant regressions in which the relationship between the predictor variables and the couple’s relationship quality was moderated by socioeconomic status. These regression results are presented in Table 16. Figures 25 and 26 97 show that when either partner reported moderate socioeconomic status levels, the men’s anger towards Whites for perceived racial injustice was not associated with the couple’s relationship quality. At high socioeconomic statuses, the men’s anger towards Whites was positively associated with the couple's relationship quality, and low socioeconomic statuses, the men’s anger towards Whites was negatively associated with the couple’s relationship quality. Again, Table 8 reveals that there were no direct associations between anger and relationship quality for the participants. Figure 27 presents the last moderation effect of socioeconomic status on dyadic relationship quality and the predictor variables. As shown in the figure and in Table 8, there was an inverse relationship between the women’s internalized negative stereotypes about African Americans and the couple’s relationship quality, which was manifest no matter which socioeconomic status the women reported. Yet in this case, at high socioeconomic status levels, the association between the women’s negative stereotypes on the couple’s relationship quality decreased. In sum, findings regarding the couple’s relationship quality were similar to those with the couple’s trust. When the partners had higher socioeconomic status levels, anger was positively 98 associated with the couple’s relationship quality, and when they reported lower socioeconomic status levels, increases in these predictors were associated with decreased trust within the couple. As not all of the couples in this study were married, it was deemed important to investigate how marital status was related to the study findings. T-tests were conducted to deternune whether or not the 93 married couples differed from the 19 unmarried couples on the demographic variables and on the research scales. Table 17 presents the t-tests involving demographic variables, and Table 18 presents the t-tests involving the research scales. In Table 17, it is revealed that the unmarried men and women were younger than their married counterparts. In addition, the unmarried men were less educated and had lower occupational statuses as compared to the married men in the sample. The unmarried couples had also been in their current relationship for shorter periods of time than the married couples. In regards to their scores on the research scales, Table 18 shows that unmarried men and women endorsed higher immersion attitudes than their married counterparts, and that unmarried couples reported that they were less trusting as compared to the married couples. In addition, the unmarried women endorsed significantly higher levels of negative stereotypes and irrational relationship beliefs than the married women. 99 Next, in order to control for the effects of having 19 unmarried couples in the sample, the unmarried group was removed from the analyses, and the regressions for hypothesis one and two were re-run exactly as reported above for the 93 married couples. It must be noted that with a smaller sample, the power was decreased to fifty eight percent, using the second interpolation equation above, which is based upon Cohen’s (1992) power table. However, as the question regarding differences between married and unmarried is an exploratory one, it was deemed necessary to conduct these analyses to direct future study. The other alternative was to enter all main effects, then all two-way interactions, and all three-way interactions which would have included marital status as a dummy coded predictor variable. This alternative was rejected because it was determined that the power of the regressions would be extremely low, given the vast number of independent variables, and because there were only nineteen unmarried couples. In re-conducting the analyses minus the 19 unmarried couples, six significant regressions were obtained overall, and they are presented in Table 19. In regards to either spouse’s psychological distress, one significant regression was obtained, and it is presented in Figure 28. As shown in the figure, when the wives had low levels of Afrocentricity, the husbands’ 100 immersion racial identity attitudes were unrelated to their wives’ symptoms of distress. Yet when the wives had medium and higher levels of Afrocentricity, the husbands’ immersion attitudes were positively associated with their wives’ psychological distress. Thus, although the unmarried couples’ reports on the scales appeared to be associated with more negative outcomes than the married couple’s reports on the scales (see Table 18), at high levels of Afrocentricity, these same outcomes tended to be associated with poor personal outcomes for married women. This finding was unlike the associations that occurred with the total mixed sample. This finding also provided partial support for hypothesis one, because when the wives were highly Afrocentric and their husbands had high immersion attitudes, the wives reported more symptoms of distress than when the couple had partners who were not both highly Afrocentric and in the immersion stage of racial identity. Figures 29 and 30 present data regarding the effects of interactions between the husbands’ Afrocentricity and their reports of both internalized negative stereotypes and anger towards perceived White injustice on the couple’s trust. In each case, when the men had high levels of Afrocentricity, these predictors were inversely associated with the couples’ trust. However, when the husbands had lower levels of Afrocentricity, as 101 their levels of internalized negative stereotypes and anger towards perceived White injustice increased, the negative association between the men’s stereotypes and the couples’ trust decreased, and the inverse association between the men’s anger and the couple’s trust was reversed. Thus, Figures 29 and 30 provide support for the second hypothesis which states that couples which have partners who are both highly.Afrocentric and who also have high negative stereotypes and/or anger towards perceived White racial injustice will have decreased dyadic trust. Both times, high levels of Afrocentricity again appeared to predict an increased association between stereotypes and anger on couple outcomes. In Figures 31 and 32, one sees that when either spouse reported high levels of Afrocentricity, the husbands’ spiritual well being was not associated with the couple’s trust. Conversely, when either spouse reported medium or low levels of Afrocentricity, as the men’s spiritual well being rose, the couples’ reported trust in each other rose. Perusal of Table 8 indicates a direct positive relationship between the men’s spiritual well being and the couples’ trust, and so it appears that at high levels of Afrocentricity, the positive and beneficial relationship between the couples’ trust and the men’s well being decreased. Thus, these figures present information that is 102 contrary to hypothesis number one. The remaining significant regression in Figure 33 demonstrates that despite the fact that neither Afrocentricity nor anger were significantly correlated with the couple’s relationship quality (see Table 8), when the husbands had high levels of Afrocentricity, the spouses’ relationship quality decreased as the husbands’ levels of anger increased. At medium levels of Afrocentricity, the husband’s anger and the couples’ relationship quality were not associated. At low levels of Afrocentricity, the husbands’ anger was associated with increased relationship quality for the couple. Overall, this regression supported the part of hypothesis number two that stated that couples having partners with both high Afrocentricity and high levels of anger would have poorer relationship outcomes. DisCussion The present study sought to understand the meaning of Afrocentricity, an important race-related variable in the lives of Black couples. Towards this end, a model was developed that postulated that there were two different types of Afrocentricity, based upon the literature and previous empirical findings. This model indicated that Afrocentricity would be related in specific ways to other constructs, and that it would have specific individual and couple outcomes, depending on which type of 103 Afrocentricity was had by each participant. In order to assess this model, this study investigated the relationship between Afrocentricity and other racial, spiritual and relationship beliefs. Next, the effects of these relationships on individual distress and couple Outcomes were assessed. Further, this study examined the interplay between both the participants’ socioeconomic and marital status and both Afrocentricity and the other predictors. The purpose of the final investigation was to determine whether or not these important demographic variables affected the relationships between the predictor variables and the participants’ individual and/or couple outcomes. Overall, the results yielded little support for the hypotheses, and most of this support was found when the married sub-sample was investigated. Interestingly, regarding the investigations involving the married sub-sample, there was not enough power to detect even 60% of any existing medium sized effects, and possible reasons for this will be discussed later. Conversely, the remainder of the regression analyses conducted as part of the study yielded power of .71 or better, somewhat limiting the possibility of a Type II error. In addition, the restricted number of regressions used to test the hypotheses (16 each for the total and married samples), plus the restricted number correlations and t—test utilized (94 and 35, respectively) 104 limited (though did not eradicate) the possibility of an alpha inflation problem (Type I error). However, because 164 regressions were run to investigate the effects of socioeconomic status (112 of which investigated moderation effects), there was a higher possibility that the socioeconomic status results involved instances in which the null hypothesis was erroneously rejected. Investigation of the Hypotheses Despite the limited support for the hypotheses, the findings revealed much information about Afrocentricity, the constructs hypothesized to interact with Afrocentricity, and the associations between these interactions and individual and couple outcomes. The first hypothesis stated that high levels of Afrocentricity and either biculturalism or high levels of spiritual well being would be inversely associated with each partners’ symptoms of distress. Although the analyses were conducted with acceptable power (.71), there were no significant interaction effects between .Afrocentricity and either biculturalism or high levels of spiritual well being for either the total sample or the married sub—sample, and thus this portion of the hypothesis was unsupported. The first hypothesis also stated that high levels of Afrocentricity and high levels of stereotypes, immersion attitudes, anger towards Whites regarding perceived racial injustices, and/or irrational relationship beliefs would be 105 positively associated with symptoms of psychological distress. For the total sample, the analyses yielded no significant interaction effects between Afrocentricity and either immersion attitudes or anger. In addition, contrary to the hypothesis, when the women’s Afrocentricity was high, the association between both the women’s stereotypes and irrational relationship beliefs and the women’s symptoms of psychological distress decreased. Thus, for the total sample, all of hypothesis number one was either unsupported or contradicted. For the married sub-sample, when the wives were highly Afrocentric, their husbands’ immersion attitudes were positively associated with the wives’ distress, and thus this portion of the first hypothesis was supported, unlike with the total sample. However, as with the total sample, the results obtained with the married sub-sample did not support the first hypothesis in regards to the interactions between Afrocentricity and stereotypes, anger, or irrational relationship beliefs. None of these interactions was significantly associated with the participants’ symptoms of distress for the married sub—sample. The second hypothesis stated that high levels of Afrocentricity and either biculturalism or high levels of spiritual well being would be positively associated with the couples’ reported trust and relationship quality. Because the same number of independent variables was involved for these 106 analyses as was used to answer hypothesis number one, the power level of .71 was acceptable. Afrocentricity did not significantly interact with biculturalism to affect the couples’ trust and relationship quality for either the total sample or the married sub-sample. For both samples, Afrocentricity did significantly interact with spiritual well being to predict the couples’ trust and relationship quality, though all of the interactions produced were contrary to the hypothesis. In three cases for the total sample, the men’s spiritual well being interacted both within and across gender with the participants’ Afrocentricity to significantly predict the couples’ trust and relationship quality. In two cases for the married sub-sample, the same results were obtained for the couples’ trust. In these cases, the positive association between spiritual well being and both trust and relationship quality evident at low and sometimes medium levels of .Afrocentricity was removed or attenuated at high levels of Afrocentricity. The second hypothesis also stated that high levels of ZXfrocentricity and high levels of stereotypes, immersion Eittitudes, anger towards Whites regarding perceived racial idijustices, and/or irrational relationship beliefs would be I”Magatively associated with the couples’ reported trust and Ikelationship quality. For-both the total sample and the married 107 sub-sample, hypothesis number two was supported in regards to the interaction between the men’s Afrocentricity and anger towards perceived White racial injustice.. When the men had both high levels of Afrocentricity and high levels of anger, their relationship quality was poorer than when their levels of Afrocentricity and/or anger were medium or low. For the married sub-sample, this interaction also predicted poorer trust within the couples. For both samples, the second hypothesis was unsupported in regards to the interaction between the participants’ Afrocentricity and their immersion attitudes and irrational beliefs. However, for the married sub-sample, unlike with the total sample, hypothesis number two was supported, because at higher levels of both Afrocentricity and negative stereotypes for the men, the couples’ trust decreased. Afrocentricity was not significantly correlated with the participants’ symptoms of psychological distress, nor was it significantly correlated with the couples’ trust or relationship quality. Afrocentricity appeared to have a consistent and 'moderate positive correlation with both partners’ immersion racial identity attitudes, both within gender and for the cross-gender association between the men’s Afrocentricity and the women’s immersion and racial identity attitudes. In addition, the women’s Afrocentricity was inversely associated with the stereotypes of 108 each partner (similar to what Kelly [1994] found), and the Afrocentricity of each partner was positively associated with the women’s levels of anger towards perceived White racial injustice. Together, these findings clearly demonstrate that in and of itself, Afrocentricity is not a strictly positive or negative phenomena, which has been implied throughout the discussion of the construct (e.g. Kelly & Floyd, 1998; Bell et. al., 1990). Because Afrocentricity did not correlate significantly with the predictor variables in the significant regressions (except negative stereotypes, which are negatively correlated with Afrocentricity for the women), the possibility that the predictor variables mediate between Afrocentricity and individual and couple outcomes was ruled out. Instead, it appears that the women’s Afrocentricity moderated the effects of the women’s stereotypes and immersion attitudes, as well as the men’s immersion attitudes on the women’s symptoms of distress. Both partners’ Afrocentricity was also found to moderate the association between the men’s spiritual well being and the couples’ trust, and the married men’s Afrocentricity_was found to moderate the association between their own spiritual Well being and the couples’ relationship quality. Lastly, the men’s Afrocentricity moderated the association between their own anger and both their trust and relationship quality, as well as the association between their own 109 stereotypes on their own trust. Again, these findings reveal that some interactions between Afrocentricity and the predictor variables that were positive and others were negative in terms of individual and couple outcomes. Therefore, the remainder of the discussion will focus on multiple components of these interactions in order to illuminate which factors might account for these positive and negative influences. Gender Similarities and Differences The above paragraph also makes it clear that gender played an important role in the findings. The findings show that for the women, Afrocentricity was generally associated with a decrease in their negative stereotypes, and at high levels of Afrocentricity, the association between their psychological well being and both their negative stereotypes and irrational relationship beliefs decreased. In addition, the women’s Afrocentricity was associated with their own anger towards perceived White racial injustice and their own immersion attitudes, which have been found to lead to negative outcomes (e g. Willis, 1990; Cross, 1971; Parham & Helms, 1985a; Parham and Helms, 1985b). Notably, these associations did predict negative personal and couple outcomes for the women. Conversely, for the men, at high levels of Afrocentricity, the couples’ relationship was associated with their own scores on the predictor variables, such as their own stereotypes, their own immersion attitudes, and their own anger. These findings reveal that the men and women’s Afrocentricity was associated differently with their individual and couple outcomes. It also appeared to be more of a problematic factor in the lives of men, as has been found in previous studies (Kelly, 1997; Kelly & Floyd, 1998). This finding held true even though the presence of the men's Afrocentricity was strongly correlated with that of their female partners, and vice-versa, and even though the women reported significantly more anger than the men reported. Because Afrocentricity was associated with negative emotions and attitudes for both genders, it appears that the women may have had an easier time diffusing or coping with their anger and immersion attitudes, both of which involve negative feelings about Whites. There are several possibilities that may contribute to the differences in how Afrocentricity was associated with the outcomes of Black men and women. In investigating another question involving the total sample used in this study, Kelly (1997) found that the women’s Afrocentricity was positively correlated with their own internalization racial identity attitudes, and internalization is the highest racial identity stage one can attain. Conversely, the men’s Afrocentricity was not associated with their own internalization attitudes. Kelly’s (1997) findings 111 provide evidence that the women may have been more advanced in their racial identity than are the men, which may explain why the men’s.Afrocentricity was more strongly correlated with their own immersion attitudes than the women’s Afrocentricity was correlated with their own immersion attitudes. These findings all imply that the women more effectively managed their anger against Whites as compared to the men (Cross, 1971). As the remaining explanations for the gender differences involve anger, these factors will be discussed in the section of the paper involving anger. An examination of the patterns of the correlations between the men and women’s scores on the research scales gives a possible clue as to the pattern and strength of these associations. Perhaps the variables most likely to lead to action were the most highly correlated, while those related to overarching ideologies and personal outcomes were weakly correlated or even unrelated. For example, the partners’ Afrocentricity, trust, and relationship quality were all highly correlated within each couple. Each of these variables could be related to one’s day to day behavior. When one is Afrocentric, it may have a strong pull on one’s behavior, as by definition it results in activity commitment as exhibited by participation in Afrocentric institutions, resistance to threats to Black survival, and more (Baldwin & Bell, 1985). Similarly, if one trusts one’s partner and believes that the 112 relationship quality is good, the person might be less likely to behave in an untrustworthy fashion (Kelly & Floyd, 1995), and may even behave in ways to improve the couple’s relationship quality. Because these ideologies may be likely to affect their behavior in the relationship, it is not surprising that the partners’ scores on these scales are highly correlated. Further, since one’s level of African American acculturation might involve doing activities with other Blacks and one’s immersion attitudes might lead one to behave according to their preferences towards being around Blacks and doing things like other Blacks, it is understandable how they are correlated. Conversely, one’s anger, personal distress, relationship beliefs, spiritual well being and stereotypes are more likely to be related to personal outcomes, and thus the partner’s scores on these scales may not be correlated. In addition to the aforementioned postulation regarding how Afrocentricity appears to operate differently for Black men and women, the strong correlation between the partners’ scores on some of the same scales may partially account for the high number of cross-gender findings in the study. That is, perhaps cross-gender associations may at times have represented the mediation of one partner’s Afrocentricity between another partner’s Afrocentricity and a particular outcome. Yet there was one true cross gender association that existed in the absence of within gender effects. 113 This occurred when the women’s Afrocentricity interacted with the men’s immersion attitudes to predict the women’s level of distress, even though the men’s immersion attitudes did not interact with their own Afrocentricity to make similar predictions. However, as stated above, this may be due to relative differences in racial identity stages of the men and women in the study. One other explanation for the cross gender differences (and possibly an explanation for other aspects of the findings), could be the presence of unexamined relationships among the predictor variables used in the study. Although the relationships between the predictor variables (other than.Afrocentricity) were outside of the scope of this study, unknown relationships between the predictors might account for cross gender predictions. Apparently, there are several compelling reasons for the cross gender associations. Thus, it appears that continued study of this phenomenon will help to clarify which factors are most influential in causing the participants’ attitudes and beliefs to be related to their partners’ attitudes, beliefs, and outcomes. Findings Regarding Each Predictor and Its Relationship with Afrocentricity To better understand Afrocentricity and its relationships with the other predictor variables, it may be most helpful to 114 systematically consider the relationship between each predictor and the participant outcomes, and then consider Afrocentricity in the context of these relationships. In regards to the participants’ anger towards Whites for perceived racial injustices, as with Afrocentricity, anger was not directly related to individual and couple outcomes. As mentioned above during the discussion of gender differences, for the women, anger did not appear to be a negative issue, and the interaction between anger and Afrocentricity did not predict negative results for the women as it did when the men were Afrocentric and reported high levels of anger. One explanation for this gender difference in the combination of anger and Afrocentricity involves how Black men and women are differentially perceived and treated in American society. First, for both the men and women, Afrocentricity was associated with more anger, which is likely related to the high level of awareness of and resistance to White supremacy that is inherent in the Afrocentricity construct (Baldwin & Bell, 1985). Because the stereotypes of Black females portray them as domineering and aggressive, and the stereotypes of Black males portray them as passive and unmotivated (Jewell, 1983), perhaps White Americans might perceive the assertiveness or anger of Black men as being abnormal. They may also feel more threatened when a Black man is assertive or angry as compared to a Black woman 115 (Franklin & Franklin, 1998), especially when it is a response to them. Accordingly, they may perceive assertiveness as anger and display a more punitive response to both the anger and assertiveness of a Black man (Franklin & Franklin, 1998). Thus, Black women may have an easier time expressing their anger as compared to Black men and thus they might have fewer anger problems than Black men. This may be further compounded by gender related aspects of American society. It is well known that American men are more likely to express negative emotions by distancing themselves, while women are more likely to internalize their negative emotions (e.g. depression; Nolen-Hoeksma, 1987). Though both have negative consequences, the men’s coping methods appear to predict more destructive aspects of their relationships with others, which may include the couple relationship. In addition, since all American women are socialized to have more of a relational orientation as compared to men (e g. Ruvolo & Veroff, 1997), Black women may have developed methods to prevent their anger from impeding their relationship with their partners. For the men in the study, the interaction between anger and Afrocentricity was moderated by socioeconomic status, such that the problems related to the interaction between the men’s high levels of both Afrocentricity and anger were decreased when the 116 couples had higher socioeconomic statuses. When both partners had high socioeconomic statuses, the men’s anger was positively associated with trust and relationship quality for the total sample. This occurred despite the negative correlation between the men’s anger and their own education and income levels. Again, this result may be related to the men’s roles in society as compared to the women’s roles. Therefore, future research that includes the study of gender roles and their relationship to both couple outcomes and socioeconomic status may help to support or disprove this assertion. The literature abounds with documentation of how Black men are less able than Whites to play the provider and leader roles that are such a crucial part of manhood in this society. According to the literature, this problem exists because of factors such as a high unemployment rate (Aborampah, 1989; Lawson & Thompson, 1994) and White resistance to Black advancement (e.g. Edsall & Edsall, 1991). There is also ample documentation as to how the barriers to their success can result in a host of problems for Blacks (e.g. Edsall & Edsall 1991), and Black men in particular (e.g. Franklin, 1986). For example, the stereotypes of passivity and low motivation commonly attributed to Black men (e.g. Jewell, 1983) may result in learned helplessness and further problems with providing for Black men. These factors may arguably 117 be associated with a higher discrepancy between societal expectations and actual outcomes for Black men than for Black women, which might involve more difficulties for Black men in responding adaptively to their anger. Hence, the men’s anger would have a significant negative association with socioeconomic status, while for the women, it would not. The alienation of Black males from the opportunity structure has even been linked to decreasing bargaining power in their marital relationships. The men’s inability to attain an optimal socioeconomic status was found to disrupt the exchange between the men’s material contribution to the marriage and the women's emotional and sexual contributions (Scanzoni, 1977). There is also evidence that Black men are more likely to endorse traditional male roles such as male dominance, even when they are less able to provide for their families. Conversely, their wives’ endorsement of traditional roles is likely to decrease when the men’s relative socioeconomic status decreases (Bryant & Beckett, 1997). The fact that the men’s ideology regarding marital relationships stays the same, and the women’s decreases as the men’s socioeconomic status decreases implies that at low socioeconomic statuses of the men, power conflicts might arise in the couple relationship, producing more negative emotions in the relationship. Such factors would also provide an explanation why 118 the anger of Black men with lower socioeconomic statuses was negatively associated with the couple’s trust and relationship quality. Black couples have historically been more egalitarian than White couples in terms of the increased likelihood that both spouses contribute to the household income (e.g., Bryant & Beckett, 1997). Because of this, it is not surprising that the Black men’s anger was positively associated with the couples’ trust and relationship quality not only when their own socioeconomic status was higher, but also when their partners’ socioeconomic status was higher. In these cases, as well as in the case in which the women’s anger was positively associated with their education levels, it is likely that the Blacks in the sample \NhO had higher socioeconomic statuses felt more empowered as <:ompared to those with lower socioeconomic statuses. It appears that if the men were empowered via their increased ssocioeconomic status, then their anger could be responded to in an aadaptive fashion. The combination of adaptive, assertive behavior amid a high socioeconomic status would mean that these Black men rnight have been able to both meet more of society’s economic €3Xpectations, and use their anger constructively to bond with llheir partners around how to deal with racism. Their efficacy ‘Nould have been increased through the roles of the provider and 119 one who works for the survival of one’s racial group (Franklin, 1986). In turn, this could result in increased trust and relationship quality for the couple. Conversely, without the buoy provided by a higher socioeconomic status, the results supported the notion that the men’s efficacy was likely to decrease because they displaced their rage that they were unable to vent safely on each other (Willis, 1990). Or, they may have tried to prove their manhood in nonproductive ways such as in sexual relations with a number of women (Franklin, 1986). Of course, this would result in a decrease in the couples’ trust and relationship quality. These findings also provide a general implication for the anger regarding perceived White racial injustice construct. The fact that anger at perceived White racial injustice was not associated with negative outcomes for Black women supports some investigators’ assertions that anger towards White supremacy and racism is normal, healthy and acceptable (e.g. Grier and Cobbs, 1968). In fact, one can respond to anger in many adaptive and maladaptive ways, such as via corrective action and physical aggression, respectively (Tangney, Hill—Barlow, Wagner, Marschall, Borenstein, Sanftner, Mohr, and Gramzow, 1996). Although the above explanations are supported by the literature, at this point it is again speculative as to which factor is most influential in producing the findings. As was done 120 in this study, it is important to always consider the men’s and women’s individual and their couple outcomes separately so as to have a richer understanding of the interplay between the partner’s perspectives. Because anger did not appear to have negative implications for the women, especially when they reported more of it than did the men, it is of primary importance that any potential mechanism(s) that made it easier for the women to deal with their anger be revealed. In this society, because of pervasive White supremacy and the historical experiences of Blacks (e.g. Bryant & Beckett, 1997; Edsall & Edsall, 1991; Lawson & Thompson, 1994), it is important that all Blacks, both male and female, learn how to cope with the anger that their racial problems commonly engender (Bryant & Beckett, 1997). The findings regarding the participants’ biculturalism failed to support either hypothesis. The results indicated that bicuturality was not correlated with Afrocentricity, and that biculturalism did not interact with Afrocentricity to affect either individual or couple outcomes. Instead, biculturalism was found to be negatively correlated with both partners’ job statuses and the men’s education levels, even though previous studies found no association between levels of African American acculturation and socioeconomic status (Landrine & Klonoff, 1995). Biculturalism was also positively associated with symptoms of 121 distress for both partners, and the women’s biculturalism.was inversely correlated with their reported levels of trust in their partners. Socioeconomic status was found to mediate between each partner’s biculturalism and symptoms of distress, as well as between the men’s biculturalism and the women’s symptoms of distress. Increased biculturalism of the participants was associated with decreased levels of education and lower job statuses, which in turn was associated with increased symptoms of distress. The linkages between the men’s biculturalism and the women’s symptoms of distress were also mediated by socioeconomic status. No moderation effects were found between the participants’ biculturalism and their socioeconomic status. Before attempting to explain the findings regarding biculturalism, it is important to note how biculturalism was measured in this study. As previously indicated, the authors of the African American Acculturation Scale (Landrine & Klonoff, 1995) assert that moderate levels of African American Acculturation indicate a degree of biculturalism. There may be some merit to this view, because in American society, much more discourse is had regarding Black and White racial issues than is had regarding the issues of other racial groups (e.g. Hacker, 1995). Thus, perhaps many Americans, including Blacks and Whites, perceive these two cultures as polar opposites. 122 Yet there are some limdtations to a continuum perspective of African American and White American acculturation. It seems theoretically possible that biculturalism could be measured on two separate dimensions, one of African American acculturation, and one of White American acculturation, in order to investigate this construct more thoroughly. Therefore, a limitation of the current study is that it did not assess these two dimensions. Unfortunately, no measure currently exists of White American acculturation, and thus it was not measured as a separate dimension in this study. Until such a scale is created, it will be impossible to determine whether or not two dimensions are truly needed, and whether or not high levels of acculturation to both cultures is Optimal in terms of individual and couple outcomes. When the measurement of biculturalism is considered, perhaps the findings can be explained by the fact that these people were “in the middle” in terms of their level of African American acculturation. If they did not fully endorse the attitudes and cultural practices of either group, they may have been somewhat marginalized, and they may not have truly felt a part of either culture, as opposed to highly endorsing both. If this was the case, then they may not have felt comfortable with who they are in terms of race and ethnicity, which could result in increased symptoms of distress. Support for this assertion comes from Pinderhues’ (1997) work on Blacks’ feelings of being “different” and their relatively powerless societal status. She hypothesized that being different evokes a sense of aloneness, abandonment, and threatens a Black person’s sense of psychological wholeness. Pinderhues (1997) asserted that people need to feel predominately positive about the groups to which they belong, including their own racial group. Accordingly, those who scored in the moderate range on the African American Acculturation Scale may not have felt close to either racial group, and thus may have been unable to develop positive feelings about themselves. In regards to the negative correlation between biculturalism and socioeconomic status, and socioeconomic status’ mediation between biculturalism and outcomes, perhaps poor Blacks are more prone to experience the dysfunction that is frequently associated with poverty, including higher divorce rates (Lawson & Thompson, 1994), crime and welfare (Edsall & Edsall, 1991). It is also possible that Blacks having a lower socioeconomic status are exposed to more African Americans who are doing poorly, as suggested by Kelly’s (1994) previous study of Black couples. Thus, when poor, they may be more likely to hold negative stereotypes about Blacks and/or espouse immersion attitudes. At the same time, they may not be accepted by Whites, which may lead to increased anger and an inability to identify fully with either 124 group, which would make them appear bicultural on Landrine and Klonoff’s (1995) African American Acculturation scale. Unfortunately, the purpose of this study did not include an examination of how the predictor variables are related to each other. Hence, it remains to future studies to investigate the possibility that bicultural participants as measured by the .African American Acculturation Scale (Landrine & Klonoff, 1995) may feel a relative lack of connection to both Blacks and Whites. As compared to the other predictors in the study, it appears that immersion racial identity attitudes were associated with psychological distress, poor trust and poor relationship quality. These associations were found to be both mediated and moderated by socioeconomic status. Socioeconomic status had an inverse association with which immersion attitudes, and at high socioeconomic status levels, the positive association between these attitudes and psychological distress decreased for both partners. Again, perhaps poor Blacks might experience more of the dysfunction that is frequently associated with poverty, including higher divorce rates (Lawson & Thompson, 1994), crime and welfare (Edsall & Edsall, 1991), which may produce distress. It is also possible that Blacks having a lower socioeconomic status are exposed to more African Americans who are doing poorly, as suggested by Kelly’s (1994) previous study of Black couples. 125 Further, this negative exposure might cause them to become angrier about the status of Blacks as suggested by Cross (1971). Perhaps at low socioeconomic status levels, the combination of anger and immersion attitudes related to inequality, lack of power and lack of role models would be hard for Blacks to cope with psychologically (e.g. Pinderhues, 1997). Thus, future studies should investigate whether or not such an association exists between the immersion attitudes and anger predictors at lower socioeconomic status levels, so as to understand better how perceptions of racial issues are impacted by socioeconomic status. The immersion attitudes of both partners were correlated with both each other and their own Afrocentricity. The women’s immersion attitudes were also correlated with the men’s Afrocentricity. The one significant interaction between immersion attitudes and.Afrocentricity was consistent with hypothesis number one. For married men, when the women had high levels of Afrocentricity, the positive association between the men’s immersion and the women’s psychological distress decreased. Thus, it appears that in the case of its interactions with immersion attitudes, it is the Women’s Afrocentricity that is problematic in its associations. Plausible reasons for this issue will be addressed later in the section regarding the married versus the total sample. Again, because the results and other numerous 126 works on issues germane to Blacks (e.g. Bryant & Beckett, 1997) have demonstrated the importance of socioeconomic status, socioeconomic status effects also need to be taken into account with the married sample. As with immersion attitudes, internalized negative stereotypes were also associated with a number of negative individual and couple outcomes. Though the partners’ stereotypes were not correlated with each other, their stereotypes affected their outcomes in a similar fashion. The participants’ stereotypes were positively and consistently correlated with their psychological distress, and consistently negatively correlated with the couples’ trust and relationship quality. As with the previous two predictor variables, socioeconomic status played a large part in the above associations. Though it did not mediate the results, at high socioeconomic status levels of both partners, the positive association between the women’s stereotypes and the women’s psychological distress decreased. At high socioeconomic status levels, the positive within and cross gender associations between both partners’ stereotypes and the men’s symptoms of distress decreased. This same finding occurred in regards to the association between the women’s stereotype and the couples' relationship quality at higher socioeconomic status levels. As suggested by Kelly’s (1994) findings with a previous sample of 127 Black couples, these findings may be related to the possibility that a good education and higher status jobs may be associated with more stability and responsibility. Afrocentricity was negatively correlated with internalized negative stereotypes for the women. In addition, for the women, as high levels of Afrocentricity, the association between the women’s stereotypes and the women’s psychological distress decreased for the total sample. Conversely, in the case of the married sample, when the men were highly.Afrocentric, as the men’s stereotypes increased their trust decreased, which provided support for hypothesis number two. Though not the purpose of this study, it is interesting that the findings regarding negative stereotypes in this study were similar to those found by Kelly and Floyd (Kelly, 1994; Kelly & Floyd 1998). Again, they implicated male Afrocentricity as a problematic variable, and demonstrated that Afrocentricity operates differently for men and women, and possibly between married and unmarried men, as the married men’s Afrocentricity operated in accordance with the hypotheses. The results regarding irrational relationship beliefs indicate that not only were irrational relationship beliefs negatively associated with the couples’ trust and relationship quality, but they were also negatively associated with the participants’ psychological distress, both within and across 128 gender. However, this also implies that one may improve the relationships of Black couples by teaching them more about the negative impact of relationship myths, such as irrational beliefs that partners must be sexually perfect and that disagreement is automatically destructive to the relationship (Epstein & Eidelson 1981). One may do this by doing couple workshops that reveal the falsehoods surrounding irrational expectations of one’s partner, and which encourage alternate behaviors, such as how to discussion issues and problem solve effectively rather than trying to read each others’ minds to clarify their needs (Markman, Blumberg & Stanley, 1993). Such education can be especially important, given that discrepancies between ratings of one’s partner and ideals for the partner are inversely correlated with the marital well being of Black and White couples, especially in the case of wives (Ruvolo & Veroff, 1997). Adthough the men’s and women’s irrational relationship beliefs were not significantly correlated, the negative association between irrational relationship beliefs and the couples’ trust and relationship quality cut across gender. This may have been because the participants’ perceptions that their partners did not meet their irrational expectations were likely to be communicated, and even acted upon, thereby lowering the satisfaction of their spouses (Ruvolo & Veroff, 1997), as well as 129 their trust. It is also notable that as women are sometimes popularly deemed the “irrational” half of human-kind, they did not have significantly more irrational relationship beliefs than do the men. As with many of the predictors, irrational relationship beliefs were negatively correlated with one’s own socioeconomic status, and for the women they were also significantly correlated with the men’s socioeconomic status. Further, irrational relationship beliefs were also consistently moderated by one’s socioeconomic status. The socioeconomic status influence is notable, because unlike many of the other predictors, this variable has nothing to do with racial themes. As is suggested based upon the results with the aforementioned predictor variables, perhaps those with a low socioeconomic status were more dysfunctional as compared to those with higher socioeconomic statuses, and perhaps their dysfunction extended to their beliefs about couple relationships. Here, when the men and women’s socioeconomic status was high, the positive association between the women’s irrational relationship beliefs and the women’s psychological distress decreased. As these irrational beliefs have to do with couple relationships, the women may have reported more negativity because they tend to be more focused upon relationships than men (e.g. Kelley & Burgoon, 1991), and thus, 130 when they have irrational relationship beliefs, they may be more prone to becoming distressed. Perhaps at high socioeconomic status levels, the relationship between the predictors and the outcomes decreased because couples who have higher socioeconomic statuses may have experienced a decrease in stress related to poverty. In addition, it is not uncommon for women to stay in relationships because of the social status and financial benefits that the marriage provides (e g. Scanzoni, 1977). Accordingly, perhaps those women who were in relationships where at least one partner had a higher socioeconomic status may have perceived more benefits according to the exchange theory of relationships (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). Thus, they may have experienced less distress even when they had irrational expectations of how spouses should behave. In addition, unmarried women in this sample had significantly more irrational relationship beliefs than married women, which will be discussed further in the section which discusses the significance of the differences between the total sample and married sub—sample. When Afrocentricity was taken into account, significant findings emerged. First, one notices that Afrocentricity was not correlated with irrational relationship beliefs. This implies that Afrocentric persons did not necessarily have higher expectations of their partners than did non—Afrocentric persons, 131 as was implied from a previous study which investigated .Afrocentricity and couple outcomes (Kelly, 1994). However, as this scale measured irrational beliefs, there is a possibility that Afrocentric persons may still have higher standards that are not irrational. Aside from this issue, when the women had higher levels of Afrocentricity, the association between the women’s irrational relationship beliefs and the women’s symptoms of distress decreased. In this case, unlike the interaction between high levels of the men’s Afrocentricity and both anger and stereotypes (which for the men, are associated with poor relationship outcomes), at high levels of the men’s Afrocentricity, no significant association between irrational relationship beliefs and the participants’ individual or couple outcomes existed. This may be because irrational relationship beliefs pertain to issues that are typically considered a “woman’s domain (e.g. Ruvolo & Veroff, 1997).” This means that it is likely that the men’s irrational relationship beliefs may not be significantly associated with relationship outcomes, no matter what the extent of these beliefs may be, because of differing male and female behaviors in the relationship. These include the men’s relatively decreased tendency to both focus on the relationship as much as the women, and to communicate as much about the relationship as do the women, 132 which may result in less male influence in the relationship (Ruvolo & Veroff, 1997). Spiritual well being was the last of the predictors considered in the model presented in Figure 1. It was hypothesized to be one of the two variables presumed to have a positive influence in the personal and relational lives of Blacks. The results confirmed the assertion that spiritual well being would be associated with positive outcomes for Blacks, as spiritual well being was one of the few predictor variables that was negatively correlated with one’s psychological distress and positively associated with the couples’ trust and relationship quality. NOtably, it was only the men’s spiritual well being that was associated with the couples’ trust and relationship quality, although as with the men, the women’s spiritual well being was associated with their own symptoms of psychological distress. A review of the literature base revealed no direct theoretical or empirical explanations for why the men’s spiritual well being was more important to the couple relationship than the women’s spiritual well being. However, a number of studies have found Black women to be more religious and to practice religion more than their partners (e.g. Kelly, 1994). Although these differences did not reach significance in this study, it is reasonable to speculate that 133 perhaps because the men’s religiosity or spirituality is generally viewed as less than the women’s spirituality, strong spiritual well being in the men is more salient when it exists. Accordingly, perhaps the men’s spiritual well being is recognized and appreciated by their partners for increasing the number of interests that they share. This is important, because common interests (especially regarding such a major life variable) are such important positive factors in couple relationships that couple therapists often structure tasks for increasing common interests into their work with couples (e.g. Markman, Blumberg, & Stanley, 1993). These tasks are designed to improve Black couples’ trust and relationship quality. Again, it must be noted that these linkages are speculative, and future research needs to determine the factors which mediate the positive influence of the men’s spiritual well being in Black couple relationships, so as to promote increased harmony within Black couples. Two findings regarding spiritual well being and socioeconomic status emerged from the study. First, the women’s spiritual well being was negatively correlated with the men’s income. In addition, when the women had higher socioeconomic statuses, the negative association between the men’s spiritual well being and the men’s own symptoms of distress decreased. Perhaps these findings are related to the women’s coping styles and the 134 implications of the women’s socioeconomic status for the men. Given the fact that the women’s distress increased when their men were poorer and less educated, perhaps the women with poorer partners focused upon strengthening their spirituality or religion as a coping mechanism. This explanation is supported by the fact that historically, Blacks have turned to the church as a means of coping with the racism and oppression of the larger society, especially in the case of the Baptists and Methodists (Ellison, 1991), who comprise the majority of the current sample. In fact, the finding that Black women tended to be more religious and to participate in their religious practices more often than their husbands (Kelly, 1994) could explain why the same correlation was not evident for the men. In regards to the men’s spiritual well being and the women’s socioeconomic statuses, although Blacks are somewhat egalitarian in that both partners work and.share some household chores (Bryant & Beckett, 1997), Black men typically earn more than Black women (Aborampah, 1989). As the provider role is so important for all men in this society, including Black men (e g. Franklin, 1986), perhaps the women’s increased socioeconomic statuses are perceived as threatening to Black men, and therefore cause them distress. Thus, though the men’s spiritual well being might be generally associated with decreased personal distress, this association 135 would decrease when the women have higher socioeconomic statuses. Interestingly, though spiritual well being is associated with good personal and couple outcomes, this positive association has nothing to do with Afrocentricity, which is contrary to the hypotheses. In fact, when Afrocentricity was taken into account for both the married and total samples, at high levels of Afrocentricity for both partners, the existing positive association between the men’s spiritual well being and couple outcomes decreased, which was contrary to predictions. This is despite the fact that Afrocentricity was not directly correlated with the spiritual well being of either partner. One possible reason for this is that an alternate form of spirituality may be subsumed under Afrocentricity. Much of the theoretical literature on Afrocentricity purports that it is accompanied by a strong spiritual orientation (e.g. Akbar, 1989, Baldwin, 1981; Nobles, 1989; Schiele, 1996; Speight,' Myers, Cox, & Highlen, 1991). However, at the same time, these same authors discuss spirituality in a much different way from the common conceptions of the construct. For example, Afrocentric theorists often describe Afrocentric spirituality as a “worldview” (e.g. Bell, Bouie & Baldwin, 1990) based upon ancient African principles and conceptions of “spiritness” (e.g. Nobles, 1989), and describe the world as a manifestation of spiritual energy 136 (e.g. Speight et al., 1992). These descriptions reveal a point of difference and a point of similarity. First, current mainstream conceptions of spiritual well being are not likely to involve African based philosophies and principles, and thus, the spirituality inherent in the two constructs may be dissimilar. Second, though the types of spirituality may be different, very strong value systems seem to be inherent in both constructs. The similarity and the difference between these two constructs imply that one’s spiritual well being may be incompatible with the spirituality subsumed under an Afrocentric worldview. A positive spiritual well being implies that by being one with God and the universe, one probably has a positive outlook on mankind and one’s relationship to mankind. However, by definition (e.g. Baldwin, Baldwin & Bell, 1985), being Afrocentric means that one recognizes and actively fights against oppression. Because of their awareness and participation in racial struggles, it may be difficult for a person to be both Afrocentric and have a high level of spiritual well being. Thus, a person’s Afrocentricity might temper the positive effects that their spiritual well being has on their couple relationships, as was found in this study. In addition, the same effects would be found no matter which partner was Afrocentric, because just as it might be hard for one person to hold both of these worldviews, it might 137 be hard for them to exist within one couple, as was found in this study. Throughout the study, it has become clear that socioeconomic status is a very important factor in explaining how the above variables are related to each other. In a few cases, such as with biculturalism and immersion racial identity attitudes, it mediated between these predictors and the outcomes, especially in the case of personal distress. In these cases, after the inverse association between socioeconomic status and distress was taken into account, then these predictors no longer were associated with the women’s distress. In addition, at higher socioeconomic status levels, the association of immersion attitudes, irrational relationship beliefs, and stereotypes with individual and/or couple outcomes was decreased. Though anger and Afrocentricity were not originally correlated with individual and couple outcomes, the findings reveal that at lower socioeconomic status levels, these two variables were inversely correlated with trust in the couples. Further, this same phenomenon was revealed for anger and relationship quality at lower socioeconomic status levels. These findings underscore how large a part socioeconomic status plays in the lives of African Americans. One moderation effect existed in which at higher socioeconomic statuses for the women, the inverse relationship between the men’s spiritual well 138 being and the men’s psychological distress decreased. Socioeconomic status results showed that across the board, when Blacks have a higher socioeconomic status, they do better, both individually and in their relationships. This is especially interesting in light of the fact that this sample has a higher socioeconomic status than most Blacks, which implies that for most Blacks, socioeconomic status would moderate the association between racial constructs and couple outcomes in a negative fashion. The literature that describes the negative effects of poverty on Blacks is congruent with these findings (Aborampah, 1989; Lawson & Thompson, 1994; Staples, 1993). In some cases, as described above, poverty may just exacerbate factors such as stereotypes and irrational relationship beliefs, which are typically associated with negative individual and couple outcomes (e.g. Jewell, 1983; Epstein & Eidelson, 1981). Conversely, in regards to other variables, such as anger and Afrocentricity, at low socioeconomic status levels, these constructs may operate differently than they do at high socioeconomic status levels. For example, one could speculate that when a couple has a higher socioeconomic status, their anger might be merely related to their perceptions of White racial injustice, which is a reportedly common event (e.g. Franklin, 1998; Jones et. al., 1982). Because rage is related to racism for 139 both Black men and women (Jones et. al., 1982), then perhaps the couple can bond in their mutual knowledge of and feelings about White supremacy, and the resulting support that they-give one another in this regard. However, at lower socioeconomic status levels, not only might the anger of Blacks be related to perceptions of White racial injustice, but their anger might also be more diffuse because of its possible relationship with a host of other poverty related issues. These issues include learned helplessness and their inability to fulfill society’s prescribed roles in their relationships. Support for this assertion is derived from clinical literature regarding Black men. At lower socioeconomic status levels, Black men might be more likely to consider whether their difficulties with personal achievement are also caused by a lack of personal responsibility in fulfilling gender role expectations (Franklin, 1998). This attribution issue could complicate the strong anger that many Black men feel towards perceived White injustice (e.g. Franklin, 1988). Further, the societally structured inequalities which result in Black men’s inability to fulfill the provider role can reduce the quality of their family life (Bowman, 1992), which includes their couple relationships. As the foregoing example of Black men implies, it appears 140 that though both partners’ socioeconomic statuses are important in determining outcomes, it appears that the men’s socioeconomic status was more salient. The men’s socioeconomic status was frequently associated with the predictor variables and the women’s outcomes, and only the men’s income was related to the predictors. This is not a surprise in America, where men make more than women make (Aborampah, 1989) and are expected to be the bread-winners (e.g. Franklin, 1998). It is notable that despite the salience of the men’s socioeconomic status, it was the women’s distress and even the women’s predictor variables that changed when socioeconomic status was considered. The participant’s married versus unmarried status is the other demographic variable that was considered as a factor in the relationship between the predictor and outcome variables. The results revealed that the unmarried sub—sample were less trusting of their partners. The decreased trust of unmarried Black couples may be related to several factors, such as the Black male-female ratio (Aborampah, 1989; Staples, 1993), socioeconomic status, and youthful immaturity. As found with one survey of dating couples, unlike White men, Black men’s commitment to their relationships did not increase as their relationship satisfaction increased, which the authors attributed to the men’s knowledge that there were many potential partners available to them (Davis & Strube, 141 1993). Combined with this ratio, the fact that the unmarried men’s education and job statuses were significantly lower than those of married men may be important. In general, couples with .lower socioeconomic statuses tend to be at higher risk to have poor quality marriages and marital dissolution (Elder & Caspi, 1988). However, for Black men, they tend to delay even marrying their partners until they can take on the added responsibilities (Lindahl, Malik & Bradbury, 1997), which are largely socioeconomic (Staples, 1993). In addition, there is evidence that when Black men are unable to perform the provider role in their relationships, that they may turn to other women for sex so as to increase their status in a different way (Gooden, 1989), which would obviously breed mistrust in a relationship. Lastly, as the unmarried men and women in this sample were younger, they may have been less mature and thus less able to move their relationship to a new level. Another significant difference between the married and unmarried couples was that the unmarried partners tended to have significantly higher rates of unhealthy beliefs. For example, the unmarried women had significantly higher irrational relationship beliefs, even though Black couples with irrational relationship beliefs have been found to have poorer marital adjustment (Jensen, Witcher, and Lane, 1987). They also held more stereotypes about 142 Blacks, which have been negatively associated with partner dependability, a component of trust , (Kelly, 1994) and which were associated with decreased overall trust and relationship quality in the current study. Lastly, both sets of unmarried partners had significantly higher levels of immersion attitudes, which were themselves associated with poorer trust and relationship quality in the current study, probably because immersion attitudes signal rigid perceptions of what Blackness is, and how Blacks should behave (Cross, 1971). Thus, perhaps the unmarried couples’ unhealthy beliefs created enough relationship problems to prevent them from moving their relationship to the level of marriage, without affecting their relationship satisfaction. Accordingly, one can speculate that these beliefs were related to negative couple outcomes for the sample as a whole. However, when the partners hold enough stereotypes, immersion attitudes, and irrational relationship beliefs, they may or may not be headed for relationship dissolution, but it is likely that they may impede their relationship from going further. Despite the above facts regarding unmarried versus married couples, when the analyses regarding the hypotheses were re-done with the married sub—sample only, the results revealed that the predictor variables operated in a more negative fashion than when 143 the total sample was used. The findings revealed that at high levels of Afrocentricity for the women, the association between the men’s immersion attitudes on the women’s psychological distress increased, and similar findings occurred regarding the association between stereotypes and anger with the couples’ reported trust. In addition, similar findings occurred with the association between anger and the couples’ relationship quality at higher levels of Afrocentricity. In each case, hypothesis number one and two were supported, because high levels of Afrocentricity and high levels of each of these variables was related to poor individual or couple outcomes. Fortunately, the literature on the transition to marriage renders these results understandable. As the unmarried couples were younger and they had been in their relationship for a much shorter length of time, it is reasonable to assume that they may have been in the earlier stages of a relationship that may or may. not lead to marriage. It is well documented that couples tend to be happiest at the premarital and newlywed phases of their relationships (e.g. Markman & Hahlweg, 1993). In fact, in the earlier stages of relationships, couples may have characteristics unrelated to their current relationship satisfaction, such as poor communication skills (Markman & Hahlweg, 1993) and maladaptive relationship schemata (Olsen & Larsen, 1989). Though not 144 associated with their current relationship outcomes, these characteristics have been documented to predict later relationship distress (Markman & Hahlweg, 1993; Olsen & Larsen, 1989). In a similar vein, for the unmarried couples in this study, their high.Afrocentricity and concomitant levels of high anger, stereotypes about Blacks, and immersion attitudes may not significantly interact to predict relationship distress. Or, they may somehow significantly counteract their relationship stress, presumably because they are still in the early blissful and/or idealistic stages of their relationship. However, as noted by Halford and colleagues (Halford, Kelly, & Markman, 1997), and as found with the married sub—sample, after they experience the difficulties of maintaining a marriage over time, perhaps these concomitant beliefs will begin to negatively affect their marital adjustment. Thus, it appears that being in the early stages their relationships as compared to married couples, is just one factor that might account for the lack of a relationship between negative predictors and the unmarried couples’ trust and relationship quality. The other factor may be length of time, in that unmarried couples have not been in their relationships nearly as long as the married couples, and so any potential causal relationships may not have had time to affect their relationships. This theoretical formulation of the results is also supported 145 by the fact that at no time do the results derived from the total sample and the married sub-sample directly contradict each other. The possible “contamination” of the findings for the total sample because of the inclusion of unmarried couples may also explain why the results yielded by the married sub-sample were so robust despite the small size of the sub-sample. It is important to know that if this formulation is true, then future studieS'are needed to replicate these analyses in order to detepmine if the hypotheses would be more strongly supported with a large married sample of Black couples. Limitations of the Study The results of the study may have been influenced by the non— random sampling methods that were used. The study’s investigators made attempts to contact all known organizations having a large Black clientele and/or membership. Typically, Blacks in these groups are more educated and have higher socioeconomic statuses than the typical Black person. Thus, efforts were made to increase recruiting at local churches, and a number of Black participants with very low socioeconomic statuses were recruited twice a month at one church during a regular activity in which they fed and gave free groceries to needy families. Despite these efforts, the educational and socioeconomic status of this sample is atypically high, which may skew the results. 146 In addition, snowball sampling was frequently used to obtain subjects, which may have restricted the range of the types of people who participated in the study. This may have happened in two ways. First, it is likely that the participants recommended the study to their friends, who were similar to them on multiple demographic factors. Second, in recommending the study to their friends, it is possible that they biased the participation of these friends according to the aspects of the study that they highlighted when they discussed it. Thus, a major limitation of the study is a truncated range of couples in which older, happily married couples with higher socioeconomic statuses who have been together for a long period of time were disproportionately represented. Accordingly, the resulting lack of variance in the participant’s scores must be considered in any discussion of the results. The administration procedure may also have influenced how the couples participated in the study. It is possible that the various environments in which they were allowed to complete the questionnaires might have had some type of unknown influence on their responses that was due to their effects on the participants’ comfort and mood. However, each administrator did ensure that they completed the questionnaires independently in all cases. It is also possible that certain types of participants were more 147 likely to fill out the questionnaires at their homes versus in the office. Further, in the cases of separate administrations to each partner, the partners may have gotten a chance to discuss the questionnaires prior to the completion of the questionnaires by both. Each type of situation might have biased the partners towards the study. A second possible source of bias related to study participants is the lack of diversity within the current sample as compared to larger samples such as the National Survey of Black Americans conducted from the University of Michigan. The current study recruited all of its participants from the Midwest, and thus geographical influences on marital relations and perceptions of racial issues were unable to be investigated. Most importantly, while the range of socioeconomic statuses represented in the study is rather comprehensive (ranges: education - 6 to 20 years, occupational status - 0 to 88, and yearly income - 6,000 to 190,000 per year), there is a preponderance of participants who have higher socioeconomic statuses. Notably, the mean education, occupational status and incomes are 16 (college graduates), 45 and 48 (men and women respectively, which are statuses equivalent to those of library attendants and office managers, respectively), and yearly incomes of $50,000 and $30,000 (men and women, respectively). In addition, as this study included couples who 148 were married, engaged, living together, and seriously dating, a drawback of the study is that there was little representation of participants in each of the unmarried categories. .Accordingly, the resulting lack of variance in the participant’s scores on so many demographic factors must be considered in any discussion of the results. Conversely, a sample in which a variety of Black couples had participated would have enabled this investigator to effectively examine the differences in how racial and other types of beliefs impact many types of couples, and thus draw firmer, more informed conclusions. For example, given the differences between married and unmarried couples regarding the association of relationship schemata and couple outcomes (Olson & Larsen, 1989), the results are not conclusive. Therefore, the possibility remains that the hypotheses presented in this study would be supported with a larger married sample. Therefore, it appears that an adequate representation of each of the above diverse types of Blacks would have enabled the hypotheses raised in the current study to be studied in a more complex fashion. As has been implied, a major limitation of this study is the lack of a large sample. Not only does the inclusion of only 112 couples limit the amount of diversity of the participants, but it also prevented a direct method of examining the hypotheses. In 149 general, the questions raised in the introduction and revolve around the issue of whether there are certain “types” of Afrocentric persons (as presented in Figure 1), an issue which would have been most fruitfully investigated through cluster analysis. However, as a minimum of 200 couples would have been optimal in determining whether or not there are two types of Afrocentricity, regression analyses were conducted. Though these analyses were able to yield support or lack thereof for the hypotheses, only cluster analysis could have determined conclusively if two “types” of Afrocentricity actually exist. Heuristically derived typologies are used in every field of scientific inquiry, and have been used to classify marriages (e.g. Lavee & Olson, 1993). Accordingly, immense theoretical and therapeutic gains could be made if Black individuals and couples were able to be parsimoniously categorized in terms of their racial (and other) beliefs. The relationships between the various typologies and a host of outcome variables could be utilized to advance theory, research and clinical interests involving racial and couple issues. A further issue to examine in the delineation of limitations is measurement error as related to using a sample of Black couples. Because a number of the scales (e.g. the dyadic adjustment scale; Spanier, 1976) were not originally standardized 150 on Black participants, the question arises as to whether or not the content of the instruments is appropriate for a sample comprised of Black people. The racially—oriented measures are the AfricaneAmerican.Acculturation Scale, the Anger Towards Whites Scale, the Black Racial Identity Attitude Scale, the Stereotypes Scale, and the African Self Consciousness Scale. For these measures, there appear to be fewer issues related to measurement error because these scales were intended for use with Black samples (e.g. Landrine & Klonoff, 1995). However, the Spiritual Well being Scale, the Relationship Beliefs Inventory, the Dyadic Adjustment Scale, the Trust Scale, and the Brief Symptom Inventory were not originally used with Black participants (e.g. Spanier, 1976). Fortunately, some use of most of these scales has begun with Black couples (e.g. Jenson, Witcher, & Lane, 1987), and for the studies reviewed, the scores of the Black samples resembled the scores of the standardization samples (e.g. Jenson, Witcher, 8 Lane, 1987). Further, when large numbers of Black couples were compared with a large number of White couples, some results indicated that at least the relationship constructs appear to operate similarly for both Black and White couples (Ruvolo & Veroff, 1997). Still, the importance of these constructs may vary according to population (e.g. Chadiha, Veroff, & Leber, 1998). Similarly, the current study has also made an important 151 contribution to the literature on this issue by looking at the variation in scores for these scales on a sample consisting only of Black participants, so that these constructs could begin to be understood in a Black context. However, while these are good first steps, they are not an adequate substitution for the need to have all scales not just developed for use with Blacks, but standardized on Black populations. Standardization can serve as an initial mechanism of both determining the range and nature of a construct within a population. It can also be a mechanism that determines any true population differences between Blacks and other Americans (who are primarily White) on constructs that may be potentially used in both populations (e.g. relationship beliefs and adjustment). If true differences are found, it can be examined to determine whether they can be attributed to differences in the degree a construct is present or to culture based interpretations or responses (e g. Jette, Crawford, & Tennstedt, 1996). .Accurate attributions as to the reasons for differences between what is hypothesized regarding a particular population and what is found would assist researchers in making appropriate changes in the theory regarding these constructs (e.g. Behrens, 1997). In addition, the discovery of similarities in populations with instruments that are standardized on each of them can help to 152 increase the feasibility of using common methods to understand populations having very different cultures (Lambert, Knight, & Achenbach, 1994). 1 Despite the lack of consistent support for the hypotheses, the results indicate that a number of racial variables play a significant part in the individual and relational functioning of African Americans, as has been asserted throughout this study. Ironically, it appears that that though the investigation of so many variables has yielded some promise, future studies need to try to better understand each of the constructs used in the study and Afrocentricity in particular, as a full understanding of the construct has yet to be obtained. Towards this end, it is recommended that future studies first gather data from more participants so that they might understand the differences in responses which may be related to variations in demographic factors, as socioeconomic status was so important in this study. A larger N would also enable these scales to be standardized on Blacks. Next, other researchers should seek to successfully factor analyze the scales, and possibly do cluster analyses on them to answer the primary research question using different methods, such as developing empirical typologies of Afrocentric couples. Unfortunately, the number of participants used in this study is inadequate for these analyses, as the Afrocentricity 153 scale has 42 items to factor, and cluster analysis requires approximately one hundred participants per cluster. In addition, as mentioned previously, a better understanding of both Afrocentricity and the other constructs may be obtained by determining how each of the predictor variables is related to each other, which is outside the scope of the current study. For example, it would be very helpful to refine a range of theories on how Blacks cope with racism in America by better understanding which racial constructs are associated with rage. It would also be helpful for future investigators to illuminate whether or not any of the racial or relationship constructs is associated with decreased anger, which implies that such a construct would help Blacks to cope. From these examples, one can see that a host of questions remain for which only further investigation will provide answers. Summary and Conclusions In conclusion, it was primarily for the married sub—sample that aspects of the proposed positive path to Afrocentricity were supported by the findings, and even then, the hypotheses were only partially supported. Afrocentricity was correlated positively with anger, immersion racial identity attitudes, and stereotypes. Of these three variables, immersion attitudes and stereotypes were related to negative outcomes for the participants. However, no 154 direct relationship existed between Afrocentricity and the three outcome variables of psychological distress, and the trust and relationship quality of the couple. Further, there was no support for the hypotheses in regards to the interactions between Afrocentricity and biculturalism, which may be related to measurement of the variable. In regards to support for the hypotheses, for the married sample only, at high levels of Afrocentricity, the association of the participants’ immersion attitudes and negative stereotypes with individual and relationship outcomes was significant. Conversely, for both the total and married samples, at high levels of Afrocentricity and high levels of anger towards Whites for perceived racial injustice, the participants’ outcomes were worse as compared to those with lower levels of Afrocentricity or anger. In most of these cases, the outcomes appeared to be related to the influence of the men’s Afrocentricity, which appeared to operate differently than that of the women and to be more problematic in its associations. For example, contrary to predictions, at high levels of Afrocentricity, the inverse association between the men’s spiritual well being and the couples’ outcomes decreased. However, it appears that Afrocentricity is also associated with positive individual outcomes for the women. For example, at high levels of the 155 women’s Afrocentricity, the positive association of their own stereotypes and irrational relationship beliefs with their reports of distress decreased. The results suggest that the proposed model may still be adequate in describing processes of Afrocentricity, when only married couples are considered. Further, high socioeconomic status consistently mediated and moderated the results, and the small sub-sample of unmarried participants appeared to be very different than the married participants. Because of these demographic issues, it would be incumbent upon future investigators of these constructs to better understand the impact of these two demographic variables on the model using larger, more diverse samples. To obtain more diverse samples, future investigators may want to consider finding ways to attract more low functioning couples, either by paying them, providing free clinical services, or other creative methods of data collection. Because the hypotheses were only partially supported, and both positive and negative findings emerged in regards to Afrocentricity, alternate theoretical models need to be developed and considered. It is hoped that any future models will give increased consideration to contextual factors and culture based ways that Blacks choose to cope with them. Lastly, future studies would benefit from not only further investigating the 156 relationships between the scales as was begun in this study, but also from standardizing them on Blacks as well as factor analyzing and performing other analyses on the scales. These future steps would produce great strides in illuminating the constructs under study. 157 APPENDICES 158 Appendix A Tables 1-19 159 Table 1 Couple Demographics Variable Mean SD Range Age (years) Males 44.56 11.68 22-77 Females 42.54 11.29- 21-74 Number of dependents Males 2.09 1.58 0-7 Females 2.00 1.49 0-7 Education (years) Males 15.90 2.58 9-20 Females 15.73 2.67 6-20 Duncan Occupational Index Males 44.89 23.36 0-88.40 Females 48.16 24.54 0-88.40 Yearly personal incomea Males 50,000 41,000 6,000-250,000 Females 39,000 23,000 5,000-101,000 Family of origin yearly incomes Males 28,000 21,000 1,000-100,000 Females 32,000 26,000 1,000-190,000 a Incomes are rounded to the nearest thousand dollars. 160 Table 2 Paired T-Tests and Correlations Between Males and Females on Demographic Data Means N Paired r Variable (pairs) Females Males t-values Age 108 42.58 44.49 -3.88*** .90*** Education 108 15.71 15.93 - .93 .59*** Occupation (Duncan) 98 48.22 44.38 1.62 .53*** Income (yearly)a 60 37,000 46,000 -2.05* .31* Family of origin yearly incomea 56 33,000 27,000 1.37 .05 Degree of Religiosity 99 3.27 3.13 1.56 .18 Practice of Religion 93 4.32 4.14 1.34 .25* Note. Income estimates may not accurately represent sample characteristics, because some subjects failed to provide income data. a Incomes are rounded to the nearest thousand dollars. *9<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 161 Table 3 Chronbach’s Alphas for Men and Women on the Research Scales Scale # Items Men Women Afrocentricity 42 .80 .76 Anger Towards Whites 3 .75 .82 African American Acculturation 33 .76 .77 Brief Symptom Inventory 53 .97 .96 Dyadic Adjustment 32 .91 .92 Immersion Racial Identity Attitudes 10 .72 .72 Relationship Beliefs 4O .83 .80 Spiritual Well being 20 .89 .88 Stereotypes 52 .94 .93 Trust 26 .91 .91 a The items on the sexual perfectionism subscale were reworded to express desire for the partner to be sexually perfect, rather than to express a desire for the self to be sexually perfect, as written in the original scale. 162 .mO.VQ a umnejc macs: ammummc ecu ob pmpcsou mum mmocmm a mm.HI oo.m> I oo.mmT. vv.mm mm.mm oo.Nh I oo.HwI nm.am mA.0v umsue mo. oo.H>H I oo.om mm.HN Ho.HHH oo.me I oo.Hm No.mm NH.HHH mog>oomumum mm. oo.oNH I oo.mv >>.mfl mm.HoH oo.omH I oo.mm om.vH mm.HoH ocflmp Hamz Hmsuflugdm . >u0ucm>cH mm. oo.mma I vm.Hm mm.qH Ha.mm oo.me I oo.vo Hm.mfi mn.mm wwwflamm dflcmcoflumamm mmpsuguu< xugucmpH Hm.HI oo.mv I oo.oH em.m em.vm oo.mv I oo.va mm.m om.mm awaomm cofimumEEH mm.I oo.va I oo.mm mm.mH om.moH mm.vva I oo.mm om.mH om.moH ucmEumsmpg oflpm>o em. oo.NeH I oo. mm.wm mm.mm oo.voH I oo. mm.mm mm.vm >u0ucm>cH EODQE>m umflum . coHomusuasoo< om.I oo.vom I Hm.mm >>.mm m>.mma oo.nam I oo.mm mo.Hm mm.mmH cm0wumE< cmofiuud Imv.m oo.HN I oo.m mm.v om.mH oo.HN I oo.m mm.v mm.oH mmugzz mpumzoe umocd me.I ov.h I Hm.m mm. mm.v mo.> I mm.m ow. mo.m xoflofluucmoouud msam> mocmm om cmmz wocmm om cmwz mamom Io cmeoz cmz mmamom Loumommm mnu co mmocmumMMHo mHmEmmeHmz pom mmmcmm .mcoHumH>mo pumpcmbm .mcmmz v manme 163 Table 5 Correlations Between the Men and Women on the Research Scales Scale N (paired) Correlationa Afrocentricity 110 .51*** E Anger Towards Whites 109 .16 African American Acculturation 109 .25** Brief Symptom Inventory 109 .17 Dyadic Adjustment 106 .60*** Immersion Racial Identity Attitudes 109 .33*** Relationship Beliefs Inventory 107 .19 Spiritual Well being 111 .04 Stereotypes 111 .18 Trust 112 .51*** *Q g .05, ** p < .01, ***Q S .001, 164 Table 6 Correlations Between Scores on the Research Scales and Afrocentricity Scores Afrocentricity (ASC) Research Scales Men’s Research Women’s Research Scales With:a Scales With: Men's ASC Women’s ASC Women’s ASC Men’s ASC Anger Towards .14 .15 .22* .25** Whites Biculturalism .13 .02 .02 .04 Brief Symptom -.O3 -.01 -.10 .01 Inventory ' Dyadic -.09 -.O4 -.01 .03 Adjustment Immersion .35*** .17 .24* .22* Racial Identity Attitudes Relationship -.01 .07 -.16 .ll Beliefs Inventory Spiritual Well —.01 .06 .07 .03 Being Stereotypes -.13 ‘ -.21* -.20* -.08 Trust .03 .05 .06 -.03 a Note: The first gender given always refers to the research scales, and the second always refers to Afrocentricity (ASC). * E<.os,** 9<.01, ***9<.001. 165 Table 7 Correlations Between Scores on the Predictor Scales and the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) Scores ab Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) Predictcuf Men’s Research Scales Women’s Research With:c Scales With: Scales Men’s BSI Women’s BSI Women’s BSI Men’s BSI Anger Towards .15 .05 .09 .02 Whites Biculturalism .20* .20* .21* .03 Immersion .37*** .27** .36*** .06 Racial Identity Attitudes Relationship .59*** .12 .50*** .21* Beliefs Inventory Spiritual -.35*** -.O6 -.28** .05 Well Being Stereotypes .42*** .27** .45*** .16 3 Refer to Table 8 for correlations involving Afrocentricity' b Higher BSI scores indicate increased maladjustment. C The first gender given always refers to the research scales, and the secOnd always refers to BSI scores. * p<.OS,** p<.01, ***p<.001. 166 Table 8 Correlations Between Scores on the Predictor Scales and Couple Trust and Relationship Quality Scores Couple Relationship Predictor Scales Couple Trust Quality E. Mena Women Men Women Afrocentricity .02 .08 -.05 -.01 Anger Towards -.08 -.12 .09 -.06 i Whites Biculturalism -.18 -.25** -.17 -.Ol Immersion Racial Identity -.29** -.24* -.30** -.13 Attitudes Relationship -.38*** -.45*** -.46*** -.32*** Beliefs Inventory Spiritual Well .36*** .08 .33*** .10 Being Stereotypes -.33*** -.28** -.31*** -.28** a The gender given always refers to the research scales, as the column variables involve couple scores. * Eg.05,** 95.01, ***95.001. 167 .Hoo.vm.44 .Ho.vm .I.mo.vm I .coflumsqm mcu Cu pmppm ma c0auomumucH ecu >p u0w pwucsooom mocmwum> mcu cm£3.mm Ce mmmmuoca ms» Ou mumwmu mocmco mm a >uflofluucm00uu< u omd pom .cmz u z .cmeo3 u 3 .mEOuQE>m n xm "mcofiumfl>muppm mum mcflonHou mce a aN.I 1am .mc mm.m mo.\go. .eN.I a magmas \.om< I z a ummca I z mausoo m magmas \ I spasmso om.I Amoa .mv live.m vo.\mH. «mH.I Umd I z w ocflmn Ham3 Hmsufluflgm I z dflcmcoflumamm m musmflm \ 6N.I Amos .mv ..Ima. mo.\gm. ..mN.I owe I 3 a magma Hams Hmsugugam I z a manage \ mm.I imofi .mc ...om.HA HH.\¢N. ..Imm.I om< I 2 a magma Hams Hmsugugam I z amuse .mmgasoo .m magmas \ mmmuumgo om.I lmofl .mv .I.mH.HH mo.\mm. .mH.I oma I z a mmaxuomumum m>gumomz I 3 to xm I 3 N musoam \ Umd I 3 w . mmmuumflo mm.I AooH .mv 444vw.va mo.\Hm. 4HN.I mmmaamm dflcmcoflumaom HmcoflumuuH I 3 mo xm I 3 M amocmcu newsman ocflpcoammuuoo \ A>Hco Hmfluumm up .m ~m\mm mumm memes cofluomumuch mucuofipmum amflumufluu Nueamso manmcoflumamm pcm umsue m.mamsoo m2» ppm mmmuumflo mo mEOumexm Hmspfl>flch co mmapmflum> uOuoHpmum ecu ppm xuflofluucwoouum cmm3umm mcoHuomumucH ucmofluflcmflm m wapme 168 .Hoo.vm414 .Ho.vm.. .mo.vmI so. Hm. ..em. .mm. mH. .NN. mHasoo I Hague NH.I ..em.I IHN.I ..mN.I ..sm.I ..Hm.I amasuomumum «H. mH. 40. mo. mo. mH. ochn HHmz HmsuHHHam zuOucm>cH .mo.- ..om.I ..Iam.I .mm.I ...mm.- ..Nm.I , mumHHmm inmcoHumHmm aH. .mN.I , sH.I ..1em.I mH.I I..mm.I mmuauHuua conHmeeH mw magsoo .1 so.I mH. 6H. INN. mo. AH. I HUHHmzo QHcmcoHumHmm wo.I NH.I ..Imm.I .NN.I IIImm.I INN.I suoucm>cH scuaasm umHHm NH. oH.I mH.I .mm.I so.I ..Hm.I EmHHmHauHsuHm mo. .Iom.I HH. 6H.I 1am. Iv~.I . mmHan mnumzos Hmoc< .mH. OH.I ma. mo.I «aom. aa. >uHUHHuchOHu¢ cmEo3 cm: cmEo3 cm: cmEO3 cm: mmamom coummmmm I. mEoocH mSuMum poo coHumospm mmmmmm mHmom m.wHQ:OU ecu Ho C30 Hesse pcm msumum UHEocoomoHoom .mucmmaoauumm ecu cmmzumm mcoHumHmHHOU OH manme .Hoo.vm... .Ho.vm.. .mo.vm. mH.I so. ..Ime.I mH.I 1.14m.I I.>H.I mmaxuomumum mo. .mN.I 00. OH. 00. No.I ochn HHmz HmsuHuHam >H0ucm>cH mo.I mH.I VH.I ..Hm.I NH.I IImN.I mumHHmm chmcoHumHmm r O om.I mo.I i.mm.I .aN.I Iom.I .HN.I mmnsuHuu< conHmEEH n HN.I vo.I eH.I ..em.I 6H.I 44mm.I >H0ucm>cH ecuaesm umHHm NH.I so.I .Iom.I mH.I NH.I .mm.I . smHHmusuHson mo.I oH.I oH.I mo. mo.I No. mmuer mnumzoe Hmmca mH. vo.I mo. mH. HH. ma. >uHowuucmooum< cmEo3 cm: cmEoz cm: cmEO3 cmz mmamom zoummmmm mEoocH msumum poo scaumospm mnu co mwuoom .mumcDumm mMHOUm MHmUm smuwcuumm HAMLH. UCM MSUMUm UHEOCOUGOHUOW smucmmwofiuumm mnu C0m3umm mCOHUMHUHHOU Ha maflme Hoo.wm....Ho.wm.. .coflumsgw ecu mo xooHp pcoomm ecu OucH pmumucm we ob magmas mm: Hmmpsufluu< conumEEH ppm Emfiamusuasoem .m.Hv manmaum> HOuuflpmuQ pcoomm ecu .mmmmo Ham cH a 171 mopsueuuc mmmuumflo 44mm.I Hem .HV mm.> ho. conHmEEH I z w msumum poo o‘cmz wo mEOugE>m m.cmeo3 Emeamusuasoem mmmuumflo IImN.I Hem .Hv NH.> no. I z w msumum poo m.cmz mo mEOugexm m.cmEo3 Emaamusuasowm mmmuumeo ..Imm.I iHoH .Hi Ha.mH NH. I z a moomom ooo I 3 ‘ Ho mEoooe>m m.coeoz . EmHHMHSuHSUHm mmmuumHo 44mN.I Aoofl .HV mm.w mo. I 3 w mSUMum Hmcoflumospm I 2 mo mEOuaexm m.cmEo3 . . Emeamusuasoflm mmmuumfio IImN.I iooH .Hv ae.o mo. I z a moomom HmcoHomooom I 2 go meooossm m.cosoz Emflamusuasoem mmmuumHo .m~.I iom .Ho mm.m mo. I z a moooom ooo I 2 go msooossm m.coz Emeamusuasoem mmmuumflo IH~.I AeoH .Ho Ho.v mo. I z a moomom HmcoHomooom I z oo meoooesm m.coz mamm mp msam>Im ~m mucuoapoum mHHmuHHU ammmHumHo mo m60umexm m.cmEo3 one a mucuoflpmum ecu cmmzumm mmumepmz nonwom anocoomofioom LUHL3 cH mconmmummm NH wanme .Hoo.vm... .HO.Vm a... ~mO.Vm 1.. .coHumsqm ecu ob pmppm ma coHuomumucH ecu >2 Ho“ poucsooum wocmgum> mru :m23.mm ca mmmmuucfl mcu Ou mumumu wocmco m3 .msumum oHEocoomoHoom u mmm pom .cwz u z .cmeo3 n 3 HchHume>munpm mum ocaonHOM one 9 a ma musmfim \ mmouumflo om. imoH .mo ...vm@.NH HH.\sN. ..Iam. mom I 3 a ocHoo HHoz HmooHHHom oo xm I 2 ma sundae \ mmmuumao Nv.I AvoH .mv 444mm.mH mH.\Nm. Iaimm.I mmm I 3 a mmg>uomuoum m>Humomz mo xm I z . va musmam \ mmmuumflo mmf SS .2 :3... mo.\HH. .emf mom I z o modsoooumom o>Humooz go xm I 2 ma Gunman \ .mmmuumflo aN.I imoH .mo I.mo.m mo.\mH. ..Hm.I mom I 3 a moosooouoom o>Homooz Ho xm I z I NH mHSOAm \ mmwuumflo om.I AvoH .mv Iiivo.va HH.\mN. 444mm.I mum I z a mmd>uomumum m>Hummmz mo xm I 2 HH ousoHo \ mom I z a mmouomHo vm.I Heed .mv 444mm.mm mo.\mo. Iaaam.I mmmaamm QflLmCOeumHmm HmcoflumuuH mo xm I 2 OH ousoHo \ mom I z a mmouomHo vN.I HHoH .mv «Imv.v mo.\mfi. «mm.I mumfiamm ganmcoflumamm HmcoflumuHH mo xm I z a oHooHo \ mom I z o mmmuomHo om.I AvoH .mv IIIHm.om mo.\mm. IwH.I mwmaamm dflcmcoHumHmm HmcofiumuuH uo xm I z m musoflm mmmuumflo omf 83 .C .1434. mo.\mH. me \ mmm I 3 w mopsueuud c0amum§5 uo xm I z u nomcmco Housman mchcommeuou \ HmHuumm up .3 Nmmwm muom A>Hco mEume coHuomuwuchmHOuoflpme amflumuauu mmmuumfio mo mEOuQENm m.cmz mzb co moanmflum> HoboprHm ecu pcm msumum anocooooHoom :mmzumm mcofluomumucH ucmoHuHcmHm ma manme 172 .Hoo.vm... .Ho.vm ...mo.vm . .coflumsqm ecu ob popes mH coHuomHmucH ecu >p HOM poucsooom mocmflum> ecu cm23,mm CH mmmmuocfl ecu ou mumwmu mmcmzo mm a .msumum anocooooHoom u mum pom .cm: H z .cmeo3 n 3 .mEODQE>m u xm umc0eume>muppm mum ocaonHOM one a Hm musoflm mmmuumwo mN.I lmoH .mv .IImo.mH eo.\sm. .HN.I \ mom I z a moosooouoom o>Homooz I 3 oo xm I 3 om wusoam mmmuumflo aN.I imoH .mc I..3H.VH so.\mm. .mN.I \ mom I 3 a moosooouoom o>Homomz I 3 oo xm I 3 mH ouooHo \ mom I z a , mmouomHo HN.I AvoH .mv «44ma.va mo.\mm. 4HN.I mumHHom chmcoHumHmm HmcoHDmHHH.I 3 u0 xm I 3 ma musmflm mmmuumflo vN.I Area .mv IIIVm.m mo.\om. Ivm.I \ mmm I z a menopauud conumEEH I 3 no xm I 3 3H muggem mmmuumflo mmf :2 .3 «Imméa vo.\vm. Immf \ mmm I 3 a mopsufluuz coflmumcEH I 3 «0 xm I 3 m amocmnu Housman OCHUCOQmmHHou \ HmHuHmm up a ~m\La mumm Axaco mEume coHuomumuch muOuoflpmHm omHHmuHHO mmmuumflo mo mEODQE>m m.cmEo3 who :0 moHQMeHm> uOuoHpmum one new msumum oHEocoomofioom cmm3uwm mcofluomumucH ucmofiwacmflm ea wanme 173 .HOO.VW%4.¢ .HO.Vm a... .mO.Vm « .coHumsqm one Oh pmpcm mfl COfluUmu®UCfl mfiu >3 MOM UQUCDOUUM mUCMHHm> mfiu EmEZ er:.m@0®HUCH MLU Cu mumwmu mOCMLU Wu 9 .msumum UHEocoomoHUom u mmm pcm .cez u z .cmeo3 u 3 umcoHumH>munnm mum mcaonHOw ens a vm musoflm Donne em. imoH .mo ..mm.e so.\HH. ..mm. \ mom I 3 a moon3 moumzoe Hooc< I z .moHozoo mm musoflm ensue ma. Hmoa .mv ahw.m vo.\mo. Ima. \ mmm I E a mmuH£3 mpumzoe um0C< I Z .meQDOU mm mm muson umsue .1 mm. imoH .mo lime.e mo.\HH. 4mm. \ mom I z a soHoHHoooonga I z .moHoooo nmocmcu Housman asapcogmmuuou \ m HmHuHmm up ..m ~m\$m mumm Azaco mEume cofluomumuch mHOuoapmHm mmHHmuauo umsue m.mHmsou mfiu CO WGHDMHHG> HOUUHUMHQ MEU UCM WDUMUW UfiEOCOUGOHUOW C®m3u®m WCOHUUMHQUCH UCMUMMHCUAW ma mange ma coHuomumucH och 3p How poucsooom mocmflum> may cmcz.mm ca mmmmuoce onu.0u muoumu mocmco mi .msumum UHEocoomOAUOm u mmm pom .cmz u 2 .cmEo3 u 3 Hmcoflumfl>munnm mum ocflonHOM one .HOO.Vm_.;C.F .HO.Vm «a .mO.Vm a. .coflumsqm mcu ob poppm n a. meadsoo em ouooHu I 3oHHmoo mm. lmoH .mo ..oa.a mo.\mH. 4mm. \ mom I 3 a moosooouoom o>Homooz I 3 oHrmcoHomHom mwadsou I 4 mm muson I xuflamso mm. 1mm .mo ..eH.m NH.\¢H. 4.3m. \ mom I 3 a mooHc3 moumzoe Hooca I z onmcoHomHom mmHgsou mm muson I >DHHm30 mm. Amm .mv 4mm.m mo.\mo. 4mm. \ mmm I z a mmuHc3 mpumzoe nomad I z QHcmcoHumHmm ommcmcu musmam mcflpcoammuuou \ m HmHuHmm up 3 ~m\wi whom HA>HcO mEHme cpoomumuch muOuoHpmHm cmHHmuflHO xufiamso mHzmcoHumHmm m.mHmsou one :0 mmemHHm> Hoboprum ecu pcm msumum oflEocoomoHoom cmm3umm mcofluomumucH ucmoewflcmHm ma magma 175 Table 17 Differences Between Married and Unmarried Participants on Demographic Indices Demographic Men Women Variable Married Un— t- Married Un- t-value married value married Age 45.62 39.42 2.14* 43.65 36.94 2.35* Number of Dependents 2.14 1.75 .80 1.87 1.24 1.60 Education 16.20 14.47 2.39* 16.03 14.32 1.95 Job Status 48.43 23.17 4.03*** 50.43 36.41 1.65 Religiosity 3.10 3.21 -.59 3.29 3.25 .25 Practice of Religion 4.17 3.69 1.65 4.41 3.69 1.99 Yearly Income 53000 25000 1.74 40000 32000 1.01 Length of Relation- Ship (couple)b 17.44 6.50 5.92*** a The incomes are rounded to the nearest thousand dollars. b Only the women’s reports were used for this couple variable. 59 5 .05, ** p 5 .01, ***E E .001. 176 Table 18 Differences Between Married and Unmarried Couples on the Research 92213 Research Men Women Scales Married Un- t— Married Un- t- married 'value married value Afrocen- tricity 208.84 220.06 ~1.79 208.98 207.81 .17 Anger 10.90 10.68 .19 11.91 14.21 —1.91 Biculturalism 17.31 25.76 I—l.65 26.20 23.53 -.84 Brief Symptom Inventory 22.87 31.06 I—1.10 21.79 42.05 -l.97 Relationship Quality (Couple) 103.94 97.73 1.37 N/A Immersion Racial Identity Attitudes 25.04 29.42 -3.03** 23.88 29.63 -3.23** Relationship Beliefs 92.88 98.44 —1.40 92.30 109.17 —4.85*** Spiritual Well—Being 101.97 98.55 .92 102.48 99.30 .92 Stereotypes 109.94 117.22 —l.23 107.89 126.26 -3.55** Trust (Couple) 31.94 19.74 2.85** N/A * p 5 .05, ** p 5 .01, ***E 5 .001, 177 .HOO.Vmaii ~HO.Vm as ~mo.vm « .cofluesqe ego Op peppe . ma coHuoeHeucH ecu >2 HOM peucsooee eeceHHe> ezu ceL3.mm ca emeeuoca ecu ob mueweu eocezo men .quoHHuceeon< u Umfi pce .mpcenmsz n I .me>H3 u 3 ”escapee>eupne eue oca3OHHOw ese 6 mm ousoHo \ imoHogoov mm.I 133 .mV mo.m mo.\ao. ..3N.I owe I 3 a mooH33 moumzoe Hmoca I 3 soHHmso dHcmcoHeeHem mm ouooHo \ mm.- 163 .mi IIIae.o oo.\aH. Iem.I ome I 3 a ocHoo HHoz HmsoHuHom I 3 Hm oHooHe \ mm.I lam .mv IIIamnm oH.\NN. .Imm.I om< I 3 a ocHoo HHo3 HmooHHHom I 3 om ousoHo \ NN.I 163 .mV ao.m mo.\so. INN.I om< I 3 a mooH33 moumzoe 066:4 I 3 am I ousoHo \ imoHosooo NN.I lam .mv IIao.m 6o.\mH. I6N.I om< I 3 a moosoooumom o>Homooz I 3 66:36 mm eusoam \ mmeuumHo mm. 1mm .mo 4.68.6 oo.\mH. Iam. owe I 3 a moosoHooc conHoEEH I 3 mo xm I 3 oemceco ”meusoflm ocapCOQmeuuou \ Axaco w Heflouem up 3 ~m\m3 eoem meuee COauoeHeuch mucueflpeum 6eHueuHHO eameem pefluuez esp MOM mereHHe> mEOUUSO MLU co mereHHe> nouofipeum ecu pce xuaoHuuceeoum< ceezuem mcofiuoeueucH ucmoHMHcmHm ma eabme 178 Appendix B Figures 1-33 179 AFROCENTRIC MARITALLY ADJUSTED COUPLES LOW HIGH Afrocentricity X Stereotypes Immersion-Emersion Biculturalism X Anger X Spirituality X Symptoms of distress Irrational relationship beliefs X Trust Relationship quality AFROCENTRIC MARITALLYIMALADJUSTED COUPLES LOW HIGH Afrocentricity Stereotypes Immersion-Emersion Biculturalism X Anger X Spirituality X Symptoms of Distress Irrational Relationship Beliefs Trust Relationship Quality Figure 1. Two types of couples who are highly Afrocentric. 180 «8.5%: .«o mESmEAm 55° :2: :o b_o_.=:ooo...«< 95:53 2: one £23m minnows—om 3.832.: 95:33 2: 5953* 5:23:55 2: mo 83am .N flawfi 5:83 .. max—om Simian—om 3:222: Eugcouohxx 33 LT b_o_b:oooc< 5:602 III EoEcooou< 3333 ll uamoM - ssaizsgq go smoidmfis 181 b_o_b:ouob< 364 III 36350033.. 8332 Ill b_o.5:ooob< 39: lol 20me .«o 3.835% 55o LEAH HS 532E323. 3.5an on: use 8353..on 953qu 95535 2: nooEom 539.28.: 2: .3 33am .m 9.533 5an - wastes—«4 snow—.3. 523‘ 833.32on 95332 uamoM - ssansgq jo smoidmfis 182 «3:. .83—80 2: .8 3392339.: who: 05 use 9:99:03 EST—Em 3.52 2: 503.com 532285 2: no 38am .v PEME no: I u:_om-=o>9 REE—m bmuwbcuooagx .53 LT b_umb:oooh< H5352 III bHombcoooheH 33: lol aldnog) - 124ml 183 «nah. .33—EU on. :o b_u_.==ooo.c< 95:83 2: can mafia—33> BET—Em 3.52 2: 59:35 gouge—85 05 mo Sacha .m charm no: I wEomI=u>> FEE—m $355854 33+ b65283? 5582+ I . bsmbuoooac. _ , i _. aldnog) - ism; 184 3:25 332832013 .8350 2: no 36:332.: 3.52 2: 3.3 “53:33 EST—Em who: 2: 5050mm 5:99.85 2: ..o 38.3— .e Esme” 5:. masmiskaarom 36538094 .53 LT 32.533033. .5382 III b_o_b:ooo.a< 3333 lol aldnog) - Amun‘o dgqsuopalau 185 bmoEcooob’x 33 LT b_o_b=ouob< sauce; Ill bmuficoooba‘. :3: lol 3:30 3:28:29“ .33—50 2: :o bfituaooofi< 9:02 2: 6.3 353.5 ESE 82>? gingham «mumawax .893 who: 2: nooEom 55228.: 2: mo scuba .b 2sz 52 - 35:7: .232 83>) “5&8qu amiawd. .393. aldnog - fluent) dgqsuopalau 186 “3.3m 282.8368 EEOGOODOMUOW :3: lol 3955 no “ESQ—chm who: 2: E. £55m 38288295 95:83 2: can mocsxt< 5:58.:— mio—z on. 5953— 5:938:— 05 no vacuum .w 9.53,.“ :02 - 8c3§< .3553 ESE nova—«8:: new - ssansgq JO smOJdeS 187 masm 289580.58. Um EOCOOOOBOW .3: If: 2..»me mo «SSA—Ehm 9:02 2: .5 252m 28830308 352 2: can £23m 3:28:29: 128:3: who: 2: nooiom 5:222:— 2: Ho 33:: .a 959m 52 - 223m mimnfififim 128:2: new - ssausgq JO swogdtuxs 188 mBSm EEO—Bouomoow 33 LT macaw 25058208 :56»: III 3% o_Eo=oouo_uom :3: lol 89me mo 2:32—83 who: 2: no 335 282.3335 9:233 2: :5 223: 3:23:53— .«nomuatm 95:83 2: 5953mm 28:222.: 2: .«c 83.5— .3 ohawE 585$ - flow—om 2.322333% 33:3: new - sswsgq JO smoadmfis 189 masw ago—88068 25280208 :9: I6! 29:»:— uc «Boga—E3 9:02 2: 5. 258m 2:858:38 95:83 2: 6:: 22.0: 2:32:59: 35:2: 9:22 2: :ooEom 5:222:— 2: we 38.5— .: 2:2,: :92 - 22?: 2:22:23: 3:33.:— . H .1: 13w? new - ssansgq go suxmdmxs 190 9.9me .3 «Egan—hm 9:02 2: 2. 255m u_Ec:oooc_uom 9:02 2: :2“ mun—38.5% 3:5qu 3:02 2: :ooEom 5:09.25 2: ..o £25m .Nfi PEER :92 -m:3_.8:_< :3_:< 327‘ monboousm o>:«woz 253m 28258208 4 .g.‘ «(1" m UMEOEOOOOTVOW :3: lol uaw - ssansga JO smmdmfis 191 35m umEo:oooo_oom 33 LT. 25% BEOEOUoomoow 8332 Ill ”38m 3225:8838 .3: lol “"8me .3 25.383 9:92 2: :o magnum 2888255 3:0an 2: :5 8908.52 o>:«woz 3:22.35 2: :ooEum 5:222:— 2: ..o 88.5w .2 PSME 5:33 2:28:32 :ao_.:< 33¢. womb—8.5% 9:332 uaw - ssansgq JO smojdums 192 55m omEououooBom 250280208 .3: IT «8.55 .3 «585:3 9:92 2: 5. 252m. 3528365 9:02 2: :5 8:58.32 3::qu 95:83 2: :ooEom 5:09.25 2: we 38mm .3 2:2,: :2:o>> - m:au_:2:< :83: 28nd. monboohzm 95:32 uaw - ssansgq 30 SIHOJdlu/(S 193 20:05 :0 2:02:83 9:02 2: :0 «:35 280500208 95803 2: ::« 02:80:02 0>:aw0z 9:02 2: :00E0m 20:09.25 2: .«o 300:..m .2 0.52m :02 - m:u0_:0::< 26an 2.23: 00:58:05 0>:«w0 Z _ ad 06 v.0 N6 0 Nd- v.6. 0.0- 9o- masm 0_Eo:8oo_oom 33 if 035m 0.505822% 538: III 58m BEocooooUom :05 IT uaw - ssansgq Jo swozdums 194 028m 2:5:000208 U_EOGOOOO_UOW :2: IT. 20:29 no 083:8; 9:02 2: :0 2505 280500226 95803 2: :2: w:_0m-=0>9 352:5 9:02 2: :00E0m 25222:— 2: we 33.5w .3 0.52m 52 - 0:02:03 35:30 uaw - sswsgq JO smmdmfis 195 0.00:2: .«0 0,8398% 9:02:03 2: :0 055m 2:5:000200m 9:02:03 2: :5 825:2 :22225 9:02:03 2: :00E0m 5:00:25 2: :0 200.:m .5 0.52m :2:0>> - m0:::_:< 3:53 .222 :220:=E 035m 0_E0=000200m 280500208 :3: lol uamoM - ssansga JO smoadlufis 196 028m 2:5:00020om 2:5:000200m .2: Iol 0.00me :0 2:02.:rmm 9:02:03 2: :0 055m 2:5:000200m 9:02 2: 6:0 825:3: :02—08:: 95:53 2: :0050: 5:222:— 2: .«0 200:: .3 0.5»:— :0803 - “0:05:32 3:53 :22“: :22225 UOIIIOM - $39.13ng ’0 sulozdtufis 197 masm 2:5500200m 2255002020.. :2: lol 80:05 .5 080553 9:253 2: :0 0355 2.5500208 9:02 2: :5 20:0: 2:05:20: 55:2: 9:02:03 2: 50.50: 5:00:25 2: .5 200:: .3 0.52.: :253 .. 20:0: 2:05:20: 55:2: uamoM - ssansgq 10 smmdmfis 198 000.505 :0 080883 0.80803 2: :0 0.55m 3808000305 0.00803 2: 0:0 009300005 0>:«w0z 0.80803 2: 800E0m 00:082.: 2: :0 $00.:H .3 0.83m 00803 - 800to8< 8002.2 3025‘ 00900002m 0>:0w0z 088m 2800000208 2808000308 :3: Iol uamoM - ssansgq ;o swozdmfis 199 3.5m 8800000208 2080 2800000088 8800000208 :05 + 30:05 :0 0802—83 0.80803 2: :0 053m 0_80=0000_00m 0.802 2: .80 009300005 3:302 0.80803 2: 800.50m 00:09.02: 2: .«0 $00.:m— AN 0.8»5 80803 - 800i08< 802...: 8023‘ 0.253003% 0>:0w0z uamoM - ssansgq JO smogdums 200 0380 3808000208 28080002090; 5.82 + 0030 01808000208 .05 IT .08.; 0.0.0800 2: 80 088% 0:8080000_00m 0.802 2: :80 b_0_.:8000._:< 0.802 2: 800.50: 80:00:28: 2: :0 300:: .NN 088mm,: 802 - b_0_.:80008:< aldnog - 15ml 201 0350 8808000068 33 LT 2030 3808000208 05.002 III 0330 28080000208 :05 I6! «08.5. 0.0.0800 2: 80 035m 2808000305 0.802 2: :80 00:08?— 253 :030080: 0:80.508 80M8< 0.802 2: 800.50: 80:00.28: 2: :0 0:00:3— .m~ 0.882.: 802 - 00:03.8: 23>? 320080.: 0:80.508 00u8< aldnog - asml 202 0850 2808000208 33 LT 085w 0_8080000_00m 5382 III 0380 omaocouoomoow :05 Iol “088:. 0.0::800 2: 80 08:05 2808000200.,“ 0.80803 2: :80 00:08.28: 23>? :0>_00._0m 0:00.508 80w8< 0.802 2: 800.50: 80:00:28: 2: :0 800:: .5 0.82:: 802 - 00:03.8: 23>? :0>_00._0m 0:80.508 80w8< aldnog - um .I. 203 038w 28080002090 33 LT 0380 2808000308 2808000208 :05 IT b__080.&:080:0_0m 0.03800 2: 80 08:05 0_8080000_00m 0.802 2: :80 00:03.8: 2:5? :0>0_0._0m 0:00.508 00w8< 0.802 2: 800E0m 80:00.28: 2: :0 300:: .3 0.8me 802 - 00:03.8: 0:55 :0>_00.._0m 0:00.508 u0m8< aldnog - fluent) dgqsuopslag 204 3:080 2:080:20: 0.03800 2: 80 030% 2808000200m 0.80803 2: :80 00:08.28: 025$ :0>20..0m 0:80.508 h0w8< 0.802 2: 800.50: 80:00:28: 2: :0 0:00:3— .:N 0.82:: 802 - 00:00.28: 0255 320000.: 0:00.508 80w8< 0250 2800000208 2808000208 008 IT 205 aldnog - fluent) dgqsuopelag 03000 2808000208 2808000208 5332 III 0350 2800000208 00.: lol 3:080 2:080:20: 0.0.2.800 2: 80 038m 0.808000200m 0.80803 2: :80 025300005 90:507. 0.80803 2: 800.50: 80:00:28: 2: :0 800:0 8080.5 - 080200840 800.8:< 2.02;. 000.300.82m 0>:0u0z .2 00.0.0 aldnog - hglnno dgqsuoyelaa 206 000.505 :0 0802.83 0.80803 2: 80 b.0.h8000..:< 0.80803 2: :80 00:82:< 820.8088: 0.802 2: 800.50: 80:00:28: 2: :0 0.00:3: .mm 0.52.: 802 - 00:8:.:< 5:803 .200: 820.8088: b.0.88000:< 30... IT b.25:000::< 82:02 III b.0.b8000:< 00.: lo! uamoM - ssansgq JO smmdlufis 207 08.; 0.0.2.800 2: 80 b.0...:80008:< 0.802 2: :80 02.50002 0.5097. n b.0.b=0000:< >64 Lal b.0580000:< 83:02 III b.0.28000.u< 00.: IT .802 2: 800.50: 80:00:88: 2: :0 0:00:3— dN 0082...: 802 . 08020080: 802...: 2.2.0. 02.300.82m 02:037. aldnog - asml 208 000:. 0.0.:800 2: 80 b.0...:8000._:< 0.802 2: :80 00:02.8: 022.3 :0>.00..0.: 02030:. 00w8< 0.802 2: 800.50: 80:00:28: 2: :0 300:”: .cm 0.52.: 802 - 00:02.8: 0255 25.0000: 0:00.53. 00w8< 22.08000._:< .501. Lil 0.20580... .. . ., _, .. .H 05.82 III 20.000025. .3: IT aldnog - 15m; 209 .08.; 0.0...800 2: 80 b.0..58000..:< 0.802 2: :80 :8.0m-..0>? E82205 0.802 2: 800.50: 80:00:28: 2: :0 0.00:”: An 0.52:: 802 - w8.0m-..0>> .05.:Em , . .. r b.0..880008:< . 0......» 301: + 22.880000:< 83:02 Ill b.0..88000._:< :2: lol aldnog - asml 210 .08.; 0.0.2.800 2: 80 2.038000%... 0.80803 2: :80 w8.0m-..0>> .08—2.20m 0.802 2: 800.50: 80:09.28: 2: :0 0000:: .2 0.820: 52 - 0500-..; 35.000 b.0.b8000:< 30:: + b.0.b=000.:< 82:02 Ill b.0..880000:< 40.... Iol aldnog - 1sm .L 211 2:80 2:080:20: 0.0.0.800 2: 80 2.2580032: 0.802 2: :8 00:02.8: 028.3 :0>.00..00: 0:80.508 00u8< 0.802 2: 800.50: 80:00:28: 2: :0 0:00:5— .mm 0.82.: 802 - 00:02.8: 2.8.3 :0>.00._0n: 02030:. 00w8< 20.880008:< 30‘. I1! 228800002. 82:02 Ill 0.08:2: 002 IT aldnog - Ammo dgqsuopzlau 212 Appendix C DEMOGRAPHICS Code: Age: Sex: M F City of Residence: Education: Highest level COMPLETED...(Circle only one of the following) Grades: 6th or less 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th high school grad College/Specialized training: 1 2 3 4 5 graduate (BA/BS) Postgraduate Training: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+ (Degree? ) Occupation: 1) What kind of work are you doing? (for example: electrical engineer, stock clerk, farmer) 2) What are your most important activities or duties? (for example: kept account books, filed, sold cars) 3) What kind of business or industry is this? (for example: TV & radio mfg., retail shoe store, State labor) 4) Are you: (Mark one) an employee of a PRIVATE company, business or individual for wages, salary, or commissions? PR a GOVERNMENT employee (federal, state, county or local government)? GOV self-employed in OWN business, professional practice or farm? own business not incorporated (or farm) OWN own business incorporated INC working WITHOUT PAY in a family business or farm? WP Income: Are you a paid employee? If so, what is your individual income 5 bi—weekly/monthly/yearly (Circle one) Number of dependents: The average income of the household in which you grew up: $ Religion: What is your religion? How religious would you describe yourself as being? very moderately not very not at all (Circle closest answer) How often do you practice your religion? daily weekly monthly yearly never (Circle closest answer) Relationship: I have known my partner months/years (Circle one), lived with my partner for months/years (Circle one). Including now? Y N Circle the category that BEST describes the status of your current relationship with your partner: 1. in a serious dating relationship for years/months 2. living together for years/months 3. engaged for years7months. Living together? Y N 4. married for years/months 213 Appendix D Spiritual Well being Scale For each of the following statements, circle the choice that best indicates the extent of your agreement or disagreement as it describes your personal experience: EEE§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§EE SA = Strongly Agree V D = Disagree MA = Moderately Agree M A = Agree S l. I don’t find much satisfaction in private prayer with God. SA 2. I don’t know who I am, where I came from, or where I’m going. SA 3. I believe that God loves me and cares about me. SA 4. I feel that life is a positive experience. SA 5. I believe that God is impersonal and not interested in my daily situations. SA 6. I feel unsettled about my future. SA 7. I have a personally meaningful relationship with God. SA 8. I feel very fulfilled and satisfied with life. SA 9. I don’t get much personal strength and support from my God. SA 10. I feel a sense of well being about the direction my life is headed in. SA 11. I believe that God is concerned about my problems. SA 12. I don’t enjoy much about life. SA 13. I don’t have a personally satisfying relationship with God. SA 14. I feel good about my future. SA 15. My relationship with God helps me not to feel lonely. SA 16. I feel that life is full of conflict and unhappiness. SA 17. I feel most fulfilled when I’m in close communion with God. SA 18. Life doesn’t have much meaning. SA 19. My relation with God contributes to my sense of well being. SA 20. I believe there is some real purpose for my life. SA 214 W 35 >CD 35 b 3>$i 2535 y 33 > 35 @2D 3’ ID 3’ 8 D = Moderately Disagree D = Strongly Disagree MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD MD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD sh SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD Appendix E The African American Acculturation Scale and the Anger Scale Please tell us how much you personally agree or disagree with the beliefs and attitudes listed below by circling a number. There is no right or wrong answer. We want your honest opinion. I Totally Disagree I Sort of Agree I Strongly Agree Not True at all Sort of True Absolutely True 1. Most ofthe music I listen to is by Black artists. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. I like Black music more than White music. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. The person I admire the most is Black. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. I listen to Black radio stations. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. I try to watch all the Black shows on TV. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. Most of my friends are Black. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. I believe in the Holy Ghost. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. I believe in heaven and hell. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. I like gospel music. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. I am currently a member ofa Black church. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 I 1. Prayer can cure disease. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. The church is the heart ofthe Black community. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 I3. I know how to cook chit’lins. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 I4. I eat chit’lins once in a while. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 IS. Sometimes, I cook ham hocks. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 I6. I know how long you’re supposed to cook collard I 2 3 4 5 6 7 greens. I7. I went to a mostly Black elementary school. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 18. I grew up in a mostly Black neighborhood. I 2 3 4 S 6 7 I9. I went to (or go to) a mostly Black high school. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 20. I avoid splitting a pole. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 21. When the palm ofyou hand itches, you‘ll receive I 2 3 4 5 6 7 some money. 22. There’s some truth to many old superstitions. I 2 3 4 S 6 7 23. I have seen people “fall out.” I 2 3 4 5 6 7 24. I know what “falling out” means. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 25. When I was a child, I used to play tonk. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 26. I know how to play bid whist. ’ I 2 3 4 5 6 7 215 ..CJ I Totally Disagree I Sort of Agree I Strongly Agree Not True at all Sort of True Absolutely True 27. It’s better to try to move your whole family ahead I 2 3 4 5 6 7 in this world than it is to be out for only yourself. 28. Old people are wise. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 29. When I was young, my parent(s) sent me to stay 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 with a relative (aunt, uncle, grandmother) for a few days or weeks, and then I went back home again. 30. When I was young, I took a bath with my sister, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 brother, or some other relative. *** In addition to answering the following questions, please indicate how angry each belief makes you feel. If you do not have the belief, please circle “1” for Not Angry At All.*** I Totally Disagree I Sort of Agree I Strongly Agree Not True at all Sort of True Absolutely True 313. IQ tests were set up purposefully to discriminate I 2 3 4 5 6 7 against Black people. Not Angry Somewhat Extremely At All Angry Angry 31b. This belief makes me feel: I 2 3 4 5 6 7 I Totally Disagree I Sort of Agree 1 Strongly Agree Not True at all Sort of True Absolutely True 323. Most tests (like the SATs and tests to get ajob) are I 2 3 4 5 6 7 set up to make sure that Blacks don’t get high scores on them. Not Angry Somewhat Extremely At All Angry Angry 32b. This beliefmakes me feel: I 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 Totally Disagree I Sort of Agree 1 Strongly Agree Not True at all Sort of True Absolutely True 33a. Deep in their hearts, most White people are racists. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not Angry Somewhat Extremely At All Angry Angry 33b. This belief makes me feel: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Note: Items 31b, 32b, and 33b are the three items which comprise the Anger Towards Perceived White Racial Injustice Scale. 216 Appendix F Black Racial Identity Attitudes Scale This questionnaire is designed to measure people’s social and political attitudes. There are no right or wrong answers. Different peOpIe have different viewpoints, so try to be as honest as you can. Beside each statement, circle the number that best describes how you feel. Use the scale below to respond to each statement. 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Disagree Agree 1. I believe that being Black is a positive experience. I 2 3 4 5 2. I know through my personal experiences what being Black in America means. I 2 3 4 5 3. I feel unable to involve myself in White experiences and am increasing my I 2 3 4 5 involvement in Black experiences. 4. I believe that large numbers of Blacks are untrustworthy. 5. I feel an overwhelming attachment to Black people. 6. I involve myself in causes that will help all oppressed people. 7. I feel comfortable wherever I am. 8. I believe that White people look and express themselves better than Blacks. 9. I feel very uncomfortable around Black people. 10. I feel good about being Black, but do not limit myself to Black activities. I l. I often find myself referring to White people as honkies, devils, pigs, etc. 12. I believe that to be Black is not necessarily good. 13. I believe that certain aspects of the Black experience apply to me, and others do not. 14. I frequently confront the system and the man. - l 15. I constantly involve myselfin Black political and social activities (art shows, 1 2 3 4 political meetings, Black theater, etc.). 16. I involve myselfin social action and political groups even ifthere are no other .1 2 3 4 5 Blacks involved. 17. I believe that Black people should learn to think and experience life in ways I 2 3 4 5 which are similar to White peOpIe. 18. I believe that the world should be interpreted from a Black perspective. I 2 I9. I have changed my style of life to fit my beliefs about Black people. I 2 20. I feel excitement andjoy in Black surroundings. l 2 21. I believe that Black people came from a strange, dark, and uncivilized continent. l 2 l 2 l 2 l 2 NNNNNNNNNN wwwwwwwwww Ahhhhbbfibb MMU’IMMMMMMM IN.) 0) A MM 22. People, regardless of their race, have strengths and limitations. 23. I find myself reading a lot of Black literature and thinking about being Black. 24. I feel guilty and/or anxious about some of the things I believe about Black people. 25. I believe that a Black person’s most effective weapon for solving problems is l 2 3 4 5 to become part of the White person’s world. 26. I speak my mind regardless of the consequences (e.g., being kicked out of I 2 3 4 5 school, being imprisoned, being exposed to danger). 27. I believe that everything Black is good, and consequently, I limit myselfto Black 1 2 3 4 5 activities. 28. I am determined to find my Black identity. I 2 3 4 5 29. I believe that White people are intellectually superior to Blacks. I 2 3 4 5 217 9 __‘_ 5J- I’fl‘_"‘ _ _ 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. l 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Uncertain Agree Strongly Disagree Agree I believe that because 1 am Black, I have many strengths. 1 2 I feel that Black people do not have as much to be proud of as White people do. I 2 Most Blacks I know are failures. 1 2 I believe that White people should feel guilty about the way they have treated I 2 Blacks in the past. White people can’t be trusted. l 2 In today’s society if Black people don’t achieve, they have only themselves to I 2 blame. The most important thing about me is that I am Black. I 2 Being Black just feels natural to me. I 2 Other Black people have trouble accepting me because my life experiences have I 2 been so different from their experiences. Black people who have any White people’s blood should feel ashamed of it. 1 2 Sometimes, I wish I belonged to the White race. I 2 The people I respect most are White. 1 2 A person’s race usually is not important to me. I 2 I feel anxious when White people compare me to other members of my race. 1 2 I can’t feel comfortable with either Black people or White people. 1 2 A person’s race has little to do with whether or not s/he is a good person. I 2 When I am with Black people, I pretend to enjoy the things they enjoy. I 2 When a stranger who is Black does something embarrassing in public, I get 1 2 embarrassed. I believe that a Black person can be close friends with a White person. 1 2 I am satisfied with myself. 1 2 I 2 I have a positive attitude about myself because I am Black. 218 wwww WU) 00030.) 0) wwwwwwwww Mb.) bib-b4; AA 3A4} A hAAA-bA-bA-h AA ML): LAM MMLIILI’I M MMMMMMMMM kl. Utklt Appendix G Stereotype Scale Please complete the following items by writing the number of one of the answers below which most clearly represents your personal opinion next to each statement. l.strongly 2.agree 3.neither agree 4.disagree 5.strongly agree nor disagree disagree 1. Most Black people are ashamed of themselves are lazy neglect their families (don’t’ take care of them) are lying or trifling are hard working do for others give up easily are weak are proud of themselves are selfish are community oriented are intelligent are hypersexual (over-sexed) are competent (capable) 2. Most Black men are ashamed of themselves are lazy neglect their families (don’t take care of them) are lying or trifling are hard working do for others give up easily are weak are proud of themselves are selfish are community oriented are intelligent are hypersexual (over-sexed) are competent (capable) are chauvinistic (sexist) are charismatic (full of personality) are dominating towards women are respectful towards women are faithful to their partners 2 1 9 l.strongly 2.agree 3.neither agree 4.disagree 5.strongly agree nor disagree disagree 3. Most Black women are ashamed of themselves are lazy neglect their families (don’t take care of them) are lying or trifling are hard working do for others give up easily are weak are proud of themselves are selfish are community oriented are intelligent are hypersexual (over-sexed) are competent (capable) are emasculating (castrating, make men feel less manly) are competitive are dominating towards men are respectful towards men are feminine 220 Appendix H Cultural Worldview Scale The following statements reflect some beliefs, opinions, and attitudes of Black people. Read each statement carefully and give your honest feelings about the beliefs and attitudes expressed, without omitting any items. There is no right or wrong answer. Indicate the extent to which you agree by using the following scale: '5‘ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 strongly disagree agree strongly disagree agree 1. I don't necessarily feel like I am also being mistreated in a situation where I see another Black person being mistreated. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2. Black people should have their own independent schools which consider their African heritage and values an important part of the curriculum. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 3. Blacks who trust Whites in general are basically very intelligent peOple. 1 2 3 44 5 6 7 8 4. Blacks who are committed and prepared to uplift the (Black) race by any means necessary (including violence) are more intelligent than Blacks who are not this committed and prepared. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 5. Blacks in America should try harder to be American rather than practicing activities that link them up with their African cultural heritage. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 6. Regardless of their interests, educational background and social achievements, I would prefer to associate with Black people than with non-Blacks. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 221 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 strongly disagree agree strongly disagree agree 7. It is not such a good idea for Black students to be required to learn an African language. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8. It is not within the best interest of Blacks to depend on Whites for anything, no matter how religious and decent they (the Whites) purport to be. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. Blacks who place the highest value on Black life (over that of other people) are reverse racists and generally evil people. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10. Black children should be taught that they are African people at an early age. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 11. White people, generally speaking, are not opposed to self-determination for Black people. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 12. As a good index of self-respect, Blacks in America should consider adopting traditional African names for themselves. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 13. A White/European or Caucasian image of God and the "holy family" (among others considered close to God) are not such bad things for Blacks to worship. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 14. Blacks born in the United States are Black or African first, rather than American or just plain people. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 15. Black people who talk in a relatively loud manner, with a lot of emotions and feelings, and express themselves with a lot of movement and body motion are less intelligent than Blacks who do not behave this way. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 222 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 strongly disagree agree strongly disagree agree 16. Racial consciousness and cultural awareness based on traditional African values are necessary to the development of Black marriages and families that can contribute to the liberation and enhancement of Black people in America. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 17. In dealing with other Blacks, I consider myself quite different and unique from most of them. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 18. Blacks should form loving relationships with and marry only other Blacks. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 19. I have difficulty identifying with the culture of African people. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 20. It is intelligent for Blacks in America to organize to educate and liberate themselves from White-American domination. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 21. There is no such thing as African culture among Blacks in America. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 22. It is good for Black husbands and wives to help each other develop racial consciousness and cultural awareness in themselves and their children. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 23. Africa is not the ancestral homeland of all Black people throughout the world. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 24. It is good for Blacks in America to wear traditional African-type clothing and hair styles if they desire to do so. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 223 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 strongly disagree agree strongly disagree agree 25. I feel little sense of commitment to Black people who are not close friends or relatives. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 26. All Black students in Africa and America should be expected to study African culture and history as it occurs throughout the world. any 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 27. Black children should be taught to love all races of people, even those races who do harm to them. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 28. Blacks in America who view Afiica as their homeland are more intelligent than those who view America as their homeland. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 29. If I saw Black children fighting, I would leave them to settle it alone. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 30. White people, generally speaking, do not respect Black life. 1 2 3 4- 5 6 7 8 31. Blacks in America should view Blacks from other countries (e.g. Ghana, Nigeria and other countries in Africa) as foreigners rather than as their brothers and sisters. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 32. When a Black person uses the terms "Self, Me, and I," his/her reference should encompass all Black peOple rather than simply him/herself. l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 33. Religion is dangerous for Black people when it directs and inspires them to become self-determining and independent of the White community. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 224 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 strongly disagree agree strongly disagree agree 34. Black parents should encourage their children to respect all Black people, good and bad, and punish them when they don't show respect. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 35. Blacks who celebrate Kwanzaa and practice the "Nguzo Saba" (the Black Value System), both symbolizing African traditions, don't necessarily have better sense than Blacks who celebrate Eater, Christmas, and the Fourth of July. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 36. African culture is better for humanity than European culture. 1 2 3 4' 5 6 7 8 37. Black people's concern for self-knowledge (knowledge of one's history, philosophy, culture, etc.) and self (collective)-determination makes them treat White peOple badly. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 38. The success of an individual Black person is not as important as the survival of all Black people. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 39. If a good/worthwhile education could be obtained at all schools (both Black and White), I would prefer for my child to attend a racially integrated school. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 40. It is good for Black people to refer to each other a brother and sister because such a practice is consistent with our African heritage. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 41. It is not necessary to require Black/African Studies courses in predominately Black schools. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 42. Being involved in wholesome group activities with other Blacks lifts my spirits more so than being involved in individual oriented activities. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Appendix I Relationship Beliefs Inventory The statements below describe ways in which a person might feel about a relationship with another person. Please mark the space next to each statement according to how strongly you believe that it is true or false for you. Please mark every one. Write in 5, 4, 3, 2, or 1 to stand for the following answers. 5: I strongly believe that the statement is true. 4: I believe that the statement is true. 3: I believe that the statement is probably true, or more true than false. 2: I believe that the statement is false. 1: I strongly believe that the statement is false. 1. If your partner expresses disagreement with your ideas, s/he probably does not think highly of you. 2. I do not expect my partner to sense all my moods. 3. Damages done early in a relationship probably cannot be reversed. 4. I get upset if I think I (my partner has) have not completely satisfied my (me) partner sexuaHy. 5. Men and women have the same basic emotional needs. 6. I cannot accept it when my partner disagrees with me. 7. If I have to tell my partner that something is important to me, it does not mean s/he is insensitive to me. 8. My partner does not seem capable of behaving other than s/he does now. 9. If I’m (my partner is) not in the mood for sex when my (I am) partner is, I don’t get upset about it. 10. Misunderstandings between partners generally are due to ;inbom differences in psychological makeup’s of men and women. 1 1. I take it as a personal insult when my partner disagrees with an important idea of mine. 12. I get very upset if my partner does not recognize how I am feeling and I have to tell him/her. 13. A partner can learn to become more responsive to his/her partner’s needs. 2 2 6 ' ll' i'.’ 5: I strongly believe that the statement is true. 4: I believe that the statement is true. 3: I believe that the statement is probably true, or more true than false. 2: I believe that the statement is false. 1: I strongly believe that the statement is false. 14. A good sexual partner can get himself/herself aroused for sex whenever necessary. 15. Men and women probably will never understand the opposite sex very well. 16. I like it when my partner presents views different from mine. 17. People who have a close relationship can sense each other’s needs as if they could read each other’s minds. 18. Just because my partner has acted in ways that upset me does not mean that s/he will do so in the future. 19. If I (my partner) cannot perform well sexually whenever my (I am) partner is in the mood, I would consider that I have (s/he has) a problem. 20. Men and women need the same basic things out of a relationship. 21. I get'very upset when my partner and I cannot see things the same way. 22. It is important to me for my partner to anticipate my needs by sensing changes in my moods. 23. A partner who hurts you badly once probably will hurt you again. 24. I can feel OK about my (partner’s) lovemaking even if my partner (I do) does not achieve orgasm. 25. Biological differences between men and women are not major causes of couples’ problems. 26. I cannot tolerate it when my partner argues with me. 27. A partner should know what you are thinking or feeling without you having to tell. 28. If my partner wants to change, I believe that s/he can do it. 29. If my sexual partner does not get satisfied (satisfy me) completely, it does not mean that I have (s/he has) failed. 30. One of the major causes of marital problems is that men and women have different emotional needs. 31. When my partner and I disagree, I feel like our relationship is falling apart. 2 2 7 5: I strongly believe that the statement is true. 4: I believe that the statement is true. 3: I believe that the statement is probably true, or more true than false. 2: I believe that the statement is false. 1: I strongly believe that the statement is false. 32. People who love each other know exactly what each other’s thoughts are without a word ever being said. 33. If you don’t like the way a relationship is going, you can make it better. 34. Some difficulties in my (partner’s) sexual performance do not mean personal failure (failure for him/her) to me. 35. You can’t really understand someone of the opposite sex. 36. I do not doubt my partner’s feelings for me when we argue. 3, 37. If you have to ask your partner for something, it shows that s/he was not “tuned into your needs. 38. I do not expect my partner to be able to change. 39. When I do not seem to be performing well sexually, I get upset. 40. Men and women will always be mysteries to each other. bio—tie. The items on the sexual perfectionism subscale were purposefully reworded to express desire for the partner to be sexually perfect, rather than a desire for the self to be sexually perfect, as written in the original scale (in parentheses). In addition, due to a typing error, the range of responses was restricted on this questionnaire. An additional response alternative stating “I believe that the statement is probably false, or more false than true” should have been added, and accordingly the range for the scale would have been from 0-5. 2 2 8 Host persons have disagreements in their relationships. approximate extent of agreement or disagreement its. on the list. 20. i. 22. 1a.. 19. Handling fanily finances Matters of recreation Religious letters Deeonstration of affection Friends Sex relations Conventionality (correct or proper behavior) Philosoth-of life Hays of dealing with parents or in-lavs Alas. goals. and things believed ieportant Amount of tine spent together Making eajor decisions Household tasks Leisure tine interests and activities Career decisions How often do you discuss or have you considered divorce. separation. or terminating your relationship? How often do you or your Iate leave the house after a fight? In general. how often do you think that things between you and your partner are going vell? Do you confide in your I180? 00 you ever regret that you got earried? (or lived together? How often do you and your partner quarrel? How often do you and your mate 'get on each other’s nerves?‘ ' Appendix I Always Always Agree ll Hill 111 All the time Dyadic Adjustment Scale Almost Occa- Fre- sionally guently Alveys Aleost Please indicate belov‘tne between you end your partner for each Alveys Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree Host of the time 229 lllll I ll lllll ll llll I. ll ll'll‘l ll llll I ll llllll Hora often than not Occa- sionally Rarely Never Every Almost Occa- Day Every Day sionally Rarely Never * 23. Do you kiss your mate? All of Host of Sons of Very few None of them them the. of'thee than 24. Do you and your pate engage in outside interests together? ——————— How OFTEN vouw YOU SAY THE FOLLOWING EVENTS occun 9mm YOU Anonrom MTE? Less thqn Once or Once or once a ‘ twice a twice a Once a More Calmly discuss something work together on a project ___27. Never month month week day often ____25. 'Have a stimulating exchange of ideas ____. .____ .____. .___— . 26 . Laugh together __ __ __ __ __ ___28 . mess ARE sons rurucs aeour wwrcn COUPLES sons-mes AGREE. sonarmts orsacnes. morons IF EITHER not asLov causen DIFFERENCES 0F cannons on wens masters Iii mun asurrousnrp cums m5 pasr FEW vesxs. (cascx yes on NO) Yes No Being too tired for sex. __ Not showing love. ___29. 30. 31. which of the following statements best describes how you feel about the future of your relationship? (CiiECX ONLY ONE) I want desperately for my relationship to succeed, and would go to aleost any length to see that it does. 1 want var-y much for my relationship to succeed. and will do all I can to see that it does. I went very much for my relationship to succeed. and will do my fair share to see that it does. It would be nice if my relationship succeeded. but I can’t do much more than I am doing now to help it succeed. It would be nice if it succeeded. but I refuse to do any were then I am doing now to keep the relationship going. Hy relationship can never succeed. and there is no more that I can do to keep the relationshio‘going. 32. The dots on the following line represent different degrees of happiness in your relationship. The middle point, 'haopy'. reurtsent: the degree of happiness of most relationships. PLEASE CIRCLE THE DOT WICH OEST DESCRIIES THE DEGREE OF HAPPINESS, ALL THINGS CONSIDERED. OF YOUR RELATIONSHIP. 4 D l ' 2 3 5 5 Extremely Fairly A Lit“. Moor VN'Y Extremely Perfect ugnaoov unhappy QEMWY HIDOY Manor 230 ' I 'H «Llea‘ll ‘1 ' Appendix K Trust Scale Please complete the following items by circling the number of one of the answers below which most clearly represents your personal opinion next to each statement. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly agree somewhat neutral somewhat disagree strongly agree agree disagree disagree 1. When we encounter difficult and unfamiliar new circumstances I would not feel worried or threatened by letting my partner do what he/she wanted. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. I can count on my partner to be concerned about my welfare. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. In general, my partner does things in a variety of different ways. He/she almost never sticks to one way of doing things. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. My partner has proven to be trustworthy and I am willing to let him/her engage in activities which other partners find too threatening. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. I am familiar with the patterns of behavior my partner has established and I can rely on him/her to behave in certain ways. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. Even when I don't know how my partner will react, I feel comfortable telling him/her anything about myself; even those things of which I am ashamed. l 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. Though times may change and the future is uncertain; I know my partner will always be ready and willing to offer me strength and support. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. I am never certain that my partner won't do something that I dislike or will embarrass me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 231 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly agree somewhat neutral somewhat disagree strongly agree agree disagree disagree 9. My partner is very unpredictable. I never know ho he/she is going to act from one day to the next I 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. I feel very uncomfortable when my partner has to make decisions which will affect me personally. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 I l. I have found that my partner is unusually dependable, especially when it comes to things which are important to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. My partner behaves in a very consistent manner. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. In my relationship with my partner, the future is an unknown which I worry about. I 2 3 I 4 5 6 7 14. Whenever we have to make an important decision in a situation we have never encountered before, I know my partner will be concerned about my welfare. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15. Even if I have no reason to expect my partner to share things with me, I still feel certain that he/he will. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 16. I can rely on my partner to react in a positive way when I expose my weaknesses to him/her. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 17. I usually know how my partner is going to act. He/she can be counted on. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19. In our relationship I have to keep alert or my partner might take advantage of me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 20. I am certain that my partner would not cheat on me, even if the opportunity arose and there was no chance that he/she would get caught. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 232 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 strongly agree somewhat neutral somewhat disagree strongly agree agree disagree disagree 21. I sometimes avoid my partner because he/she is unpredictable and I fear saying or doing something which might create conflict. 1 2 ‘ 3 4 5 6 7 22. I can rely on my partner to keep the promises he/she makes to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 23. I would never guarantee that my partner and I will still be together and not have decided to end our relationship 10 years from now. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 24. When I am with my partner I feel secure in facing unknown new situations. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 25. Even when my partner makes excuses which sound rather unlikely, I am confident that he/she is telling the truth. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 26. I am willing to let my partner make decisions for me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 233 . Appendix L Brief Symptom Inventory Here is a list of problems people sometimes have. Please read each one carefully, and write the number that best describes HOW MUCH THAT PROBLEM HAS DISTRESSED OR BOTHERED YOU DURING THE PAST SEVEN DAYS, WCLUDING TODAY. How much were you distressed or bothered by: O=not at all 1=a little bit 2=moderately 3=quite a bit 4=extremely _. . Nervousness or shakiness inside . Faintness or dizziness . The idea that someone else can control your thoughts . Feeling other people are to blame for most of your troubles . Trouble remembering things . Feeling easily annoyed or irritated . Pains in heart or chest . Feeling afraid in open spaces or on the streets OOOQQMAWN . Thoughts of ending your life 10. Feeling that most people cannot be trusted l 1. Poor appetite 12. Suddenly frightened for no reason 13. Temper outbursts that you could not control 14. Feeling lonely even when you are with people _ 15. Feeling blocked in getting things done 16. Feeling lonely 17. Feeling sad _, 18. Feeling no interest in things 19. Feeling fearful . 20. Your feelings being easily hurt 21. Feeling that people are unfriendly or dislike you 22. Feeling inferior to other people 23. Nausea or upset stomach 234 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. __ 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 33. 39. 40. __ 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. __ 51. 52. 53. 0=notatan How much were you distressed or bothered by: 1=a little bit 2=moderately 3=quite a bit 4=extremely Feeling that you are watched or talked about by others Trouble falling asleep Having to check and double-check what you do Difficulty making decisions Feeling afraid to travel on buses or other public transportation Trouble getting your breath Hot or cold spells Having to avoid certain things, places, or activities because they frighten you Your mind going blank Numbness or tingling (cramps) in parts of your body The idea that you have committed sins you should be punished for Feeling hopeless about the future“ Trouble concentrating Feeling weak in parts of your body Feeling tense or keyed up Thoughts of death or dying Having urges to beat, injure or harm someone Having urges to break or smash things Feeling very self—conscious with other people Feeling uneasy in crowds, such as showing or at a movie Never feeling close to another person Spells of terror or panic Getting into frequent arguments Feeling nervous when you are left alone Others not giving you proper credit for your work and achievements Feeling so restless you couldn’t sit still Feelings of worthlessness Feeling that people will take advantage of you if you let them Feelings of guilt The idea that something is wrong with your mind 235 List of References Aborampah, O. (1989). Black male-female relationships. Journal of Black Studies, 12(3), 320—342. Akbar, N. (1989). Nigrescence and identity: Some limitations. The Counseling Psychologist, 11(2), 258-263. Allen, R.L., & Hatchett, S. (1986). The media and social reality effects: Self and system orientations of Blacks. Communication Research, 13(1) 97—123. Asante, M.K. (1988). Afrocentricity. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press, Inc. Atkinson, D.R., Morten, G. & Sue, D.W. (1979). Counseling American Minorities: A Cross-Cultural Perspective (3rd ed.). Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown Co. Baldwin, J.A. (1981). Notes on an Africentric Theory of Black Personality. The Western Journal of Black Studies, §(3), 172—179. Baldwin, J.A. & Bell, Y. (1985). The African Self Consciousness scale: An Afrocentric personality questionnaire. The Western Journal of Black Studies, 2, 61-68. Baldwin, J.A. & Hopkins, R. (1990). African American and European American cultural differences as assessed by the worldviews paradigm: An empirical analysis. Western Journal of Black Studies, 13(1), 38—52. Baron, R.M. & Kenny. (1986). The moderator—mediator variable distinction in social psychology research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, §1(6), 1173-1182. Baucom, IDJi. &; Epstein, bk (1990). Cognitive IBehavioral Marital Therapy. New York: Bruner Mazel. Behrens, J.T. (1997). Does the White Racial Identity Attitude Scale measure racial identity? Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43(1), 3-12. Bell, E.L. (1990). The bicultural life experience of career- oriented Black women. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 459—477. Bell, Y.R., Bouie, C.L., & Baldwin, J.A. (1990). Afrocentric cultural consciousness and African-American male—female relationships. Journal of Black Studies, 21(2), 162-189. 236 Bennett, N.G., Bloom, D.E., & Craig, P.H. (1989). The divergence of Black and White marriage patterns. American Journal of Psychology, 22(3), 692-722. Blaine, EL. & Crocker, J; (1995). Religiousness, race, and psychological well being: Exploring social psychological measures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(10), 1031—1041. Blechman, E.A. (1992). Mentors for high—risk minority youth: From effective communication to bicultural competence. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 21(2), 160-169. Bowman, P.J. (1992). Coping with provider role strain: Adaptive cultural resources among Black husband-father. In A.K.H. Burlew, W.C. Banks, H.P. McAdoo, & D.A. Azibo (Eds.), African American Psychology: Theory, Research, and Practice (pp. 135-151). Newbury Park CA: Sage. Boyd-Franklin, N. & Franklin, A.J. (1998). African American Couples in Therapy; Ihi M. McGoldrick (Ed.), Re-Visioning Family Therapy (pp. 268-281), NY: The Guilford Press. , Bryant, S.A., & Beckett, J.O. (1997). Effects of status resources and gender on role expectations of African American couples. Smith College Studies in Social Work, §1(3), 348-374. Carter, R.T. (1991). Racial identity attitudes and psychological functioning. JOurnal (Hf Multicultural. Counseling and Development, 12, 105-114. Chadiha, L.A., Veroff, J., & Leber, D. (1998). Newlywed’s narrative themes: Meaning in the first year of marriage for African American and White couples. Journal of Comparative Fami1y Studies, 22(1), 115-130. Chapman, A.B. (1988). Male—female relations: How the past affects the present. In H.P. McAdoo (Ed.), Black Families (pp.l90- 200), Newbury Park: Sage. ' Cherlin, A.J. (1992). Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Chimezie, Amuzie (1985). Black Biculturalism. The Western Journal of Black Studies, 2(4), 224-235. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155—159. Cohen, J. & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analyses for the Behavioral Sciences. Hilldsale, NJ: Erlbaum. 237 Crohan, S.E. (1992). Marital happiness and spousal consensus on beliefs about marital conflict: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 9(1), 89—102. — Cross, W.E. (1971). The negro-to—Black conversion experience: Toward a psychology of Black liberation. Black World, 22, 13-27. Cross, W.E. (1978). The Thomas and Cross models of psychological Nigrescence: A review. Journal of Black Psychology, 2(1), 13-31. Cross, W.E. (1989). Nigrescence: A nondiaphanous phenomenon. Counseling Psychologist, 11(2), 273—276. Davis, L.E. & Strube, M.J. (1993). An assessment of romantic commitment among Black and White dating couples. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(3), 212-225. De Anda, D. (1984). Bicultural socialization: Factors affecting the minority experience.' Social Work, 22(2), 101-107. Derogatis, L.R. (1983). The Brief Symptom Inventory: An introductory report. Psychological Medicine, 12(3), 595-605. Dubois, W.E.B. (1903). The Souls of Black Folk. New York: The New American Library. Duncan, O.D. (1961). A socioeconomic index for all occupations. In A.J. Reiss (Ed.), Occupations and Social Status. New York: Free Press. Edsall, T.B., & Edsall, M.D. (1991). Chain Reaction: The Impact of Race, Rights and Taxes on American Politics. New York: Norton. Elder, G.H. & Caspi, A. (1988). Economic stress in lives: Developmental perspectives. Journal of Social Issues, 33, 25—45. Ellison, C.G. (1991). Identification and separatism: Religious involvement and racial orientations among Black Americans. The Sociological Quarterly, 22(3), 477-494. Ellison, C.W. (1983). Spiritual well being: Conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 11, 330-340. Epstein, N. & Eidelson, R.J. (1981). Unrealistic beliefs of clinical couples: Their relationship to expectations, goals and satisfaction. American Journal of Family Therapy, 2(4), 13-22. Erikson, E.H. (1950). Childhood and Society. New York, NY: W.W. Norton and Company. 238 Fowers, B.J. & Olson, D.H. (1989). ENRICH marital inventory: a discriminant validity and cross-Validation assessment. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 12(1), 65—79. Franklin, A.J. (1998). Treating anger in African American men. In W.S. Pollack and R.F. Levant (Eds.), New Psychotherapy for Men. New York : John Wiley & Sons. Franklin, C.W. (1986). Conceptual and logical issues in theory and research related to Black masculinity. The Western Journal of Black Studies, 12(4), 161-166. Franklin, J.H. (1988). A historical note on Black famdlies. In H.P. McAdoo (Ed.), Black Families (pp. 23—26). Newbury Park: Sage. Gooden, W.E. .(1989). Development of Black men in early adulthood. In R.L. Jones (Ed.), Black Adult Development and Aging. Berkeley, CA: Cobb & Henry. Gray-Little, B. (1982). Marital quality and power processes among Black couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 633-646. Grier, W., & Cobbs, P. (1968). Black Rage. New York: Basic Books. Hacker, A.W. (1979). Two Nations: Black and White, Separate, Hostile, Unequal. NY: Scribner’s. Halford, W.K., Kelly, A. & Markman, H.J. (1997). The concept of a healthy marriage. In W.K. Halford and H.J. Markman (Eds.), Clinical Handbook of Marriage and Couples Interventions (pp.3—12). New York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Helms, J.E. (1990).' Black and White Racial Identity. NY: Greenwood Press. Hill, R. (1972). The Strengths of Black Families. New York: Emerson Hall. Jefferson, S.D. (1996). The Effects of Racial Identity on Locus of Control Attitudes. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. Jensen, B.J., Witcher, D.B., & Lane, M.E.F. (1987). Cognitive and social desirability factors in marital adjustment for Black subjects: A preliminary report.. The Southern Psychologist, 2(1), 51—55. Jette, A.M., Crawford, S.L., & Tennstedt, S.L. (1996). Toward understanding ethnic differences in late—life disability. Research on Aging, 12(3), 292-309. 239 Jewell, K.S. (1983). Black male/female conflict: Internalization of negative definitions transmitted through imagery. The Western Journal of Black Studies, 1(1), 43—48. Johnson, L.B. (1988). Perspectives on Black family empirical research: 1965-1978. In H.P. McAdoo (Ed.), Black Families (pp.91— 106). Newbury Park: Sage.‘ Jones, B.E. & Gray, B.A. (1984). Similarities and differences in Black men and women in psychotherapy. Journal of the National Medical Association, 12(1), 21-27. Jones, B.E., Gray, B.A., & Jospitre, J. (1982). Survey of psychotherapy with Black men. American Journal of Psychiatry, 122(9), 1174—1177. Kelley, D.L. & Burgoon, J.K. (1991). Understanding marital satisfaction and couple type as functions of relational expectations. Human Communication Research, 12, 40—69. Kelly, S. (1994). The Effects of the internalization of negative stereotypes, racial identity and worldview paradigms on trust within Black couples. Unpublished master’s thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. Kelly, S. (1997, August). The effects of racial issues on Black couples relationships. In R. Steward (Chair), Afrocentricity and Racial Identity: Refining Theory Through an Examination of Individual and Relational Outcomes. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Chicago, Illinois. Kelly, S., & Floyd, F.J. (1995). Negative Stereotypes, Racial Identity, and Black Couple Relationships. Poster session presented at the annual conference of the American Psychological Association, New York, New York. Kelly, S., & Floyd, F.J. (1998). The Effects of Racial Issues on Black Couple Relationsh1ps. Manuscript submitted for publication (revise and resubmit). LaFromboise, T., Coleman, H.L.K., & Gerton, J. (1993). Psychological impact of biculturalism: Evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 395—412. Lambert, M.C., Knight, F., Taylor, R., & Achenbach, T.M. (1994). Epidemiology of behavioral and emotional problems among children of Jamaica and the United States: Parent reports for ages 6 to 11. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 22(1), 113-128. Landrine, H. & Klonoff, E.A. (1994). The African American Acculturation Scale: Development, reliability, and validity. Journal of Black Psychology, 22(2), 104-127. 240 Landrine, H. & Klonoff, E.A. (1995). The African American Acculturation Scale II: Cross validation and short form . Journal of Black P§ychology, 21(2), 124-152. Lavee, Y. & Olson, D.H. (1993). Seven types of marriage: Empirical typology based on ENRICH. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 12(4), 325-340. Lawson, E. & Thompson, A. (1994) The historical and social correlates of African American Divorce: Review of the literature and implications for research. Western Journal of Black Studies, 12(2), 91-103. Lindahl, K.M., Malik, N.M., & Bradbury, T.N. (1997). The develOpmental course of couples’ relationships. In W.K. Halford and H.J. Markman (Eds.), Clinical Handbook of Marriage and Couples Interventions (pp.3-12). New York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Margolin, G., Michelli, J., & Jacobson, N. (1988). Assessment of marital dysfunction. In A.S. Bellack & M. Hersen(Eds.), Behavioral Assessment (pp. 441- 489). New York: Pergamon Press. Markman, H.J., & Hahlweg, K. (1993). The prediction and prevention of marital distress: an international perspective. Clinical Psychology Review, 12, 29-43. Markman, H.J., Blumberg, S.L. & Stanley, S.M. (1993). For better or for worse: PREP leader’s manual. Denver: PREP Educational Products, Inc. Millones, J. (1980). Construction of a Black consciousness measure: Psychotherapeutic implications. Psychothergpy: Theory, Research, and Practice, 11, 175—182. Munford, M.B. (1994). Relationship of gender, self-esteem, social class, and racial identity to depression in Blacks. Journal of Black Psychology, 22(2), 157-174. Nobles, W.W. (1989). Psychological Nigrescence: An Afrocentric review. _The Counseling Psychologist, 11(2), 253-257. Nolen-Hoeksma, S. (1987). Sex differences in unipolar depression: Evidence. and. theoryu Psychological Bulletin, .121, 259-282. Oggins, J. Veroff, J. & Leber, D. (1993). Perceptions of marital interaction among Black and White newlyweds. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22(3), 494-511. Olson, D.H. & Larsen, A.S. (1989). Predictiong marital satisfaction using PREPARE: a replication study. Journal of Marital and Fami1y Therapy, 12, 311-322. 241 Paloutzian, R.F. & Ellison, C.W. (1982). Loneliness, spiritual well being and the quality of life. In L.A. Peplau & D. Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness: A Sourcebook of Current Theory, Research and Therapy. New York: Wiley & Sons. Parham, T.A. (1989). Cycles of psychological Nigrescence. 122 Counseling ngchologist, 11(2), 187-226. Parham, T.A. (1993). Own group preferences as a function of self affirmation: A reaction to Penn et. al. Journal of Black Psychology, 12(3), 336-341. Parham, T.A. & Helms, J.E. (1981). The influence of Black students' racial identity attitudes on preference for counselor's race. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 22, 250-257. Parham, T.A. & Helms, J.E. (1985a). Attitudes of racial identity and self-esteem in Black students: An exploratory - investigation. Journal of College Student Personnel, 22(2), 143- 147. Parham, T.A. & Helms, J.E. (1985b). The relationship of racial identity attitudes to self-actualization of Black students and affective states. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 22, 431- 440. Pinderhughes, E.B. (1997). The interaction of difference and power as a basic framework for understanding work with African Americans: Family theory, empowerment and educational approaches. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 21(3), 323-347. Ponterotto, J.G. & Wise, S.L. (1987). Construct validity of the Racial Identity Attitude Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 22(2), 218-223. Rempel, J.K., Holmes, J.G., and Zanna, M.P. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22(1), 95-112. Ruvolo, A.P. & Veroff, J. (1997). For better or for worse: Real-ideal discrepancies and the marital well being of newlyweds. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12(2), 223-242. Sabnani, H.B. & Ponterotto, J.G. (1992). Racial/Ethnic minority-specific instrumentation in counseling research: A review, critique, and recommendations. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 22, 161—187. Scanzoni, J. (1977). The Black Family in Modern Society. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Schiele, J.H. (1996). Afrocentricity: An emerging paradigm in social work practice. Social Work, 21(3), 284—294. 242 Sellers, R.M. (1993). .A call to arms for researchers studying racial identity. Journal of Black Psychology, 19(3), 327-332. ”— Smith, E.M.J- (1989). Black racial identity development: Issues and concerns. The Counseling Psychologist, 11(2), 277-288. Spanier 6.8. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 22(1), 15-27. Speight, S.L., Myers, L.J., Cox, C.I., & Highlen, P.S. (1991). A redefinition of multicultural counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development, 12(1), 29-36. Spencer, M.B. & Markstrom-Adams, C. (1990). Identity processes among racial and ethnic minority children in America. Child Development, 21, 290-310. Staples, R. (1981). The World of Black Singles. Westort, CT: Greenwood. Staples, R. & Johnson, L.B. (1993). Black Families at the Crossroads: Challenges and Prospects. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Taft, R. (1977). Coping with unfamiliar cultures. In N. Warren (Ed.), Studies in Cross-Cultural Psychology (Vol. 1). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Tangney, J.P., Hill-Barlow, D., Wagner, P.E., Marschall, D E., Borenstein, J.K., Sanftner, J. Mohr, T., & Gramzow, R. (1996). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12(4), 780- 796. Taylor J. (1990) Relationship between internalized racism and marital satisfaction. The Journal of Black Psychology, 12, 45-53. Taylor, J. & Zhang, X. (1990). Cultural identity in maritally distressed and nondistressed Black couples. The Western Journal of Black Studies, 12(4), 205-213.‘ Terrell, F., & Terrell, M. (1981). An inventory to measure cultural mistrust among Blacks. Western Journal of Black Studies, §(3), 180—184. Thibaut, J.W. & Kelley, H.H. (1959). The Social Psychology of Groups. New York: Wiley. Thomas, V.G. (1990). Problems of dual-career Black couples: identification and implications for family interventions. Journal of multicultural counseling and development, 12, 58-67. 243 US Bureau of Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-20, No. 450. (1991). Marital Status and Living Amrangements,: March 1990. US Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Valentine, C.A. (1971). Deficit, difference, and bicultural models of Afro-American behavior. Harvard Educational Review, 21, 137-157. Veroff, J., Chadiha, L., Leber, D. & Sutherland, L. (1993). Affects and interactions in newlywed’s narratives: Black and White couples compared. Journal of Narrative Life and History, 2(4), 361-390. Wiegel, R.H., Loomis, J.W., & Soja, M.J. (1980). Race relations on prime time television. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22(5), 884-893. Willis, J.T. (1990). Some destructive elements of African- American male-female relationships. Family Therapy, 11(2), 139— 147. Young, T.J., Ekeler, W.J., Sawyer, R.M., & Prichard, K.W. (1994). Black student subcultures in American universities: Acculturation stress and cultural conflict. College Student Journal, 22, 504-508. 244