, nun—«w "‘" yum-“us ‘: A. “any“ \1,FL?§ "nu- n: u: .1? .7 I. \. .533 a 2. £133.)! in 321.6)...{51 I :33! 5.. I ;‘I«(!rx1:.1 . \.w§v..1..:.;\§|as.a)1 3.3;... :1 5...:nllfx .3)... .r.a.;n._.a . . (5357...: :4 95...}; ‘ ..:.E. a). x. 1.2.: . 3.3.1: > .1 FIJI); .53.: . 1..) 1.]. ur €59,132 v ..:2)).....zu..\1..ln r| 323351?» 4.3.1:; 3 3):. ll). 2.. s . 11.55353.) av .51! ‘ .v 3:; £13.! a. . J33! .. 15's; u’zahsl \ 1.8.1: . .1 3|) .2 .K. :3. 941‘ mi... 3.)) . : .13.: 332.195.... 4/ (x I, at :15 .159.) 33.53.15 .. TYLIB BRARIES “ \lllllll : MICHIGAN STAT \ \ \\ \\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ 31293 This is to certify that the dissertation entitled THE EFFECTS OF THE INTERNALIZATION OF NEGATIVE STEREOTYPES, RACIAL IDENTITY AND WORLDVIEW PARADIGMS ON TRUST WITHIN BLACK COUPLES presented by SHALONDA KELLY has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for M.A. PSYCHOLOéYlnfiiAN STUDIES degree in lawn) KWLHW Major professor [hue NOVEMBER 17, 1994 MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 LIBRARY Michigan State University PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. L DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE Eti- i: 4,... 9.9% CT 1,3 .5 .. L: a. W3 HH. 1 n TOOK MXy”<972:o g A—Pw—rm who“ - .909 MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution Warns-9.! THE EFFECTS OF THE INTERNALIZATION OF NEGATIVE STEREOTYPES, RACIAL IDENTITY AND WORLDVIEW PARADIGMS ON TRUST WITHIN BLACK COUPLES BY Shalonda Kelly A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1994 ABSTRACT THE EFFECTS OF THE INTERNALIZATION OF NEGATIVE STEREOTYPES, RACIAL IDENTITY AND WORLDVIEW PARADIGMS ON TRUST WITHIN BLACK COUPLES BY Shalonda Kelly This study tested a model presenting the internalization of negative stereotypes and Afrocentricity as possible mechanisms by which racism negatively affects dyadic trust and relationship quality within black couples. The effects of socioeconomic status were also evaluated. Seventy-three black couples completed questionnaire measures of these constructs. The results showed partial support for the proposed links between stereotypes, trust, and dyadic adjustment. Contrary to predictions, Afrocentricity did not mediate the effects of stereotypes on trust, and it was negatively correlated with both trust and relationship quality. However, trust did mediate the effects of both stereotypes and Afrocentricity on relationship quality, as was predicted. Socioeconomic status was negatively correlated with stereotypes and positively correlated with trust. The results also suggest that stereotypes regarding men were most related to negative relationships. Copyright by Shalonda Kelly 1994 To my parents, Magloria and Randolph Jr., with much love. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I give the greatest thanks to Dr. Frank Floyd, who served as co-chair on my committee, and who directed the entire process as a superb mentor and friend. I would also like to thank all of my committee members, Drs. Maxie Jackson, Michael Lambert, Harriette McAdoo, and Dozier Thornton (who also served as co-chair on my committee), for their assistance and encouragement throughout this process. I am also indebted to my family and friends, who gave me emotional support, and some of whom actually helped read drafts and share ideas. I especially want to thank my sister, Echeverria Kelly, and Alicia Cooper, who went above and beyond the call of duty as a friend. . My undergraduate assistants also provided great help with data collection. Crystal Mitchell, Michele Theodore, and Leonard Tate were my primary assistants, while Rahsaan Hawkins and Dwight Washington also helped with recruitment. Lastly, I thank Suzy Pavick, the Psychology graduate secretary, for her continual assistance and empathy. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES... ............ .... ...................... viii INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ..... ....... ..... 1 The Importance of Trust in Couple Relationships......2 The Special Importance of Trust for Black Couples....7 Conceptualizing Black Family and Couple Relationships .................. . ..................... 9 Historical Factors Affecting Trust Within Black Couples ...................................... . ...... 13 Damaging Values and Stereotypes Adopted by Black Couples ............................................. 20 Racism and Racial Identity ......................... <25? Socioeconomic Status ................................ 36 Hypotheses .......................................... 39 Internalization of Racism ...................... 42 Cultural orientation ........................... 42 Trust .......................................... 42 Socioeconomic Status ........................... 43 METHOD ................................................... 43 Subjects ............................................ 43 Procedure ........................................... 45 Demographic Measures ................................ 46 Couple Measures ..................................... 49 Internalized Racism Measures ........................ 49 Cultural Orientation Measures.......................51 Trust Measures ...................................... 51 vi RESULTS.. ................................................ 54 Internalization of Racism and Relationship Measures.......OOOOOOOOOOOOOO......OOOOOOOOOOO. ..... 58 Internalization of Racism and Afrocentricity ........ 66 Cultural Orientation ............ . .......... . ........ 67 Trust.OOO...........OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0....0.0.0000000071 A Theoretical Model of Racism's Effects on Black Couples...................................... ....... 75 Socioeconomic Status...... ........ ... ............... 82 Exploratory Analyses of the African Self Consciousness Scale ............. . ................... 88 DISCUSSION ............................................... 91 APPENDICES .............................................. 110 Appendix A: Demographics ........................... 110 Appendix B: Dyadic Adjustment Scale ................ 111 Appendix C: Stereotype Scale ....................... 113 Appendix D: African Self-Consciousness Scale ....... 115 Appendix E: Trust Scale ............................ 120 LIST OF REFERENCES ...................................... 123 vii Table 10 11 12 13 14 LIST OF TABLES Page Couple Demographics...... ........................... 47 Paired T-Tests and Correlations Between Males and Females on Demographic Data................... ...... 48 Chronbach's Alphas for Men and Women on the Research Scales ..................................... 55 Means, Standard Deviations, Ranges and Male-Female Differences on the Research Scales ...... 56 Correlations Between Men and Women on the Research Scales ..................................... 59 Correlations Between Men’s Stereotypes and their Trust and Dyadic Adjustment Scores .................. 61 Correlations Between Women’s Stereotypes and their Trust and Dyadic Adjustment Scores ............ 62 Correlations of Men’s Stereotype Scores with Women’s Trust and Dyadic Adjustment Scores .......... 64 Correlations of Women’s Stereotype Scores with Men’s Trust and Dyadic Adjustment Scores..... ....... 65 Correlations Between Stereotypes and Afrocentricity.68 Correlations of Afrocentrism with Trust and Dyadic Adjustment for Men and Women ................ . ....... 70 Correlations Between Trust Scores and Dyadic Adjustment Scores for Men and Women ................. 72 Correlations Between Trust Scores and Partners’ Dyadic Adjustment Scores ............................ 74 Regressions Predicting the Subjects’ Dyadic Adjustment and Trust From their Afrocentricity ...... 78 viii 15 16 17 Cross Gender Regressions Predicting the Subjects’ Dyadic Adjustment and Trust From Their Stereotypes and Afrocentricity ........ ...... .......... . ......... 81 Correlations Between Subjects’ Socioeconomic Status and Their Own Scale Scores..........................84 Correlations Between Socioeconomic Status Scores and Partners’ Stereotypes and Trust Scores..........87 ix LI ST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 The Effects of the Internalization of Negative Myths on Trust and Relationship Quality within Black Couples ....................................... 41 The Effects of the Internalization of Negative Stereotypes, Racial Identity, and Worldview Paradigms on Trust Between Black Couples Erikson (1950) was one of the first to postulate trust as an essential component of the healthy personality, when he identified basic trust versus mistrust as the first of eight life stages through which humans from all cultures must pass. Erikson (1950) defined trust as the assured reliance on another’s integrity. He believed that the trust established in infancy is a foundation for the development of an individual’s ego identity and adult interpersonal relationships. He further believed that if a sense of trust is weakly formed in infancy, the infant may grow into an adult who has difficulty mastering the remaining life stages, which include forming both a healthy sense of self as well as mutually rewarding, intimate relationships (Erikson, 1950). Recent ideas of trust are generally consistent with Erikson’s notions, and many investigators believe that trust is important for both individual and couple functioning. Trust entails beliefs that one can experience physical safety (Johnson-George & Swap, 1982), engage in self disclosure (Rempel, Holmes, & Zanna, 1985; Steck, Levitan, McLane & Kelley, 1982), and expect benevolence, sincerity, considerateness, and fairness when with the trusted person (Larzelere & Huston, 1980). For individuals, trust is 2 thought to be a stable personality characteristic (Erikson, 1950; Rotter, 1967) and is positively related to self esteem (Butler, 1986). Interpersonally, trust involves personal risks (Johnson-George & Swap, 1982) and develops over time, emerging from the past history and climate of the relationship (Johnson-George & Swap, 1982; Rempel et al., 1985). The Importance of Trust in Couple Relationships Just as trust is important in forming a healthy personality and good interpersonal relationships, trust is essential to a viable marriage (Goldberg, 1987). In fact, trust is one of the most coveted qualities in couple relationships (Rempel et al., 1985), and each partner expects intimacy when with the trusted person (Gordon & Waldo, 1984; Lynch & Blinder, 1983). The development of trust requires confidence and security in the strength of the relationship (Rempel et al., 1985), and commitment and certainty that one’s identity as a couple will endure (Siegel, 1990). Trusting one’s partner entails risking strong emotional involvements with the partner, (Johnson- George & Swap, 1982; Rempel et al., 1985), and holding general expectations that one’s mate will be honest and live up to verbal promises (Larzelere & Huston, 1980; Rempel et al., 1985, Rotter, 1967). Rempel et al. (1985) present a theoretical model in which trust is defined as "a generalized expectation related 3 to the subjective probability an individual assigns to the occurrence of some set of future events" (Rempel et al., 1985). They posit that trust in close relationships is comprised of three hierarchical components: predictability, dependability and faith. These elements are placed in a developmental perspective within a couple relationship. Trust evolves out of past interactions, in which one sees that the partner’s behavior has been reasonably predictable (Johnson-George & Swap, 1982; Rempel et al., 1985). Predictability marks the early stage of the relationship, in which trust in the partner’s future positive behavior is determined by the partner’s past behavior. After further involvement with that partner, one begins to look less at the partner’s specific behavior, and instead begins to trust the partner based upon dispositional attributions regarding the partner’s dependability (Rempel et al., 1985). People trust their partners more when they deem them to be dependable or reliable, and to have an altruistic concern for their well being. As the commitment to the relationship grows, a more mature level of trust is reflected in one’s level of faith in the couple relationship. More specifically, faith refers to the level of emotional security which enables each person to feel assured that his or her partner will continue to be caring despite uncertainties of the future (Rempel, et al., 1985). Since faith is also strongly correlated with feelings that the partner is intrinsically motivated to be in the relationship 4 (Holmes & Rempel, 1989), each person feels that his/her partner participates in the relationship for the rewards provided by the relationship itself, such as love. Rempel and his colleagues also claim that trust has implications for other attitudes about the relationship and one’s partner. In one experiment, Holmes and Rempel (1989) studied the attributions of couples who received high, medium, or low scores on self-report trust scale (Rempel et al., 1985). Results showed that high trust couples entered into discussions with their partners with high expectations, and generally portrayed their partners’ motives as more positive than their own. The results also showed that even when confronted with something negative about their partners, very trusting subjects did not deny the negative aspect of their relationships, but merely attributed the behavior to situational causes, thus limiting the impact of the negative event on the relationship. From their results, Holmes and Rempel (1989) conclude that couples receiving high trust scores are better able to maintain a state of trusting, in which they do not analyze their partners’ individual behaviors for signs of trust. Rather, they assess the relationship over a more extended period of time, in which the positives generally outweigh the negatives. Other studies of trust in heterosexual relationships are consistent with Holmes and Rempel’s (1989) findings of the positive effects of trust in a couple relationship. Trust in one’s partner is associated with increased 5 sensitivity to the partner’s nonverbal cues, as measured by each subject’s relative ability to read his or her partner’s facial expressions (Sabatelli, Buck, & Dreyer, 1983). Although this study did not control for a possible length of relationship confound, the results imply that high trusters have an increased sensitivity to their partner’s moods and desires, and may understand their partners better than those who have relatively little trust in their partners (Sabatelli et al., 1983). Steck et al. (1982) further found that self disclosure, which was identified as a dimension of trust in their questionnaire, was associated with a willingness to forgive one’s partner and ignore the partner’s faults. Moreover, the levels of partners’ trust in each other were significantly correlated, which may mean that trust has a strong reciprocal effect in couples (Butler, 1986). Alternatively, those who received medium scores on Rempel et al.’s (1985) Trust Scale appeared to be uncertain as to whether they are able to trust their partners (Holmes & Rempel, 1989). After being asked to recall an instance in which their partners took their feelings into account while successfully solving a problem in their relationship, the subjects who received medium trust scores rated their partners’ behavior in a subsequent interaction significantly more positively, and their partners’ motives significantly less positively than a control group who’s members were not asked to think of whether their partners 6 dealt with their feelings (Holmes & Rempel, 1989). These results led Holmes and Rempel (1989) to conclude that medium trusters are uncertain as to their partners’ commitment, and thus constantly evaluate their partners’ behaviors in terms of motives, which ironically tends to accentuate their feelings of uncertainty. These investigators suggest that medium trusters adopt a "risk aversive strategy" which means that they are continually ready to attribute their partners’ behaviors to negative motives, yet are hesitant to grant credit to their partners for any positive behaviors. Further, they propose that medium trusters do little integrating of their emotions regarding the relationship, and instead tend to compartmentalize their negative and positive feelings towards their partners (Holmes & Rempel, 1989). Even worse, those receiving low trust scores make more negative attributions for their partners’ behavior as compared to more trusting partners. They enter interactions expecting little of themselves, and very little of their partners (Holmes & Rempel, 1986). These couples tend to distance themselves from their relationships. They have little faith in the relationship, and eliminate the element of risk by emotionally removing their fate from the hands of their partners. Often, they spend more time trying to control situations in order to ensure that their needs are met, rather than depend on their partners. Such a lack of commitment to solving problems probably removes the 7 opportunity to reinstate trust by demonstrating love and caring (Holmes & Rempel, 1989). Consistent with Holmes and Rempel’s (1989) conclusions, Sabatelli et al. (1983) have found that those who do not trust their partner are less trustworthy and more suspicious than high trusters. They also tend to be restrictive and self protective with money (Siegel, 1990). In fact, couple relationships which lack both trust and respect are thought to be devoid of true intimacy, and tend to be intermittent or unenduring (Lynch & Blinder, 1983). The Special Importance of Trust for Black Couples Although trust has long been acknowledged as a central concern in any intimate couple relationship, ample evidence suggests that there are unique complications regarding trust for black couples (e.g. Parker, Bereida & Sloan, 1984). Moreover, trust is tantamount to other important problems resulting from minority status in the United States, all of which combine to inhibit the development of strong couple relationships between black men and women (Chapman, 1988; Willis, 1990). On the basis of historical analysis and clinical experience with black clients, Willis (1990) concludes that feelings of mistrust and lack of respect negatively permeates black couples’ relationships. Racism has caused some black males and females to feel inferior to whites. For these people, racism engenders a rage that they feel is unsafe to vent towards society, so they instead 8 displace their anger and frustration by expressing it towards each other. Black couples have therefore been both consciously and unconsciously conditioned to mistrust each other, and disrespect each other (Willis, 1990), as well as whites (Terrell & Terrell, 1981). Unfortunately, most of these assertions come from informal observations, rather than empirical evidence. Therefore, this study will empirically investigate the effects of racism on trust within black couples. Despite its significance in black couple relationships, much of the major research on trust in intimate heterosexual relationships has included few, if any, black couples (e.g. Butler, 1986; Cahn, 1989; and Sabatelli et al., 1983). Other studies do not mention any ethnic or racial characteristics of the subjects (Gordon & Waldo, 1984; Johnson-George & Swap, 1982; Rempel et al., 1985; and Steck et al., 1982). This omission is consistent with the 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. Thus 9 it seems that black families are not being studied, and as a result, issues that are uniquely important to black families, such as trust for black couples, are being largely overlooked. Conceptualizing Black Family and Couple Relationships Bell, Bouie, & Baldwin (1990) explain that the lack of research on black families stems from the fact that most experimenters and researchers typically assume that black heterosexual relationships are similar to white heterosexual relationships. That is, white investigators often assume that blacks have the same value system and belief structure as do whites (Bell, et al., 1990). In addition, even when black couples are studied, various heterosexual measures used by white researchers are culturally insensitive (Bell et al., 1990). Consistent with this view, Johnson (1988) reported that most of the articles in the thirteen journals she surveyed used a cultural equivalent viewpoint (Allen, 1978) in analyzing black families. Johnson (1988) labels research as espousing a culturally equivalent framework when black family functioning is compared to white middle-class norms, using similarities between the two groups as an indication that blacks and whites share the same cultural values. In arguing that racial and economic discrimination victimizes blacks, proponents of this view believe that, given parallel economic conditions, black and white families are alike. 10 Although the cultural equivalent point of view has much to offer in terms of identifying processes common to all couples, it is also limited because it does not lead to acknowledgement of differences between blacks and whites. Instead, this view depicts black families as legitimate only when they conform to white middle class norms (Johnson, 1988). Therefore, the reasons why these families differ from white families, both in their unique strengths and singular problems, are not being explained nor adequately explored by cultural equivalent advocates. Further, the idea of cultural equivalence also perpetuates culturally insensitive models and measures. In sum, researchers using this perspective tend to ignore factors having a major impact on black life, such as the influences of history, cultural variations, and oppression. Thus, this study will examine issues unique to blacks, and their impact on black couple relationships. On the other hand, Bell and colleagues (1990) claim that many researchers study black couples in order to examine black-white differences, which they then attribute to deviance within black families. These studies fit the cultural deviant conceptualization of black couples (Allen, 1978) because they are "pathology centered." They tend to portray blacks as deviations from the white norm (Bell et al., 1990), and consequently as pathological (Johnson, 1988), rather than studying blacks in relation to their own norms. For example, Moynihan’s (1965) influential report on 11 black families compares blacks to white norms, arguing that there is a trend among black families away from family stability, and that black couples are not able to stay together as often as whites. Although not intended, this type of comparison of group statistics can be viewed as "blaming the victim," in that its proponents usually believe that conformity to white middle-class norms would eliminate the problems that black families experience. Furthermore, blaming blacks for their lowered status as compared to whites can foster beliefs about the inferiority of blacks as compared to whites. Use of this perspective ignores the possibility that black male- female problems actually stem in large part from oppression, racism, and the condition of being a minority in America (e.g. Burwell, 1991), a possibility that will be explored in this study. Compared to the cultural equivalent point of View, the cultural deviant point of view goes to the other extreme in not acknowledging the universals that make black and white families similar. This perspective can lead to taking the differences between blacks and whites as being proof of the deviance of blacks. It is also unlikely to take contextual factors into account. Yet what is most alarming regarding the use of the cultural deviance perspective is that even though articles espousing this point of view have virtually disappeared since 1974 (Johnson, 1988), this perspective has 12 had the largest impact on national policy regarding blacks, the effects of which continue to be felt today. Alternatively, using a contextual analysis allows one to look for historical and environmental factors that may cause problems for black couples, rather than assuming that black couples are less capable of having healthy relationships than white couples. A contextual analysis usually involves investigating black couples from a perspective of cultural variance. Johnson (1988) classifies articles as adopting the cultural variance perspective when they do not make white middle class norms the primary referent, and when black behavior is predominantly explained in terms of black values and experiences. This perspective refrains from using the dominant (white) culture’s cultural framework and definitions to explain the behavior of blacks. Although it recognizes some family structures as being common to all communities, including those of blacks and whites, this perspective acknowledges that certain constraints may produce culturally distinct structures and dynamics in black families. The present study will examine black heterosexual relationships from a cultural variant point of View. Specifically, the study presupposes that while there are similarities between blacks and whites in some structures and basic processes, there are also differences between blacks and whites both due to problems resulting from conditions of relative poverty and oppression, and cultural 13 differences and due to alternative lifestyle choices as compared to whites. The analysis of black couples using this point of view will not merely focus on positive or negative aspects of black couple relationships, but will look at how black experiences have affected black values and behavior within the context of heterosexual relationships. In order to provide such an analysis, it is necessary to look at the unique history of black couples. Historical Factors Affecting Trust Within Black Couples Structural and relational patterns for black couples and families are derived in part from their African heritage (e.g. Billingsley, 1968). Gaining an understanding of African family structure can illuminate the formation of Black American family structure, because many of the values and institutional arrangements of pre-slavery Africa can still be recognized today in contemporary black family formations (Sudarkasa, 1988). According to Sudarkasa, most of the slaves brought to America were from Western Africa, where families traditionally organized around consanguineal cores, or blood ties. In this type of family structure, there was a common notion of commitment to the collective. Lineages, large co— resident domestic groups, and polygamous marriages were common. The stability of these families did not depend on the stability of the marriages of the individual members, because kin networks were stronger than conjugal ties. 14 Also, upon marriage, Africans usually did not form new isolated households, but joined a compound in which the extended family of one of the partners resided. Members of these compounds engaged in joint decision making, and seniority was determined by age (Sudarkasa 1988). In contrast, Sudarkasa (1988) notes that the European ancestors of American whites were organized by conjugal cores, or marital units, rather than extended family blood ties. Since conjugal ties were most important in this culture, the nuclear family was most salient, and it served as an independent structure isolated from other blood related kin, which were deemed as less important. Rather than the kin network, it was the conjugal relationship that was prominent in determining household formation and socialization of the young. There was an emphasis on separate decision making, and seniority was determined by gender, rather than age, which made for nonegalitarian relationships, with men in the positions of power within the family. One of the most important differences between these African and European family structures is that in the African context, marital ties were subordinate to kinship ties and carried less obligation. This is exemplified by the relative ease of divorce and higher divorce rate in precolonial Africa than in Europe or Asia (Goody, 1976). A second important difference is that in precolonial Africa, women had higher status in the community as compared to the 15 women in Europe. Although they were subordinate as wives, they were very important as mothers and sisters (Sudarkasa, 1988), and were viewed in a more egalitarian fashion. Third, African children were socialized by the entire extended family, rather than being raised only by the conjugal unit. If the fathers were gone or deceased, the children lived in kin related households with their mothers and at least one other adult (Sudarkasa, 1988). Sudarkasa (1988) points out the importance of African and European cultural differences in explaining the nature of the African people’s adaptation to the political and economic context of America from slavery until the present. The family was very important to the slave community for support (Franklin, 1988). Because slavery prohibited the replication of the African clan structure, African principles and values combined with European derived American influences and led to an American variant of African family life in the form of extended familialism. This pattern is still prevalent in America today (Billingsley 1968; Mindel, 1980). Although they adapted significantly to the dominant American family structure, blacks did experience a pull between the two cultures. In the 1880’s most southern blacks lived in father present households and subfamilies. From 1800 to 1925, the typical black family was lower class and headed by two parents. These families had survived differing cultural values and practices, slavery, legal 16 segregation, discrimination, and enforced poverty (Franklin, 1988). Yet kin related households were still the norm for black families (Gutman, 1976). Black couples had also maintained their history of more egalitarian relations and economic parity than white couples at this time (Staples, 1988). In fact, though conjugal ties remained the prevalent structure in American society, the influence of African- derived kinship ties was so strong, that husbands and wives were sometimes torn between allegiance to their extended family and their mates (Franklin, 1988). Prior to the 1960’s, 75% of black families included both a husband and a wife (Franklin, 1988). Before the 1960’s, poorly educated black men were able to get labor and manufacturing jobs which were less available to black women. Therefore, some black women have historically been encouraged to go to school, where they could achieve on a level approaching that of their husbands (Chapman, 1988), enabling both partners to earn a living and contribute to the family. 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 17 make this principle a reality, such as busing designed to bring blacks into previously all-white schools, and desegregated housing (Edsall & Edsall, 1991). Thus, while many legislative gains were made for the black community, such as with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting 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 had committed a disproportionate share of these crimes. The black arrest rate had also increased by 130% (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 public sector jobs 18 (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, in which the poor became poorer, and those who attained at least a middle-class status became richer (Edsall & Edsall, 1991). These changes in the black economic situation may have pitted black couples against each other, causing increased tension and reduced trust within their relationships. Aborampah (1989) argues that changes in the United States economic structure have adversely affected romantic relationships especially in the black community, because it is worse off economically than any other group. Just 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). The percentage of black women that are obtaining degrees in higher education is rising, while the percentage for black men is declining, because they are encouraged less to go to school (Chapman, 1988). However, even with increased college enrollments for black women in the seventies and eighties, while black women are able to get a job quicker than black males and count as a double 19 minority for quotas, they continue to make less than white males, black males, and white females (Aborampah, 1989). The effects of the extreme bifurcation of blacks continue to be felt today, as evidenced by the increased conflict and tension in black male-female relationships (Willis, 1990) and a black divorce rate that has doubled since 1980 (Chapman, 1988). In addition to tensions between black males and females caused by a distressing economic situation, the disproportionally high incarceration and death 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. In 1972, not counting dead, incarcerated, or homosexual persons, the number of black males was 64 per 100 black females, and in 1986, this number had risen to only 69 black males per 100 black females (Aborampah, 1989). Most importantly, the sex ratio imbalance between black males and females is more marked in the age range of greatest marriageability (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). The sex ratio imbalance has also been suggested as a partial cause of unmarried motherhood (Aborampah, 1989). College educated black women have a particularly difficult time because of 20 the dearth of available black men having similar educational levels to be their counterparts (Staples, 1981). Damaging Values and Stereotypes Adopted by Black Couples One major cause of tensions for black couples may be that they have internalized societally driven negative myths, stereotypes, and attitudes that contribute to conflict between black male and female relationships (Rodgers-Rose, 1980), as well as a lack of trust between black partners ( Willis, 1990). Jewell (1983) argues that American media disseminates images of white males and females that serve the purpose of establishing and maintaining white male dominance. White males are depicted as brave, independent, and in complete control of their lives and the lives of their wives and children. Conversely, white females are portrayed in complementary roles as subordinates to the white male, in which they perform domestic duties such as raising children. The definitions assigned to these images are positive, and the images are said to represent productive, cooperative relationships (Jewell, 1983). Against this dominant backdrop, blacks are cast in negative, racially stereotypical roles (Allen & Hatchett, 1986; Jewell, 1983; Rodgers-Rose, 1980). Black women are portrayed as "mammies" and "Aunt Jemima’s" who are dark skinned, obese, domineering, and aggressive. The negative definitions attached to these images imply that black women 21 are the antithesis of American standards of womanhood, femininity and beauty. Blacks are accepting of these roles to the extent that many black males perceive black women as hostile (Rodgers-Rose, 1980), aggressive and emasculating (Jewell,1983). According to Jewell (1983), the images of black men proliferated by the media are also negative (see also Rodgers-Rose, 1980). Black males are depicted as "Ole black Joe’s" and "Uncle Tom’s," who are passive and lacking in motivation. Black males are less present in the media than black women, which tends to reinforce images of the absent mate (Jewell, 1983). These images may lead many black women to feel that black men are shiftless, and cannot be counted upon to assume the responsibilities and functions usually appointed to men (Rodgers-Rose, 1980). Further, Jewell (1983) argues that black women believe that black men expect too much help and support from them in becoming economically and socially mobile. Studies of the effects of television watching support the above analysis. Content studies have shown that television portrays blacks in primarily stereotypic negative roles (Weigel, Loomis & Soja, 1980). Also, Allen and Hatchett (1986) showed that television has significant effects on black social reality construction, negatively affecting both individual black self esteem and how blacks feel about themselves as a group. Unfortunately, however, Allen and Hatchett’s (1986) study does not investigate the 22 types of images portrayed on television that contribute to blacks’ perceptions of themselves, nor does it illustrate how these images affect blacks’ feelings about opposite sex members of their race. Further support for Jewell’s (1983) analysis comes from two studies by Taylor and Zhang showing that cultural identity and negative stereotypes differentiate distressed from nondistressed black couples (Taylor, 1990; Taylor & Zhang, 1990). In order to measure cultural identity, Taylor (1990) used the twenty-four item Nadanolitization Inventory (NAD). This scale was originally developed by Taylor, Wilson and Dobbins (1972) to measure white attitudes about blacks. The NAD contains items such as "Blacks are just not as smart as whites" and other white racist stereotypes regarding blacks. Taylor (1990) reasoned that since individual racial identity is linked to nurturance and affiliativeness (e.g. Denton, 1986, cited in Taylor, 1990), then one’s racial identity should also be related to couple functioning. Thus, Taylor (1990) hypothesized that high scores on this scale would be related to lower marital satisfaction scores for black men and women. Although Taylor and Zhang (1990) found that overall NAD scores were not associated with marital satisfaction, several items on the scale did discriminate between distressed and nondistressed couples. Specifically, when distressed and nondistressed couples were matched according to socioeconomic status, Taylor and Zhang (1990) found that 23 eight items significantly differentiated nondistressed from distressed husbands, and five items significantly differentiated distressed from nondistressed wives. Factor analysis of the discriminating items revealed that they could be clustered into two sets. The primary factor showed that husbands who were distressed had made significantly higher endorsements of items that indicated that blacks were cognitively inferior to whites than did nondistressed husbands. One such item was, "Genetic inferiority explains why more blacks drop out of school than whites." The secondary factor showed that to a lesser degree, distressed husbands as compared to nondistressed husbands made significantly higher endorsements of items that asserted that blacks were more sexual than whites. A sample item loading on this factor is, "Black men are better at sex than white men." Similar differences emerged for the black wives. However, for the wives, the relative importance of the two factors was reversed, with the sexual factor accounting for more of the variance than the cognitive factor. Although their study could not establish causal direction, the authors argue on theoretical grounds that these stereotypes were individually brought into the marriage, and negatively affected marital adjustment. The results of Taylor and Zhang’s (1990) study, together with Jewell’s (1983) arguments about the effects of black self-deprecation imply that racism may affect black couple relationships when blacks internalize negative 24 definitions of themselves and their partners and when they accept and conform to American values and standards of conduct. The study further identified specific destructive myths regarding the cognitive inferiority and sexual superiority of blacks as compared to whites, which highlights the need to study mechanisms such as trust, which may be the mediator linking the internalization of these negative myths with marital dissatisfaction. Moreover, other common stereotypes need to be further studied, in order to determine if they too are internalized, as well as to determine their effects on black couple functioning. Therefore, this study will examine which negative images are internalized by black males and females, as well as how the internalization of these negative images affects black male- female relationships in the areas of trust and marital satisfaction. Unfortunately, Taylor and Zhang (1990) also report that a limitation of their study was that all items on the NAD received very low endorsement. For the eight items that discriminated between groups, out of a rating scale of zero to eight, the mean response to each item was less than two. Given the extreme negativity of the items, the population for which it was devised, and possible social desirability issues, it is actually surprising that the items were endorsed as highly as they were, which implies that a better measure might lead to even stronger results. Thus, a more appropriate way to study how blacks view their racial group 25 may be through the use of racial identity measures that would yield more variability in responses, as well as determine what aspects of racial identity both positively and negatively affect black couple functioning. \/Racism and Racial Identity Racial identity is a key variable in the study of how blacks feel about themselves and relate to one another. A person’s ethnic identity consists of distinguishing symbols, signs, and underlying values that point to a distinctive shared identity with a group (Smith, 1989). Racism has caused the proliferation of negative images of blacks (Allen & Hatchett, 1986), and has led to the internalization of these images by blacks themselves\(g§welll 1983; Rodgers- Rose, 1980). Thus racism has had significant negative effects on racial identity for blacks (Allen & Hatchett, 1986; Taylor, 1990; Taylor & Zhang, 1990). Further, the present study investigates the hypothesis that because of its effects on the internalization of negative myths, racism has caused many black couples to mistrust each other (Willis, 1990), and as a result, it has led to dissatisfaction in black marital relationships (Rodgers- Rose, 1980). Accordingly, a more in-depth analysis of racial identity theory can provide the conceptual links between racial identity and couple functioning to direct further study. 26 Once again, Erikson’s work provides a useful conceptual framework and historical backdrop. Erikson, (1950) proposed that each human being needs a healthy sense of ego identity to be fully functioning. He defines ego identity as "the accrued confidence that the inner sameness and continuity prepared in the past are matched by the sameness and continuity of one’s meaning for others (Erikson, 1950)." Erikson thought that a sense of ego identity gains strength from the realization of accomplishment that has meaning in the culture. He further believed that the deprivation of one’s identity was tantamount to murder (Erikson, 1950). In an important treatise about racism and racial identity, Erikson (1950) noted the continued efforts of American society to strip blacks of their identity. He discussed the entertainment industry’s extensive attempts to disseminate racial caricatures and stereotypes of blacks. Though he indicated that the American media was powerful in disseminating contrasting dominant ideal and evil images for all Americans, he also indicated that the ideal images for blacks were those of emulating whiteness or of subservience to the dominant white race. Blacks had to contend with images of the sensual/oral black, the evil, dirty, phallic rapist "nigger, " and the "white man’s negro" as the only black identity fragments that were available for integration. Because the only successful black identity available was that of the slave, Erikson (1950) argued that blacks 27 underwent a dangerous split: first they developed a slave identity, and later in life, there was an unavoidable identification with the dominant race. Yet because of American tradition and lack of opportunity, blacks were the most flagrant case of American minorities forced to identify with negative stereotypes of themselves, thereby jeopardizing their ability to participate in an American identity (Erikson, 1950). Erikson (1950) further suggests that blacks, in their difficulty with mastering the identity versus inferiority stage, will have significant problems in relating to significant others on an intimate level. Erikson describes adolescent love as an attempt to define one’s identity by projecting diffused ego images on one another and having them reflected and gradually clarified. Only after emerging from one’s identity struggles can one’s ego master the next life stage of intimacy (Erikson, 1950). Thus, Erikson’s analysis of black identity struggles implies that black couples will have a difficult time with intimate couple relationships if they try to internalize the dominant images of themselves that are not self affirming. Present day theories research tends to support Erikson’s (1950) views on racial identity. In general, a negative racial identity in which blacks internalize white racist views of themselves has been found to relate to low self esteem (Allen & Hatchett, 1986), aggression (Denton, 28 1986), and a negative perception of blacks as a group (Allen & Hatchett, 1986). Yet an examination of the composition of racial identity can shed more light on both its measurement and its effects. A person’s ethnic identity consists of distinguishing symbols, signs, and underlying values that point to a distinctive identity shared with a group (Smith, 1989). While race is defined purely by a person’s physical characteristics, it is significant because people are categorized according to these traits, and act on those categories (Landrum, 1984). The most comprehensive models of racial identity have primarily studied minorities (e.g. Atkinson, Morten & Sue, 1979; Cross, 1971, 1978), and the most popular of these is Cross’ (1971) model of psychological Nigrescence, describing the process of becoming black. Cross’ (1971, 1978) model consists of five stages. In the first stage, pre-encounter, the black person adheres to white standards, values, and beliefs. In the second stage, encounter, the individual encounters an adverse situation that causes him/her to begin to question the previously held identity. In progressing through the remaining stages, the individual experiences radical changes in emotions, beliefs, and behaviors. These changes culminate in a stage where the individual is committed to the issues of black people and views life from a black frame of reference, while being simultaneously 29 appreciative of the contributions of other races and cultures (Cross, 1978). While Cross’ model has greatly advanced theory in the area of racial identity, several key problems have been identified in both the measurement of the model and the theory behind it. For example, the Black Racial Identity Attitude Scale (RIAS-B; Parham & Helms, 1981) is a paper and pencil attitudinal measure that is the most frequently used inventory to measure racial identity according to Cross’ (1971) model (Ponterotto, 1989). Helms (1989) cites several studies that found substantial variability in reliability estimates of each stage of Cross’ (1971) model, as measured with the RIAS-B. Also, as a measure of general attitudes, the RIAS-B is not sensitive to situational variations in identity (Smith, 1989). This is problematic, since racial identity might differ according to what aspect of the person’s life he or she is considering (Helms, 1989; Parham, 1989). Moreover, Helms (1989) notes that Cross’ (1971) model and other stage models of racial identity each share the problems of traditional developmental psychology models. These include difficulties with: (a) determining which stage the individual is in, or which cycle the person is following, (b) determining the additivity or disjunctivity of stages, (c) determining whether or not one dimension underlies the developmental process, and (d) understanding whether identity means the same thing across different age groups. 30 The above considerations suggest that it may be more useful to conceptualize Nigrescence as a state as opposed to a stage (Akbar, 1989). This type of conceptualization would lead one to view Nigrescence as a biogenetically determined core of the black self, as opposed to developmental reactions to social conditions, as Cross’ (1971) model implies. If Nigrescence is seen as a core racial identity, then it would emerge as a natural development within the normal supportive environment of one’s culture, and remain essentially intact throughout the life cycle (Akbar, 1989). In contrast, the RIAS-B only measures attitudes, which, though they may be shaped by identity, are not necessarily in themselves indicators of identity. Rather than use the RIAS-B (Parham & Helms, 1981), it is preferable to assess internalized values that advocate cultural awareness and respect black thoughts and behaviors. These values would be self affirming and consistent with a secure racial identity (Akbar, 1989). In contrast to models promoting stages of black racial identity, Bell et a1. (1990) conceptualize racial identity as being either Eurocentric or Afrocentric. They state that American society reflects values of Western European societies, which emphasize material wealth, standards of beauty based upon white models, and social and economic power, which are standards that the vast majority of blacks are not able to meet. They describe Eurocentric culture as being primarily materialistic, individualistic, and 31 competitive. They further illustrate how this orientation pervades American heterosexual relationships, and, consistent with the aforementioned literature on the conceptualizations of black families and media studies, leads to the portrayal of blacks as deviant (Bell et al., 1990). In contrast, an Afrocentric worldview would be more self affirming for blacks because it derives from African values. That is, an Afrocentric worldview is defined by two guiding principles: "oneness with nature" and "survival of the group." This view 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). In order to study the concepts of Eurocentrism and Afrocentrism, Baldwin and Bell (1985) developed the African Self Consciousness Scale, which measures an Afrocentric worldview as a personality construct. The 42-item scale measures four competency dimensions that include: (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, 32 interpersonal relations, and political orientation (Baldwin & Bell, 1985). Although the ASC Scale has been subjected to little research, the few studies completed have supported its reliability and validity. The scale has a test-retest reliability of .90 over a six week period (Baldwin & Bell, 1985). In one test of its content validity, undergraduate subjects who received exceptionally high or exceptionally low ASC Scores were blindly rated by their psychology instructors on a checklist of ten behaviors reflecting the African Self-Consciousness construct. The checklist included items indicating how much the student cares about blacks in general, takes a definite position against white racism, and supports pro-black issues. The results demonstrated that the subjects’ mean ASC Scale scores were significantly (r=.70) correlated with their mean check-list ratings. In another study of its convergent validity, the ASC Scale was significantly correlated (r=.68) with mean scores on Williams’ Black Personality Questionnaire (BPQ, Wright & Isenstein, 1977) an instrument designed to assess six major response sets of psychological blackness. Because the authors conceptualize Afrocentricity as a personality trait, the ASC Scale avoids many of the methodological difficulties associated with developmental models. Also, since the instrument measures personality across six areas of life functioning, the ASC Scale avoids difficulties associated with the situational use of an 33 ethnic identity. Lastly, the items of the ASC Scale not only look at black attitudes towards whites and those of their own culture, but they also look at the respondent’s level of consciousness and values that are consistent with an African based identity (Akbar, 1989). Most importantly, for the present study, the ASC scale has been used to study the link between racial identity and black male-female intimate relations (Bell et al., 1990). Bell and colleagues (1990) asserted that black heterosexual relationships are victimized by racial and cultural oppression in America. They therefore hypothesized that black male-female relationships that promote Eurocentric values would be less stable than black heterosexual relationships with an Afrocentric foundation, and that there should be a positive relationship between an Afrocentric cultural consciousness and healthy, self affirming black male-female relationships. To test their hypotheses, these researchers studied unmarried individuals using the ASC Scale. They also developed the Black Heterosexual Relationship (BHR) Survey, designed to determine whether or not a respondent desires an ideal mate who has Afrocentric values, and whether or not respondents projected that they would espouse Afrocentric values in their own heterosexual relationships. Bell et al. (1990) asserted that those scoring low on the ASC Scale would chose mates having qualities that are less likely to lead to mutual support and trust in the relationship. 34 Their third measure involved a scenario in which the person’s partner was unable to carry out typical functions due to an illness or unemployment. Respondents gave answers rated as Afrocentric if they indicated that they would fully support their partner in this time of need, or rated as Eurocentric if they indicated that they would give partial support or no support to their partner. The rationale for these categories was that if the respondents would support their partner, then they would not be judging their partner according to Eurocentric notions, i.e., that the partner is to blame for his/her own situation, and that no matter what, the partner should be able to fulfill his/her duties. Not surprisingly, Bell et al. (1990) found that scores on the ASC Scale were significantly positively related to scores on the Ideal Mate and Heterosexual Attitudes portions of the BHR. The results demonstrated that those who had a high degree of African Self Consciousness held attitudes fabout relationships that were consistent with these views, and desired ideal mates who also had Afrocentric orientations. More importantly, those with Afrocentric values and who desired a mate who espouses the same values overwhelmingly chose to support their partners. These respondents indicated that they would support their partners significantly more often than those who espoused Eurocentric attitudes such as independence, financial, occupational and educational status, and who also desired a mate embracing the same Eurocentric values as they did. 35 These results imply that partners having an Afrocentric worldview orientation may be better able to depend on their partners in times of need. Couples having this orientation may place more faith in the belief that each partner is committed to supporting and loving one another, without feeling pressure to match Eurocentric standards of living, or to blame their partners for their difficulties. It is equally plausible that couples having an Afrocentric worldview, by virtue of their historical commitment to the family above other sub-units (i.e. the spousal unit) may have a stronger commitment to the family than couples having a Eurocentric worldview, and therefore stay with their partners whether or not they blame them for their problems. Either type of outlook would be especially important for black couples, who have significantly less status and income than whites, even when they have attained the same education and training levels (Scanzoni, 1975). These data also appear to be consistent with the notions of trust held by Rempel et al. (1985), and imply that having an Afrocentric worldview may also lead to more commitment, cohesion and stability between black partners. Unfortunately, one major limitation of Bell et al.’s (1990) study is that the researchers did not use real couples in their study. Instead, they had the subjects project what they would do with their partner in the scenario, without having assessed whether the person actually had a partner, and if so, whether the couple’s 36 relationship actually modeled the self-reported projections. As a result, Bell et al., (1990) were not able to address the mechanism by which each partner’s level of Afrocentricity affects the couple relationship. Therefore, the present study will use actual couples in its attempt to empirically establish that trust and marital satisfaction are important outcomes for the way Afrocentricity affects intimate black heterosexual relationships, as well as demonstrate how these variables are affected by the internalization of racist stereotypes. Socioeconomic Status Because the average black person has a lower income and experiences less opportunities than the average white person, it is important to investigate the effects of socioeconomic status on black couple relationships. While mainstream psychological literature links lower incomes with marital disruption (e.g. Scanzoni, 1975), studies of black samples often show conflicting results regarding the effects of socioeconomic status on relationships, as well as its effects on racial identity. Further, there is a need to explore the socioeconomic status of black couples to identify how it is translated into trust versus mistrust, and thus, marital satisfaction versus dissatisfaction. When the literature is examined, there are many who indicate that the lower socioeconomic stats of blacks does negatively affect their couple relationships. Aborampah 37 (1989) postulates that the relatively lower income of blacks as compared to whites often produces tensions in black relationships and marital disruptions because the sense of insecurity caused by economic hardship disrupts feelings of belonging and the quality of the marital relationship. These ideas are supported by the literature that correlates socioeconomic status and marital satisfaction, along with research that documents the effects on poverty on families and on heterosexual relationships (e.g. Elder, 1979; Mcloyd, 1990). For example, Scanzoni (1975) and Taylor (1990) found that high socioeconomic status is correlated with high marital satisfaction for both black and white couples. Scanzoni’s (1975) study also found that although blacks appeared to undergo many of the same basic marital processes as whites, their significantly lower socioeconomic status and income level tended to make their relationships more problematic than those of white couples. Further, Hampton (1979) looked at husband characteristics in black intact families and found that income was the most important predictor of marital disruption for black couples, which itself was largely predicted by age, employment difficulties and education level. Yet these findings conflict with Bell et al.’s (1990) study, in which blacks who had a relatively lower socioeconomic status reported that they would be more supportive of their spouse in times of need. While Bell’s study is limited by the use of hypothetical scenarios and 38 the subjects’ assertions rather than their actual behaviors within a relationship, the findings are supported by Gary’s (1986) discovery that black men with relatively low incomes report less conflict in their heterosexual relations than higher income black men. Studies that take racial identity into account also yield complicated results. Demo and Hughes (1990) found that blacks with a low socioeconomic status felt closer to other blacks, yet evaluated blacks more negatively as a group. Further, Turner (1976) found that those higher on race consciousness tended to be poor, under thirty, northerners and mistrustful of whites. Interestingly, Bell et al.’s (1990) study implied that perhaps black couples’ responses to poverty may be contingent upon how they feel about themselves and their partners as black people, which indicates that racial identity moderates the effects of poverty on marital satisfaction. Taylor (1990) and Taylor and Zhang’s (1990) studies found that although socioeconomic status accounted for some of the variance in internalized racism, internalization of some negative stereotypes still independently affected marital satisfaction when socioeconomic status was statistically controlled (Taylor & Zhang, 1990). These findings imply several things: (a) socioeconomic status directly affects racial identity, (b) socioeconomic status affects marital satisfaction in different ways depending on racial identity, and (c) some aspects of racial identity affect marital satisfaction 39 independent of socioeconomic status. However, inconsistent with the above findings, Carter and Helms (1985) found that racial identity according to the RIAS-B was unrelated to socioeconomic status. Thus, because socioeconomic status appears to affect racial ideologies and relationship issues, yet show only inconsistent findings, it is important to take this factor into account in future studies in order to provide additional data to help clarify this issue. Theory and Purpose of the Present Study Hypotheses The purpose of this study is to examine interpersonal trust within black couples as a function of the degree to which the partners have been negatively impacted by societal racism to the point of building self deprecating beliefs about blacks, as well as the degree to which they hold Eurocentric versus Afrocentric values. Specifically, the model for this study proposes that for African-Americans, the internalization of the negative myths that have been perpetuated by racism influence both the cultural attitudes and practices of each individual, as well as the degree of trust the individual places in his or her partner. Further, the person’s cultural orientation also influences the degree to which the person trusts his or her partner (see figure 1). Finally, socioeconomic status is studied as a possible predictor of interpersonal trust, or moderator of the effects of the internalization of negative myths and 4O worldview on trust, and marital satisfaction is proposed as an outcome of interpersonal trust within black couples. The subjects’ internalization of negative myths regarding blacks will be examined in order to evaluate the impact of living in a racially oppressive society on the subjects’ self— and group image. Cultural orientation will be assessed by the degree to which they espouse an African versus a European self-consciousness. Some specific hypotheses follow which predict the aforementioned processes. 41 .bzmsc 9:30:32 cam .75: .coszmto .8230 co mmabomaosm gamma: Co cozmufiEmLE 9: Co Booto of. .F 939d 3:80 968%? /\ cosficoto .8330 moazoo xoflm :EES «mat. /\ won—30865 033.02 po~=mEBE Internalization of Racism 1. The internalization of negative stereotypes about blacks will be negatively correlated with both trust and relationship quality within black couples. 2. The internalization of negative stereotypes will be negatively correlated with Afrocentrism. Cultural Orientation 3. Each person’s worldview will be positively correlated with his/her partner’s worldview. 4. Afrocentrism will be positively correlated with trust in the partner and relationship quality. Trust 5. Trust within black couples will be positively correlated with relationship quality. 6. The impact of racism and cultural orientation on trust and marital status will be consistent with the model presented in Figure 1, with the effects of racism measure (the internalization of negative stereotypes) predicting both the cultural orientation measure (degree of Afrocentricity) and the outcome variables (trust and marital satisfaction), and with Afrocentricity also predicting trust and marital satisfaction. 42 Socioeconomic Status Because previous research reveals the importance of socioeconomic status, but also shows conflicting findings, an additional research question will explore the possible moderator or mediator effects of socioeconomic status on the model presented in Figure 1. Method Subjects The participants were seventy-three couples recruited from the Greater Lansing area. As an incentive to participate, all subjects were entered into a lottery for $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 at least 90% of the measures administered. Possible subjects were identified in multiple ways by the principle investigator and five student research assistants, who either volunteered or received undergraduate course credit for their assistance. The research assistants received six hours of initial training and met two hours per week for supervision, which included instruction, discussion, role plays, and supervised practice. This training also familiarized them with the research instruments and gave them experience in recruiting couples 43 44 by phone and handling questions. The five research assistants administered questionnaires to fifty (68.5%) of the couples, and the principle investigator administered questionnaires to twenty-three (31.5%) of the couples. Advertisement flyers were distributed throughout the area, which stated, "Black 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, any known organizations in the area having a large black clientele or membership were contacted in person or by phone. They were told about the study, and 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. Further, snowball sampling was used, in which couples who had already participated in the study were asked to provide the names and numbers of their friends and acquaintances who might be interested in participating. As reported by the females, the partners had known each other for an average of 14.10 years (SD= 12.08). Of the 73 couples, 55 (75.3%) were married, 4 (5.5%) couples were engaged, 3 (4.1%) were living together, and 11 (15.1%) of 45 the couples were seriously dating. They reported being in their current relationship for an average of 9.8 years (SD=10.72). Eighty-eight [60%] of the subjects were protestants (including:2 Apostolics, 62 Baptists, 6 Episcopalians, 5 Pentecostals, 13 Protestant), 4 [3%] were Catholic, 33 [23%] were unspecified Christians (18) or nondenominational (15), 16 [11%] were part of another religion or no religion, and 5 [3%] 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, job status, personal income and family of origin income, as well as the length of time they have known each other and have been in the relationship. Table 2 presents T-Tests and correlations between partners on the demographic variables. The partners’ scores were significantly correlated for every variable. The T- Tests revealed that the men were significantly older than the women, p(69)=6.8, p<.001, they made significantly more money than the women, p(38)=2.04, p<.05, and they practiced their religion significantly less often than their partners p(66)=-1.97, p=.05. Procedure The subjects had the option of completing the measures at the site in which they were contacted, at home, or in the project office. Each session lasted approximately one hour. 46 Prior to participating in the study, each couple was informed of their rights as volunteers, reassured as to the confidentiality of their responses, and were asked to complete informed consent forms. Each couple was told the general purpose of the study, the time it took to complete the questionnaires, and their questions were answered. For the assessment, each partner individually completed a battery of questionnaires assessing demographic information, beliefs regarding stereotypes about blacks, cultural worldview, trust in one another, and relationship quality. Each measure is described below. Demographic Measures Socipgconomic statusy 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 coded into categories according to the Duncan (1961) scale of occupational status. Students’ occupation and income data were not used in any analyses, on the basis that their status is temporary, and not indicative of their future potential. 47 Table 1 Couple Qemographics Variable Mean SD Range Age (years) Males 37.75 12.19 19-72 Females 35.40 11.27 18-66 Number of dependents Males 1.97 1.65 0-6 Females 1.55 1.64 0-7 Education (years) Males 15.70 2.25 10-20 Females 16.04 2.20 12-20 Duncan Occupational Index Males 52.87 20.54 17.50-88.40 Females 53.67 17.88 16.10-88.40 Yearly personal income‘ Males 42,000 22,000 10,000-140,ooo Females 35,000 23,000 0-110,000 Family of origin yearly income Males 31,000 27,000 1,000-120,000 Females 36,000 26,000 5,000-120,000 ' Incomes are rounded to the nearest thousand dollars. 48 Table 2 Paired T-Tests and Correlations Between Males and Females on Demographic Data Means Variable N Males Females Paired p (pairs) t-value Age 69 37.75 35.20 6.80*** .97*** Education 68 15.74 16.06 -1.25 .54*** Occupation (Duncan) 50 53.00 54.70 -.58 .43** Income (yearly)‘ 38 44,000 36,000 2.04* .44** Family of origin yearly income‘ 46 34,000 36,000 -.54 .44** Degree of Religiosity 65 3.02 3.17 -1.49 .31* Practice of Religion 66 3.85 4.15 -1.97* .37** Note. Income estimates may not accurately represent sample characteristics, because some subjects failed to provide income data. Further, students’ occupation and income data were not included in these analyses. ‘ Incomes are rounded to the nearest thousand dollars. *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 Couple Measures Lengthztype 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). Relationship guality. The subjects’ relationship quality was measured using the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS; Spanier, 1976), 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 dimensions of dyadic satisfaction, consensus, cohesion, and affectional expression (see Appendix B), as well as producing a score for overall dyadic adjustment. Internalized Racism Measures Stereotypes. The subjects’ internalization of negative myths was measured by three checklists of adjectives, that represent stereotypes often found in both research and popular literature regarding blacks in general and black males and females separately (e.g. Allen & Hatchett, 1986; Jewell, 1983; Taylor & Zhang, 1990). This measure is adapted from Allen and Hatchett’s (1986) measure of "black group perception" (see Appendix C, items one through ten). 49 50 In their study, it had a reliability estimate Chronbach’s alpha of .71. For the present study, other stereotypes were added, and people were asked to answer questions about black males and females separately as well as for the group, in order 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 overall (see Appendix C). The question regarding myths about blacks in general is worded, "Most black people ." The respondents were instructed to respond to each of the fourteen adjectives according to a five point likert-type scale, in which =strongly agree, and 7=strongly disagree. The adjectives used for this question are as follows: are ashamed of themselves, are lazy, neglect their families, 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, and are competent. The question regarding myths about black males is worded, "Most black men ." The adjectives used for this question are the same as above, with the addition of the following adjectives: are chauvinistic, are charismatic, are dominating towards women, are respectful towards women, and are faithful to their partners. The question regarding myths about black females is worded, "Most black women ." The adjectives used for this scale are the same as those for the question assessing myths 51 about blacks, with the addition of the following adjectives: are emasculating, are competitive, are dominating towards men, are respectful towards men, and are feminine. Cultural Orientation Measupe Cultural Orientation. In order to determine each subject’s cultural orientation, Baldwin and Bell’s (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 D). The scale measures four competency dimensions as manifested in six areas of black life. The six-week test-retest reliability and internal validity coefficients of the ASC scale were reported to be .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. Trust Measures 7 Elements of trust. In order to assess the degree of trust that each subject has in his/her partner, Rempel et al.’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 52 theorized by Rempel et al. (1985). The scale consists of statements about the trustworthiness of each subject’s partner (see Appendix E). 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 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 factor loadings 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 53 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). Results Because additions were made on the Black Group Perception Scale (Allen & Hatchett, 1986), Chronbach’s alphas were computed for both the entire new scale, referred to as the Stereotype Scale, each of its subscales, and the original Black Group Perception Scale (Allen & Hatchett, 1986). Further, Chronbach’s alphas were computed for the other scales used in the study. These computations are presented in Table 3. As shown in the table, the alphas were acceptable for all scales and subscales used in the study (range: .64 to .94), with only two scales falling below alpha = .70. Also, the Chronbach’s alphas for the Stereotypes Scale and each of its three subscales were comparable to those of the original scale, which suggests that the additions to the scale were meaningful. The means, standard deviations, and ranges of the subjects’ scores on each of the scales and subscales 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, black males endorsed significantly more stereotypes about blacks in general and about black females than did the females. They also reported lower scores for dyadic affection in their relationships than did the females. 54 Table 3 55 Chronbacp’s Alphas for Men and Women on the Research Scales Scale Men Women Black Group Perception .83 .84 Stereotypes (total) .94 .93 Blacks .83 .84 Males .87 .87 Females .79 .84 Afrocentricity .86 .81 Trust (total) .87 .90 Predictability .64 .74 Dependability .71 .73 Faith .80 .86 Dyadic Adjustment (total) .92 .91 Affection .65 .73 Cohesion .71 .81 Consensus .89 .88 Satisfaction .81 .85 56 Ammzcflucoo mHntv vo.au on u om: mm.oa 66.4H on n m: Hm.m om.ma_ spams om.H Sm u can ss.m 6m.HH um i can m¢.s me.ma suflaflnmccmdmo ~6.n ma : m: oa.m em.s ea 1 m: oe.m mn.n xuflafinmuoflcmum mo.n on u mm: mm.am vm.¢m .mm n mH: 6H.ma se.em Aamuouv undue so.: A i 4 mm. «H.m s n m ms. ma.m Aeneas xuflofluucooouu< 4-.~ no 1 mm He.m mm.mm on u mm om.» ~m.mv mmaasmm 64.- me u on He.m m0.me mm 1 mm mm.m ms.sv moan: 4AH.~ me n SH em.s ms.m~ cm i 4H -.> mm.An mxomam ~4.H and u we H~.mm me.mHH mom n ma sm.mm oo.-a Hmuoe mmmxuomumum msflm> .mmcmm am :40: .mocmm om new: nu mamom :0503 :02 mmamom noummmmm may :0 moocoummuwo mamaomioamz pap mcofluofl>mo pumpcmum .mmmmfl e magma 57 mo.vm* .Hmnesc macs: phenom: onu ou popcsou mum mmmcom . we. bv I ma mm.m mm.mm me I am mw.m wo.hm COHuOmumflpmm mb.HI mm I hm mm.h om.mv mm I em mo.m ow.m¢ mzmcmmcoo mh.HI em I m hm.v m¢.ma mm I m mm.m om.va :OHmOEOU emm.ml ma I m mm.m mh.m ma I e ma.m mo.w cowuomuu< mo.HI HvH I mm mm.>a mv.moa med I 00 m.mH Hm.©OH AHm#OBV unmaumsflec oflnmso 05Hm> .mmcmm on com: .wmcom am and: I» mamom c0503 :0: 16.0coov e manna 58 In order to determine whether the partners’ scores were significantly related, correlations were computed. These results are presented in Table 5. Table 5 shows that, with the exception of the endorsement of negative stereotypes about black females, and reports of their partner’s predictability, the partners’ scores were significantly correlated. Further, the significant correlations between the men and women were highest for the Dyadic Adjustment Scale scores (range p’s=.54 to .74), lowest for the Stereotype Scale scores (range p’s= .26 to .28), and in the middle range for the Afrocentricity and the Trust Scale scores (p=.42 and range p’s=.38 to .47, respectively). Internalization of Racism and Relationship Measures The first set of analyses tested the hypothesis that the internalization of negative stereotypes would be negatively correlated with trust and relationship quality in black couples. This hypothesis was tested by correlating both the total scale scores and the subscale scores for the stereotypes measure with the scores for trust and for relationship quality. Table 6 presents these correlations for men, and Table 7 presents these correlations for women. 59 Table 5 Correlations Between Meg and Women on the Research Scales Scale Correlation Stereotypes (total) .28* Blacks .28* Males .26* Females .16 Afrocentricity (mean) .41*** Trust (total) ,43*** Predictability .14 Dependability .38** Faith .47*** Dyadic Adjustment (total) .74*** Affection .62*** Cohesion ,54*** Consensus ,54*** Satisfaction .71*** *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 60 As shown in Table 6, for men, there were no significant correlations between total scores on the Black Group Perception Scale, and the total scores on the Trust Scale and the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (p’s=-.14, and -.16, respectively). When the stereotype subscales were analyzed, only one significant correlation emerged, where the males’ endorsement of negative stereotypes about black men was negatively correlated with their reports that their relationships were less cohesive (p=-.25, p<.05). Similarly, as shown in Table 7, for the women, total scores regarding negative stereotypes did not correlate significantly with their trust or dyadic adjustment scores (p’s=-.08, and -.20, respectively). Again, only one significant correlation emerged for the subscales, where the women’s stereotypes about black men were negatively correlated with their reports of partner dependability, a component of trust (p=-.25, p<.05). 61 Table 6 Correlations Between Mep’s Stereotypes and their Trust and Dyadic Adjustment Scores Stereotypes Scales Total Blacks Males Females Trust Total -.14 -.03 -.13 -.21 Predictability -.08 -.04 -.08 -.09 Dependability -.15 -.07 -.11 -.22 Faith -.12 .02 -.12 -.20 Dyadic Adjustment Total -.16 -.09 -.16 -.19 Affection -.08 -.05 -.06 -.11 Cohesion -.22 -.16 -.25* -.20 Consensus -.13 -.06 -.12 -.17 Satisfaction -.11 -.07 -.11 -.14 *p<.05 62 Table 7 Correlations Between Women’s Stereotypes and their Trust and Dyadic Adjustment Scores Stereotypes Scales Total Blacks Males Females Trust Total -.08 -.08 -.14 -.01 Predictability -.03 -.07 -.03 .03 Dependability -.20 -.20 -.25* -.11 Faith .01 .03 -.07 .05 Dyadic Adjustment Total -.20 -.18 -.23 -.15 Affection -.01 -.01 -.10 .09 Cohesion -.13 -.10 -.12 -.16 Consensus -.13 -.11 -.17 -.09 Satisfaction -.16 -.14 -.18 -.12 *p<.05 63 In addition, cross partner correlations were also computed. Correlations between the men’s stereotype scores and the women’s trust and dyadic adjustment scores are presented in Table 8. As shown in the table, none of the men’s stereotypes were related to the women’s reports regarding their relationship. Table 9 presents the correlations between the women’s stereotype scores and the men’s partners’ trust and dyadic adjustment scores. As shown in Table 9, unlike the men’s stereotype scores, the women’s stereotype scores were predictive of their partners’ scores on the Trust and Dyadic Adjustment Scales. Specifically, the females’ overall stereotype scores and their stereotype scores regarding black people and regarding black men are all negatively correlated with the males’ reports regarding their partners’ dependability. Further, the females’ scores regarding stereotypes about black men were also negatively correlated with the males’ total trust scores. Lastly, the females’ stereotype scores regarding black people were negatively correlated with the males’ scores for overall dyadic adjustment scores and for dyadic consensus. 64 Table 8 Correlations of Men’s Stereotype Scores with Women’s Trust and Dyadic Adjustment Scores Men’s Stereotype Scores Women’s Scales Total Blacks Men Women Trust Total -.05 -.04 -.08 -.03 Predictability .01 .02 -.02 .04 Dependability -.07 -.06 -.11 -.04 Faith -.04 -.03 -.05 -.03 Dyadic Adjustment Total -.06 -.02 -.08 -.05 Affection -.03 .00 -.06 -.03 Cohesion .01 .02 -.06 -.03 Consensus -.04 -.01 -.04 -.05 Satisfaction -.01 -.03 -.02 -.00 Note. No p values were less than .05 65 Table 9 Correlations of Women’s Stereotype Scores with Men’s Trust and Dyadic Adjustment Scores Women’s Stereotype Scores Men’s Scales Total Blacks Men Women Trust Total -.19 -.22 -.27* -.03 Predictability -.14 -.18 -.17 -.04 Dependability -.24* -.29* -.33* -.05 Faith -.11 -.11 -.18 -.00 Dyadic Adjustment Total -.22 -.25* -.23 -.13 Affection .01 .01 -.01 .01 Cohesion -.22 -.22 -.20 -.21 Consensus -.20 -.26* -.22 -.08 Satisfaction -.20 -.21 -.21 -.15 *p<.05, **p<.01 66 The results generally did not provide support for the first hypothesis, with the exception of a few relatively weak correlations in the predicted direction. These correlations suggest that each partner’s negative stereotypes about black men has negative implications for their own reports of trust for women and relationship quality for men. Although there were no correlations between men’s stereotypes and women’s relationship satisfaction and trust, negative stereotypes by women did have expected relationships with their husbands’ relationship scores. When black women endorse negative stereotypes, their partners report that they are less dependable, except when those stereotypes are regarding black women. Further, when black women endorse negative stereotypes regarding black men, their partners report that they are untrustworthy, and when they endorse negative stereotypes regarding blacks in general, their partners report that their relationship quality, especially their consensus, is poor. Thus, it seems that negative stereotypes have little relationship to the subjects' reports of their own trust and relationship quality, both when women hold negative stereotypes, it negatively affects their partners’ feelings about their relationship. Internalization of Racism and Afrocentricity Hypothesis two predicted that the internalization of negative stereotypes would also be negatively associated 67 with level of Afrocentrism as measured by the African Self Consciousness Scale. Table 10 presents the correlations between these two scales. While the men’s stereotype scores were not significantly correlated with their Afrocentricity scores, the women’s overall stereotype scores, their stereotype scores regarding black people, and their stereotype scores regarding black women were negatively correlated with their own Afrocentricity scores as expected. The women’s stereotype scores regarding black men were not correlated with their Afrocentricity scores. Therefore, hypothesis number two was partially supported, but only for women. Cultural Orientation The third hypothesis stated that each subject’s worldview is significantly correlated with his or her partner’s worldview. Correlations testing this hypothesis are presented in Table 5. The men’s Afrocentricity scores were positively correlated with the women’s Afrocentricity scores (r(73)=.41, p<.01). Thus, this hypothesis was supported. Table 10 68 Correlations Between Stereotypes and Afrocentricity Stereotypes Total Blacks Men Women Afrocentricity Men -.13 -.09 -.10 -.18 Women -.26* -.25* -.16 -.28* *p<.05 if 69 The fourth hypothesis stated that each partner’s level of Afrocentrism would be positively correlated with his or her own reports of trust in the partner, as well as his or her own reports of relationship quality. These correlations are presented in Table 11. Regarding the correlation with trust, contrary to the hypothesis, the women’s levels of Afrocentricity were negatively correlated with their total levels of trust in their partners (r(72)=-.25, p<.05). Also, both the men’s and the women’s levels of Afrocentricity were negatively correlated with their own reports regarding the dependability of their partners (men, r(73)=-.28, p<.05; women, r(72)=-.26, p<.05). Again, cross gender correlations were also computed. Results showed that, contrary to expectations, the men’s levels of Afrocentricity were negatively correlated with the women’s levels of faith that their partner would continue to be responsive to them and be committed to them in the future (r(72)=-.23, p<.05). Regarding Afrocentrism’s correlations with dyadic adjustment, similar to the results for trust, all significant correlations were negative, contrary to hypothesis four (see Table 11). As shown in Table 11, both the men’s and the women’s Afrocentricity scores were negatively correlated with their own relationship satisfaction scores (men, r(73)= -.24, p=.04; women, r(70)= -.31, p=.01). 70 Table 11 Correlations of Afrocentrism with Trust and Dyadic Adjustment for Men and Women Afrocentrism Relationship Scale Men Women Men’s Trust Total scores -.19 -.06 Predictability -.06 -.03 Dependability -.28* -.08 Faith -.11 -.04 Men’s Dyadic Adjustment Total scores -.19 -.23 Affection -.16 -.27* Cohesion -.09 -.18 Consensus -.08 -.13 Satisfaction -.24* -.25* Women’s Trust Total scores -.23 -.25* Predictability -.18 -.17 Dependability -.19 -.26* Faith -.23* -.20 Women’s Dyadic Adjustment Total scores -.13 -.14 Affection -.09 -.23 Cohesion -.04 -.07 Consensus -.05 -.04 Satisfaction -.27* -.31** *p<.05, **p<.01 71 Again, there were also negative cross-gender correlations. As shown in Table 11, both the men’s and the women’s Afrocentricity scores were negatively correlated with their partners’ relationship satisfaction scores (men, r(70)=-.27, p<.05; women, r(73)=-.25, p<.05). Further, the women’s Afrocentricity scores were negatively correlated with the men’s reports of the amount of affection displayed in the relationship (r(71)=-.27, p<.05). In sum, these correlations were clearly unsupportive of hypothesis number four. Few correlations were significant, they were relatively weak, and the directions contradicted the hypotheses. Afrocentricity is related to some components of trust and relationship quality for both black males and females, but in a negative manner, where high Afrocentricity is associated with lower trust and relationship quality both for self and for the partner. Trust Hypothesis number five stated that each partners’ trust and dyadic adjustment scores would be positively correlated. These correlations are displayed in Table 12. 72 Hoo.vm444 .Ho.vm44 .mo.vm4 «asap. 444mm. «sswv. 444Nm. cofluommmflumm 444mm. 444ev. em. 444mm. msmcmwcoo 444mm. 4440v. 4mm. 44emm. cowmmnoo 444me. «mm. mo. 44mm. cowuomuud 444mb. «44am. «4mm. «sens. mmuoom HMHOB unmevmznpé oflpmho c0503 «44mm. 444me. 444cc. 444Nm. seaflomumflumm 4440p. «44¢v. son. «eshm. msmcmmcoo 444mm. om. «mm. exemv. cowmmnoo 44mm. HN. mo. «on. cofluomuu< 4444s. 444sv. 4444. 44456. mmuoom Hmuoe unmaumsflc< oflcmso so: guess sueafinmecmmmo suflaanauomemum sauce awoke 2050: pan :0: how wmuoom ucmfiums.p< Caps a pan mouoom Dunne cmwwumm mcoflumamuuoo 028 NH OHQMB 73 Consistent with the hypothesis, for both the men and the women, each person’s total trust scores and faith scores were significantly correlated with his or her Dyadic Adjustment Scale total scores and subscale scores. Both the total trust scores and the faith scores also had the most consistently high correlations with dyadic adjustment. Further, all but three correlations for men and two correlations for women were significant. Predictability and dependability scores were not significantly correlated with dyadic affection, and dependability scores were unrelated to cohesion for the men. For the women, predictability was not related to affection and consensus. The subjects’ trust scores were also correlated with their partners’ dyadic adjustment scores. Table 13 presents these correlations. With the exception of the predictability subscale, each of the women’s trust scores were significantly correlated with each of the men’s dyadic adjustment scores (range r’s=.27 to .57). The women’s predictability subscale was only correlated with the men’s satisfaction scores. For the men, their total trust scores and their faith scores were also significantly correlated with each of the women’s dyadic adjustment scores (range r’s=.25 to .59). The men’s predictability scores were significantly correlated with the women’s total dyadic adjustment scores and the women’s satisfaction scores, and the men’s dependability scores were correlated with each of 74 Hoo.vm«4« .Ho.vma« .mo.vm« 444cm. 440v. sow. «44mv. :OHuocuwHucm 444be. 4mm. mH. 440v. msmcmmcoo «4mm. mo. om. «mm. COHmmnoo «seme. «mm. NH. «45m. COHUOOMM4 «44mm. 44mm. «on. «seem. mmuoom Hmuoa ucmfiumsmpd 0Hpo>o m.cmEoz spams sufiaflnmecmdmo sufiaanmuoacmum Hobos aways m4cmz «44mm. «44mv. «awn. «440m. :OHquuwHumm «asmv. «sHe. NH. «sawv. msmcmmcoo 444mv. 4mm. mo. 44mm. COHmmnoo «a4mv. 45m. 50. «sen. COHUOOMM< «a4hm. sasme. on. «sawm. mmuoom Hmuoe ucmsumSmp< 0Hpm>o m.:mz cuflom quHHnmpcmmmo >UHHHnou0Hpmum Houoa undue m.:oEoz mmuoom ucmfimewpd oHpm>o touomMMmNImGMEWWHOOM undue :mm3umm mdmwwmdwmmou NH OHQMB 75 the women’s dyadic adjustment scores with the exception of cohesion (range r’s=.29 to .40). Overall, hypothesis number five was clearly supported. Both the men and women’s total trust scores were correlated with their own and their partner’s total dyadic adjustment scores . A Theoretical Model of Racism’s Effects on Black Couples Hypothesis number six stated that each partner’s Stereotype Scale scores, African Self Consciousness Scale scores, Trust Scale scores and Dyadic Adjustment Scale scores would be related in ways consistent with the model presented in Figure 1. Specifically, several indirect relationships were predicted: 1. The internalization of negative myths or stereotypes would be indirectly related to relationship quality via its effects on trust within black couples. 2. The internalization of negative stereotypes would be directly related to trust, as well as indirectly related to trust through its effects on cultural orientation, as measured by the African Self Consciousness Scale. 3. An Afrocentric worldview would be indirectly related to relationship quality via its effects on trust within black couples. To test the three parts of hypothesis number six, stepwise regression analyses were conducted. As recommended by Baron and Kenny (1986), the criteria for establishing L 76 indirect effects were that both predictors had to be significantly correlated with the criterion and with each other, and that the direct association between the exogenous predictor and the criterion was reduced when the relationship between the mediator and the criterion was accounted for. In order to test this effect, the variable which was hypothesized to be a mediator was entered first in the regression, and the variable hypothesized to have an indirect relationship with the dependent variable was 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. Regarding the indirect effects of stereotypes on relationship quality via trust as was first hypothesized, none of the scores for the subjects’ stereotype and trust variables were correlated both with each other and with the scores for the same relationship quality variables. That is, for both the men and the women, none of the variables met Baron and Kenny’s (1986) criteria for entry into the regression. Thus, the first part of the hypothesis, which states that each partner’s internalization of stereotypes is indirectly related to marital quality through its effects on trust, was unsupported. As with the first part of hypothesis number six, none 0f the stereotype and Afrocentricity scores correlated both With each other and the same trust variable, so they did not 77 meet the criteria for entry into the regression. Thus, although the correlations revealed that the internalization of negative stereotypes is related to trust, the current analysis does not support an indirect relationship. Therefore, the second part of the hypothesis, which states that the internalization of negative stereotypes is both directly related to trust and indirectly related to trust through Afrocentricity was unsupported, and it appears to be only related in a direct manner. For the third part of the hypothesis, two regressions were run, one for each gender. These regressions are reported in Table 14. First, the men’s afrocentricity and dependability scores correlated both with each other, and with their satisfaction scores, thereby meeting the criteria for entry into the regression. In order to test for a mediator effect, male dyadic satisfaction was used as the criterion variable, and male dependability scores were entered first into the regression predicting satisfaction, followed by male afrocentricity scores. As shown in Table 14, the results revealed that male dependability scores predicted a significant portion of the variance in male dyadic satisfaction scores, but after this was taken into account, male afrocentricity scores were unable to be entered into the equation. Thus, they did not add any Significant variance to the model. Therefore, one can conclude that the effects of Afrocentricity on satisfaction were mediated by trust, as predicted. 78 Hooo.vm«%«« mz mmuoom auHOHuucmoouu< mz mmuoom >UHHHnmpcmmma ma.oe mm. 444448. 166 .mc mmuoom umsuu deuce cofluomumaumm 0466mm c0503 mz monoom huHoHugcoooumd Ho.mH SH. 4444mv. AHS .Hv mmuoom aufiaanmocmomo cofiuomumflumm oflcmxo so: osHm>Im «a pump up wuouowpoum MHuouHuO uHoHuucoooum< Hflone acne undue pcm ucoaum5vp< oHpm>o 4muoownzm mnu ocfluowpmum mconmchmm ea manna 79 The women’s afrocentricity scores were also correlated with their total trust scores as well as their dependability scores. Further, these three variables were also correlated with their satisfaction scores, thereby meeting the criteria for entry into the regression. Therefore, in order to test for mediator effects, satisfaction was used in the second regression as the criterion variable, and their total trust and dependability scores were entered first into the regression, followed by their afrocentricity scores. The results revealed that the females’ total trust scores accounted for a significant portion of the variance in female dyadic satisfaction scores. After this relationship was accounted for, neither the females’ dependability scores, nor their Afrocentricity scores entered into the equation. Thus, just as with the men, one can conclude that the effects of Afrocentricity on satisfaction were mediated by trust for the women, as was predicted. However, unlike with the men, it was the women’s total trust that mediated the effects of Afrocentricity on dyadic satisfaction, rather than their reports of partner dependability. Because the women’s stereotype scores had more significant relationships to the men’s trust and dyadic adjustment scores than did the men’s stereotype scores, cross-gender mediation effects were also explored. Examination of correlations revealed two possible relationships that met the initial criteria for mediation. These regressions are presented in Table 15. Specifically, 80 the womens’ stereotypes about blacks overall were correlated with the mens’ dependability scores, and each were correlated with both the mens’ total dyadic adjustment scores and the mens’ dyadic consensus scores. Thus, they met the criteria for entry into the regression. First, the mens’ total dyadic adjustment was used as the criterion variable, while their dependability scores were entered into the first block, and the womens’ stereotype scores regarding blacks in general were entered into the second block of the regression. The results revealed that the mens’ dependability scores significantly predicted their total dyadic adjustment scores. After this relationship was accounted for, the womens’ stereotype scores about blacks in general did not explain significant additional significant variance in the model. 81 Hooo.vm444a .Hoo.vm444 mROMHn uzonm m2 mom>uomuovm mHoEmm Hm.mH 4m. 44484. “am .He suflaflnmecmdmc mans msmcmmcoo oflcaso mam: mROMHn usono mz nonhuomumum mHmEmm Ho.4m mm. 4444mm. Ame .HV >uflaflnmocmdoo can: .flcm oflcmsc ammo» 0am: oon>Im am noon up muouoHpoum MHHOUHHO wuHloucmoouum paw mma>uomuoum HHmnB Eons undue pap ucofiumSwp< oHpm>o 4muomrnsm on» :Huoflpmum mconmou 0% Moscow mmouu mH OHQMB 82 Second, the mens’ dyadic consensus was used as the criterion variable, while their dependability scores were entered into the first block, and the womens’ stereotype scores regarding blacks in general were entered into the second block of the regression. Similar to the results predicting total dyadic adjustment, the results revealed that the mens’ dependability scores significantly predicted their dyadic consensus scores, and that after this relationship was accounted for, the womens’ stereotype scores regarding blacks in general did not explain significant additional variance in the model. Both regressions support the hypothesis and show indirect cross-gender relationships between women’s stereotypes about blacks and men’s reports of their total dyadic adjustment and dyadic consensus. These relationships are mediated by the men’s reports of their partners’ dependability. That is, negative stereotypes held by wives about blacks predicts impressions that they are undependable by the partners, which leads them to report poorer relationship quality and less agreement between the partners. Socioeconomic Status Although there was no specific hypothesis made, an additional question was asked regarding the relationship between socioeconomic status and the four scales. Specifically, analyses were done to determine whether 83 socioeconomic status is mediated by one of the predictor variables, or whether it acts like a moderator upon the relationships between the four scales as hypothesized in Figure 1. First, correlations were computed to determine the relationships between education, occupational status, income and each of the research scales. None of the socioeconomic status variables was significantly correlated with any of the Afrocentricity scores (range r’s: men .05 to .19; women .03 to .19), nor with Dyadic Adjustment Scale scores (range r’s: men .00 to .15; women .01 to .21). However, socioeconomic status was correlated with some of the scale scores for stereotypes and trust. These correlations are presented in Table 16. 84 Table 16 Correlations Between Subjects’ Socioeconomic Status and Their Own Scale Scores Socioeconomic Status Education Occupation Income Men Women Men Women Men Women Stereotype Scales Total -.18 -.35** -.29* -.19 -.09 -.16 Blacks -.15 -.43*** -.25 -.29* -.11 -.23 Black men -.17 -.37** -.18 -.07 -.07 -.14 Black women -.11 -.17 -.34* -.21 -.05 -.04 Trust Total .17 .17 .15 .11 .17 .12 Predictability .29* .22 .28* .14 .16 .07 Dependability .23* .11 .23 .10 .26 .10 Faith .01 .14 -.05 .07 .05 .13 *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 85 For the males, their educational status is positively correlated with their reports of their partner’s predictability and dependability. Their occupational status is negatively correlated with their total endorsement of negative stereotypes and their stereotypes about black women, and positively correlated with their reports of their partner’s predictability. The women’s educational status is negatively correlated with their total stereotypes scores and their stereotype scores regarding blacks and black men, and their occupational status is negatively correlated with their endorsement of negative stereotypes about blacks. The women’s socioeconomic status was not correlated with their own trust scores, and income was not correlated with any of the research scales for either gender. Cross gender correlations were also computed between the subjects’ socioeconomic status scores and their partners’ scores on the research scales. Similar to the above findings, there were no significant correlations found between socioeconomic status and either Afrocentricity scores, or dyadic adjustment scores (range r’s: men’s SES correlations=.01 to .18, women’s SES correlations=.01 to .24). Yet they were significantly correlated with their partners’ stereotype scores and their trust scores. The correlations between the subjects’ socioeconomic status scores and their partners’ stereotype and trust scores are presented in Table 17. 86 The men’s educational status was negatively correlated with the women's overall stereotypes and their stereotypes about blacks and black men, and the men's occupational status was also negatively correlated with the women’s stereotypes about blacks, and positively correlated with the women’s reports of their partner's predictability. The women’s socioeconomic status was not correlated with the men's stereotype scores. Yet the women’s educational status was positively correlated with the men’s total trust scores and dependability scores, their occupational status was positively correlated with the men’s dependability scores, and their income was positively correlated with the men’s predictability scores. In summary, socioeconomic status was significantly correlated with trust and stereotypes, but not with any of the Afrocentricity scores nor any of the dyadic adjustment scores. All significant correlations between socioeconomic status and stereotypes were negative, and all significant correlations between socioeconomic status and trust were positive. Further, because none of the socioeconomic status variables and predictor variables were correlated with both each other and the criterion variables, they did not meet Baron and Kenny’s (1986) criteria for establishing indirect effects. Thus, socioeconomic status was not a mediator between any of the predictor variables and the criterion variables, nor was it mediated by any of them. Hoo.vm444 .Ho.vm«« .mo.vm4 87 64.: 46.- mo. 44. 64. so. zu4ms mm. 44. 4mm. mm. 4444. mm. >0444nmocommo «mm. SH. m4. 40m. Hm. mm. >HHHHQMDOHOOMQ s4. 44. s4. 44. 4mm. om. 46009 Duane .mumcuumm 46.: 46.: 64.: 44.: 44.- 44.: :msoz xom4m mo. 44.- 46.: 46.: 46.: 4444.: so: som4m 46.: o4: 44.: 4pm.: 46.: 44444.- mxom4m 46.- 64.: 44.: 64.: mo.: 444m.: 44409 .momauomumum .wumcuumm :0503 :02 pesos no: c0203 :0: meoocH :oHuomsooo COHpoosom msucum GHEocoomoHoom WTHOUM Dunne pan 0 uomuoum 4muocuumm can mmuoom msuoum ofleocooooHoom cmmzumm mcoHumHmuuoo bH OHQMB 88 In order to determine if socioeconomic status moderates 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 education, occupation, and income. For each 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. Regressions of this type were run for every predictor variable on each of the criterion variables measuring trust and relationship satisfaction. After the two main effects were accounted for, in no case was the interaction between socioeconomic status and the predictor variables significant. Therefore, there is no evidence that socioeconomic status was a moderator of the relationships between the predictors and the criteria. Erploratory Analyses of the African Self Consciousness Scale Because the correlations between Afrocentricity and both trust and dyadic adjustment were contrary to the hypotheses, exploratory analyses were conducted. First, the subjects were divided into high, medium, and low groups in order to determine whether a certain level of Afrocentricity would be associated with optimal trust and dyadic adjustment within black couples, and to determine whether there were any curvilinear relationships. Subjects were assigned to 89 the low category if their scores were over one standard deviation below the mean for the sample, they were assigned to the medium category if their scores were within one standard deviation above or below the mean for the sample, and they were assigned to the high category if their scores were greater than one standard deviation above the mean for the sample. One-way ANOVAs were conducted to test for group differences on all other research scales, with high, medium, and low Afrocentricity as the independent variables. None of the ANOVAs for the subjects’ scores on the Stereotype Scale and its subscales and on the Trust Scale and the predictability, dependability, and faith subscales was significant (range F’s=.03-2.89). For their scores on the Dyadic Adjustment Scale, only two of the ANOVAs were significant. For the women, significant relationships emerged for their own reports of dyadic satisfaction, F(2, 68) = 3.27, p<.05, and their partner’s reports of dyadic affection, F(2,67) = 3.14, p<.05. In both cases, post-hoc Scheffe tests revealed that women who were high in Afrocentricity had significantly lower dyadic satisfaction scores, and their partners had significantly lower dyadic affection scores, as compared to the women who were low in Afrocentricity. However, neither women who were high in Afrocentricity, nor the women who were low in Afrocentricity received scores that were significantly different from the medium group. Again, these results were contrary to the 90 hypotheses. Further, they fail to suggest curvilinear relationships between Afrocentricity and the other scales. Next, a factor analysis was done of the African Self Consciousness Scale to determine if factors would yield more meaningful results than the scale itself. Varimax rotation yielded fourteen factors. Because the only six of the factors had three items or more that loaded highly on them, another factor analysis was done, in which six factors were specified. The factors that emerged for the men were different from the factors that emerged for the women. For both men and women, the factors lacked conceptual sense and were uninterpretable, as were the correlations with the subjects’ stereotype scores, their trust scores, and their dyadic adjustment scores. These problems may also be due to the fact that there were forty-two items in the scale, and only seventy-three subjects on which the factor analyses were based. Further, the fact that the Chronbach’s alpha for the entire scale was .86 for men and .81 for women (see Table 3), suggests that the scale as a whole is tapping one construct that cannot be easily disaggregated. Discussion The present study sought to explain variations in the dyadic trust and relationship quality of black couples using racially oriented measures. A number of theorists have claimed that blacks are affected by societal racism indirectly, when they internalize negative images of themselves and their partners, and accept and conform to Eurocentric-American values and standards of conduct (e.g. Jewell, 1983). This study empirically tested the internalization of negative stereotypes and cultural orientation as two possible mechanisms by which racism negatively affects black couple relationships. Further, this study attempted to better understand the effects of the interplay between the above predictor variables and socioeconomic status on black couple relationships. Overall, the results yielded only partial support for the hypotheses. There were many analyses and relatively few significant correlations, the majority of which were fairly weak. Thus, there is the possibility of an alpha inflation problem with the significant results that did emerge. Nonetheless, the pattern of findings is generally consistent with the hypotheses, and it also suggests interesting unexpected effects. The first hypothesis, which stated that stereotypes would be significantly correlated with both trust and dyadic adjustment, only obtained support from two findings. The 91 92 men’s stereotypes about black men were negatively correlated with their reports of dyadic cohesion, while the women’s stereotypes about black men were negatively correlated with their reports of their partners’ dependability. However, there were also unpredicted cross-gender effects that were consistent with the first hypothesis. Specifically, the effects of the women’s negative stereotypes on the men’s dyadic adjustment were mediated by the men’s reports that their partners were undependable. The findings also indicate that negative stereotypes about black men held by either partner predict negative outcomes for the relationship, but negative stereotypes about black women do not. One possible explanation may lie in the negative media portrayals of black men and women (i.e. Wiegel, Loomis & Sooja, 1980). Although several authors indicate that negative stereotypes abound in the media for both black men and women (e.g. Rodgers-Rose, 1980; Jewell, 1983), perhaps the stereotypes regarding black men are more pervasive, and more negative. For example, black men are often portrayed as shiftless or absent (e.g. Jewell, 1983). These stereotypes may lead black women to believe that black men are unable to be counted upon to assume traditional male responsibilities (Rodgers-Rose, 1980). They may then conclude that black men must be less dependable, and therefore less trustworthy. The results suggest that some black men may have also internalized these images of themselves. 93 In contrast, negative stereotypes about black women include unfeminine and domineering (Jewell, 1983), characteristics which can often be viewed favorably in the larger American culture, similar to androgyny and aggression. Further, black women are more likely to be single parents than white women, which engenders both the stereotype of a strong matriarch, which may be seen as favorable, or the stereotype of a lazy welfare mother (Hacker, 1992), which is seen as negative. Both examples reveal that the stereotypes of black women are ambiguous, and can be interpreted as both positive and negative aspects of these women, whereas the stereotypes for black men can only be interpreted negatively. However, while endorsement of the stereotypes regarding black females did not correlate with any aspects of the couples’ relationships in any comparisons conducted here, this does not preclude the possibility that other commonly held stereotypes about black women may have negative effects. Although the stereotypes used were generally based upon stereotypes present in the literature, these stereotypes still may not be the ones which are related to trust and dyadic adjustment in relationships. Stereotypes about black men and women may also have different implications for the partners’ behavior. That is, the negative stereotypes of black men may cause the women to act negatively, yet the ambiguous stereotypes of black women may not. This explanation indicates that it may not be the 94 belief itself that is directly causing negative outcomes, but instead, that the actions produced by the belief cause negative reports of trust and relationship quality. This idea does not nullify the previous explanations, but instead builds upon them. For example, perhaps because the stereotypes regarding black men are more negative and pervasive than those about black women, these stereotypes cause the women to negatively behave in untrustworthy ways that lead their partners to report lowered trust and limited relationship satisfaction. Perhaps the women’s stereotypes of blacks and black men cause them to act untrustworthy, which causes the men to report that they are undependable. This explanation suggests an important modification in the initial hypotheses. The hypotheses posit that each person’s score on one scale would be significantly related to that same person’s score on the other scales, because mistrust of blacks in general should generalize to trust in one’s partner. However, the cross gender correlations between the women’s stereotypes and the men’s trust and dyadic satisfaction suggest that a person’s beliefs affect his or her actions. These actions may then affect the partner’s beliefs about the spouse and the relationship. Thus, partners can significantly affect each other’s beliefs, and that actions may be the mediating mechanism by which this occurs. Another interesting result is that the women’s stereotypes about blacks in general are correlated with the 95 relationship measures similar to the women’s stereotypes about black men specifically. Possibly, when the women think of negative stereotypes about blacks, they think of black men as included in that stereotype, but not themselves. Thus, the women may act equally as untrustworthy as a function of their stereotypes about blacks in general as they would as a function of their stereotypes about black men. As with the first hypothesis, the results were partially supportive of the second hypothesis, which proposed that the internalization of negative myths would be negatively correlated with Afrocentrism. As expected, all significant correlations between stereotypes and Afrocentricity were negative. However, the significant correlations were weak and relatively few. The minimal findings may indicate problems with the stereotype scale itself. The Stereotype Scale was designed to circumvent problems with other scales measuring the same construct. For example, researchers using the Nadanolitization Scale (NAD, Taylor, Wilson & Dobbins, 1972) to detect the relationship between stereotypes and relationship quality, were unable to find significant relationships between these constructs after the effects of socioeconomic status and similarity were taken into account (Grundy, 1988; Taylor, 1990; Taylor & Zhang, 1990). This was probably because the items presented blatant racist statements about blacks. In 96 contrast, the Stereotype Scale was created with positive items about blacks interspersed throughout. It was thought that the presence of positive items would make the subjects less susceptible to social desirability effects, and less suspicious as to the intended use of the scale, in being required to respond to both positive and negative items about blacks. The results indicate that the Stereotype Scale is better than the NAD at detecting the existence of negative stereotypes. This is evidenced by its lack of contamination with socioeconomic status and its ability to detect a weak but significant relationship between stereotypes and both trust and relationship quality. It has also detected cross-gender effects, unlike Taylor (1990), as well as information regarding gender related stereotypes that the Black Group Perception Scale would have missed in its limited focus on stereotypes about blacks in general. Still, perhaps the inclusion of positive items did not nullify possible social desirability effects. Maybe the stereotypes were weakly associated with the other research scales because the subjects still would not admit to having extreme negative beliefs about members of their own racial group. Future research may involve different uses of the Stereotype Scale. This scale could also be used to look at the positively and negatively worded items separately, and test the possibility that the present results were a function of the subjects’ failure to endorse more positive 97 adjectives, rather than a tendency to endorse higher negative ones. Also, clusters of stereotypes can be examined using methods similar to Taylor’s (1990), in which only relevant stereotypes were extracted from the scale to determine which types of stereotypes predicted negative outcomes. Further, one could ask the subjects themselves what they believe are negative stereotypes about black women, and add them to the current scale to be retested using Taylor’s (1990) methods. Alternatively, if the stereotypes are indeed unconsciously internalized as discussed previously, then maybe this construct needs to be examined with a measure that presents the stereotypes in a less blatant and/or negative manner, thus avoiding the possibility of a social desirability response set. Such a scale would need to detect subtle stereotypes that the subjects may not even know (or admit) that they have. This is similar to the attempts of Sears and Kinder (1985) to detect the aversive racism of whites by asking them questions regarding issues having heavy racial connotations, such as the busing of disadvantaged children into schools in high income districts. Not only were the couples’ stereotypes weakly correlated with their scores on the other scales, but the men and women’s stereotypes were also weakly correlated, revealing that the couples are less similar on this construct than expected. This implies that it is not 98 important for black couples to substantially agree on their general views on these stereotypes in order to function in a committed relationship. There are two alternative explanations for this finding. First, a simple explanation is that stereotypes are just not very important to the couples. That is, they may know that they disagree on their stereotypes, but these disagreements are not enough to prevent them from committing to a serious relationship. Second, it is also possible that the couples were not aware of the stereotypes that they hold. The second explanation is more plausible because these stereotypes also have weak but significant negative correlations with each of the other research scales, suggesting that they may affect relationships negatively. Hence, it seems unlikely that couples would enter into a relationship knowing both that they are not very similar in the stereotypes that they have, and that these stereotypes negatively affect their relationship as well. If they had known this, then it is likely that they would have tried to discuss these differences and come to more of a consensus on their views. The clear support for the third hypothesis, which states that the partners’ levels of Afrocentricity would be significantly correlated, further indicates that the correlations between the partners’ levels of Afrocentricity are stronger than the correlations between their stereotypes. Unlike Afrocentric views, which may be akin to 99 an ideology, the stereotypes held by blacks may be very subtle and possibly subconsciously internalized, thus making them unapparent to the partner. Since the couples would not have realize that they are not as similar on this view as they are on others, then they also would not have known that these differences were affecting their Afrocentricity, dyadic trust and relationship quality in a significantly negative fashion. The partners’ lack of awareness of each other’s stereotypes may actually have prevented their endorsement of negative stereotypes from becoming more similar over time, because they would have not discussed and may not have acknowledged these views in order to obtain convergence. The findings from analyses between the African Self Consciousness Scale, trust and dyadic adjustment, though also relatively weak, were directly contrary to the fourth hypothesis, which stated that Afrocentrism would be positively correlated with trust and relationship quality. That is, all significant correlations between Afrocentricity and both trust and dyadic adjustment were negative. This pattern was especially intriguing since Afrocentricity’s correlations with the Stereotype Scale were also negative, as was expected, which supports the validity of the Afrocentricity Scale. However, unlike stereotypes, Afrocentricity should not lead to denigration of one’s partner. 100 Instead of denigration, perhaps couples with high levels of Afrocentricity developed high expectations that were not being met by their relationships. The items on the African Self Consciousness Scale imply high levels of responsibility to blacks and black families. Accordingly, perhaps persons scoring higher on this scale set higher standards for their partners, and consequently tended to feel that their partners were less dependable. This interpretation explains why the negative effects of Afrocentricity on dyadic satisfaction were mediated by dependability scores for the men and total trust scores for the women. This explanation also raises questions about the conceptualization of Afrocentricity and optimal levels of this characteristic. The African Self Consciousness construct is hypothesized to be a personality construct that naturally emerges as part of a biogenetically determined core of the black self (Akbar, 1989). According to this view, a person’s optimal adjustment is associated with higher levels of Afrocentricity. Conversely, Cross’ model (1971) portrays racial identity as developing in stages, as a reaction to external social conditions. This model proposes that the highest pro-black stage would not be the optimal stage of development. According to Cross’ (1971) model, persons scoring highest on Afrocentricity would be in the Immersion-Emersion stage, and so their views could possibly have a negative impact upon the relationship. In 101 this stage, there is a heightened sense of black pride, a belief that blacks are supposed to act in specific ways, and a concomitant strong devaluation of whites and Eurocentric cultures. In Cross’ (1971) model, a person in this stage would also use confrontation as the primary means of communication. Hence, if a subject thought his or her partner should be unconditionally supportive, then the subject can be said to have higher expectations of the partner, which the results suggest the partner is unable to meet. The African Self Consciousness Scale also yielded results that were different than those reported by Bell et al. (1990). In Bell et al’s study, while Afrocentric people claimed that they would be more supportive of their partners in the hypothetical scenario presented, there was no evidence that they actually did behave that way in real life, because the scenario did not ask about their own relationships. This study indicates that Afrocentricity has negative indirect effects on dyadic satisfaction, which are mediated by its negative effects on dyadic trust. This implies that high Afrocentric persons are not more trusting nor more trustworthy, and thus, they may not be as supportive of their partners as Bell et. al’s (1990) study implies. The results suggest that new research needs to more carefully evaluate the meaning of the African Self Consciousness Scale and its relationships with the other 102 scales. For example, it may be useful to conduct a descriptive factor analysis, and only analyze the items that are significantly correlated to the other research scales, as was done in Taylor and Zhang’s (1990) study. In addition, a recent study by Stokes, Murray, Peacock, and Kaiser (1994) assessed the African Self Consciousness Scale, during which they used a Harris-Kaiser oblique rotation in their factor analysis, unlike the varimax rotation used here. They reasoned that since the factors were presumed to be inter-related, the Harris-Kaiser method would be best, because it retains correlations among the factor components. They found four factors, which they labeled as personal identification with the group, self reinforcement against racism, racial and cultural awareness, and value for African culture. These factor scores may have different implications for relationships than the present finding. Three other advantages to the Stokes et al. study may account for why their findings are more favorable than the current results. First, both Stokes et al. (1994) and Bell et al. (1990) used populations different from each other and from those used in this study. As indicated by Broman, Neighbors, and Jackson, (1988) and Allen, Dawson, and Brown (1989), area of residence may have effects on the subjects’ feelings of closeness to other blacks, and the number of positive stereotypes they hold. Second, their study recommended eliminating ten items from the scale. These same items may have contaminated the results of this study. 103 Lastly, their study used 147 subjects in their factor analysis, while this study could only use 73, because the partners were analyzed separately by gender during the factor analyses. Thus, the exploratory analyses of the African Self Consciousness Scale are by no means conclusive, and this scale needs further study. In contrast to the unexpected findings regarding the African Self Consciousness Scale, the relationships between trust and dyadic adjustment were highly consistent with hypothesis number five, which stated that they would be positively correlated. Yet for each scale, it’s subscales are correlated with each other, but not similarly with other scales. Such a result is problematic for the theoretical underpinnings of the Trust Scale. According to Rempel et al. (1985), the three components of trust should build upon each other as part of a developmental trust sequence. Yet the only significant results pertained to partner dependability. While low dependability scores hurt the couples in regards to their dyadic adjustment, there was no evidence for a concomitant decrease in their predictability or faith in the relationship. This implies that partner predictability and faith in the relationship are not related to beliefs in the partner’s dependability. Thus, further research needs to investigate whether these subscales truly are related in the manner proposed by Rempel et a1 (1985). Finally, the direction of effects between the two scales deserves further study. Specifically, does trust 104 really predict dyadic adjustment, or does dyadic adjustment predict trust in one’s partner? Though this study assumed that trust causes dyadic adjustment, there is no evidence to rule out the possibility that the quality of the relationship instead affects trust. Further, this study does not eliminate the possibility that trust in one’s partner may contain a significant element of one’s general tendency to trust. Consequently, trust may not be simply an indicator of good relationship quality, but it is affected by one’s personality as well. Thus, trust and dyadic adjustment may also have reciprocal effects on each other. However, answers to these questions are beyond the scope of this study, and future longitudinal studies or other sophisticated analyses may determine the direction of causality. The last set of issues raised in this study involve the effects of socioeconomic status on the research scales. Since trust is related to both socioeconomic status and dyadic adjustment, it is surprising that socioeconomic status and dyadic adjustment are not related to each other. Perhaps trust may have two independent causes, the part one acquires from experiences with the world, as indicated by trust’s relationship to socioeconomic status, and the part one acquires from the relationship, as indicated by its relationship to dyadic adjustment. Thus, the part of trust affected by low socioeconomic status would not have effects on dyadic adjustment. 105 The results showed each partner’s occupational status to be negatively correlated with his or her own stereotype scores. One reason may be that, whereas high socioeconomic status occupations are associated with stability and responsibilities, low status jobs are characterized by transience and instability. This may in turn allow each high socioeconomic status person to see other black people acting in ways that are considered productive and acceptable by society, both on the job, and possibly in the more stable home environment that a good job might provide. Conversely, low socioeconomic status people may continually see blacks either underemployed or unemployed, and acting in unproductive ways. The above explanation might also account for why education is both negatively correlated with the women’s stereotypes and positively correlated with the men’s trust, why the men’s occupation levels are positively correlated with the predictability scores of both partners, and why the women’s occupation levels are positively correlated with the men’s dependability scores. In each case, stereotypes are negatively correlated with socioeconomic status, and predictability and dependability are positively correlated with socioeconomic status. Since both predictability and dependability imply stability, the results suggest that when one person is educated or has a good occupation, both partners are able to relax and not worry about the stresses associated with lower education and less prestigious 106 occupations. Their stable environments would also enable them to predict their own and their partner’s behavior, and depend on each other. The above results may further be caused by the racism prevalent in higher education and in the job arena. Here, the experience of racism may lead to more in-group concerns among blacks (Demo & Hughes, 1990), and cause them to move into Cross’ (1971) Encounter stage, in which they begin to change from being pro-white, and begin to learn more about being black. As Cross has hypothesized, racism may cause them to become reactive, and begin to cast off some of the negative stereotypes they may have previously held about themselves. The results did not demonstrate that socioeconomic status had any mediation or moderation effects on the research scales. This is salient due to other findings linking racially oriented measures to socioeconomic status (e.g. the NAD: Grundy, 1988; Taylor and Zhang, 1990). Since the correlations between education, occupation and income may not have been as high as expected, the composite socioeconomic score used in the moderation analyses may not have been sensitive enough to detect any effects. Thus, future studies may want to disaggregate socioeconomic status before doing these analyses. The facts that some of the couples elected not to fill out this part of the battery, and that students’ socioeconomic information was not included in the analyses may have influenced the results in 107 the form of a biased subsample. Whatever the case, the socioeconomic status related results found in this study need to be interpreted with caution. For several reasons, non-random sampling methods may have also influenced the results of the study. First, snowball sampling may have resulted in participation by a restricted group of subjects. The subjects primarily gave the investigators the names of their neighbors, friends and family members, who may have had similar incomes, education levels, beliefs etc. to the people who referred them. Conversely, randomly recruited subjects may have represented a wider range on these variables. Second, after completing their questionnaires, some couples told other prospective couples about the study, and their information may have influenced the way the new subjects responded to the questionnaires. Third, the more easily accessed and well- known organizations having a large black membership were most likely to be notified about the study. These organizations tended to consist of blacks who were more educated and had higher incomes than would be expected from a random sample, such as the college educated subjects who belonged to black greek letter organizations. Thus, future studies should control the subjects’ influences on each other, and solicit the assistance of organizations having members with a wider range of socioeconomic statuses, such as churches or social groups in lower socioeconomic status neighborhoods. 108 Another methodological feature that may have affected the findings was the administration procedure. Though all partners completed the questionnaires independently, the couples may also have been influenced by the various administration sites and the fact that the questionnaires were administered to them both in separate sessions with each partner as well as in joint sessions. First, the different environments and the presence or absence of their partners may have had effects on their comfort level and mood, causing them to respond more or less positively about their relationships in one administration situation versus another. Second, this limitation may be compounded by the fact that certain types of couples may have been more likely to request filling out the questionnaires at home and/or separate from their partner. This may have resulted in a confound between the type of couple and administration situation. For example, couples who work more often may have requested home administrations more frequently. Third, when the partners were administered the questionnaires at separate times, they could have discussed the questionnaires between sessions, which may have influenced the second partner’s answers. Since any one administration method may also consistently bias the results, future studies should evaluate the potential effects of administration conditions on subject responses. In sum, the foregoing hypotheses each outline various aspects of the model presented in Figure 1 and summarized in 109 hypothesis number six, which explores the causal nature of the relations between the research scales. The results of the first five hypotheses demonstrate that the direction of the links between stereotypes, trust, and dyadic adjustment have been at least partially supported, and trust was found to mediate some of the relationships between stereotypes and dyadic adjustment. Contrary to predictions, Afrocentricity did not mediate the effects of stereotypes on trust, and it was negatively correlated with both trust and dyadic adjustment. However, trust did mediate Afrocentricity’s effects on dyadic adjustment, as was predicted. Therefore, much of the model appears to be sound, and it has promise as a useful description of the mechanisms by which racial issues permeate black couple relationships. Future studies primarily need to refine the measures in order to determine if there are stronger links between the constructs, as well as to directly test the alternative explanations presented in the current study. APPENDICES APPENDIX A 110 Appendix A DEMOGRAPHICS Code: A9°: Sex: M F city of Residence: zgpgrrigp: Highest level COMPLETED...(Circle only one of the following) Grades: 6th or less th 81h 9th 10th llth 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 a radio mfg., re ail shoe store, State labor) 4) Are you: (Mark one) an employee of a PRIVATE company, business or individual for wages, salary, or commissions? pa 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: 5 Baligigg; 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 partm r months/years (Circle one), lived with my partner for months/years (Circle one). Including now? Y H Circle the category that BEST describes the status of your current relationship with your partner: l. in a serious dating relationship for years/months 2. living together for years/months 3. engaged for Years/months. Living together? Y N 4 married for years/months APPENDIX B 1.1L1 Appendix B Dyadic Adjustment Scale Host persons have disagreements in their relationships. approximate extent of agreement or disagreement item on the list. Almost Always Always . Agree Agree 1. Handling family finances 2. Matters of recreation _____3. Religious matters _____4. Demonstration of affection _____5. Friends ‘ 6. Sex relations 7. Conventionality (correct' or proper behavior) _____8. Philosophy of life ____, _____9. Ways of dealing with parents or in-lavs ____iD. Aims. goals. and things believed important ____ii. Amount of time spent together ____12. Making major decisions ____13. Household tasks ___.i4. Leisure time interests and activities ____i5. Career decisions . All Host of the time the time ____id. How often do you discuss or have you considered divorce, separation, or terminating your relationship? ____17. How often do you or your mate leave the house after a fight? ____18.. In general. how often do you think that things between you and your partner are going well? . ....19- Do you confide in your mate? .____20. Do you ever regret that you got married? (or lived together? ____21. How often do you and your partner quarrel? _____ ._____ ____22. How often do you and your mate “get on each other's nerves?‘ ” Occa- sionally quently Always Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree ||||| i ll illll ii ill! I. ll ll'iil More often than not Code I Fre- Occa- Almost II Hi! i ii Hill II III! I ll lllll sionally Rarely Please indicate below the between you and your partner for each Alvays Never 23. 2‘. HOW 2:. __2a. ___27. 23. 'Have a stimulating exchange 112 Code: Every Almost Occa- Day Every Day sionally Rarely Never Do you kiss your mate? All of Host of Sane of Very few None of them them then of them them Do you and your mate engage in outside interests together? OFTEN HCULO YOU SAY THE FOLLCHING EVENTS CCCOR BETWEEN YOU ANO.YOUR HATE? Less than Once or Once or once a twice a twice a Once a More Never month month day often of ideas Laugh together Calmly discuss something Hork together on a project H Illll‘: I l THESE ARE SCHE THIHGS ABOUT WHICH COUPLES SCHETIHES AGREE, SOMETIMES OISAGREE. INDICAJE IF EITHER ITEH BELOW CAUSED DIFFERENCES OF OPINIONS OR HERE PROBLEHS IN YOUR RELATIONSHIP DURING THE PAST FER WEEKS. (CHECK YES OR NO) ____29. 30. 31. 32. Yes No Being too tired for sex. ____ Hot showing love. Which of the following statements best describes how you feel about the future of your relationship? (CHECK ONLY ONE) I want desperately for my relationship to succeed, and would go to almost any length to‘see that it does. I went very much for my relationship to succeed. and will do all I can to see that it does. I want 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 more than I an doing now to keep the relationship going. Hy relationship can never succeed. and there is no more that I can do to keep the relationship'going. # # The dots on the following line represent different degrees of happiness in your relationship. The middle point, 'happy‘, represents the degree of happiness of most relationships. PLEASE CIRCLE THE DOT WHICH BEST DESCRIBES THE DEGREE OF HAPPINESS, ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, OF YOUR RELATIONSHIP. i 2 4 O 5 6 3 Extremely Fairly A Little Hapov Very Extremely perfgcg unhappy gghappy ughappy Happy Happy APPENDIX C 113 Appendix C 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. 1.strongly agree 2. agree 3.neither agree 4.disagree 5.strongly nor disagree disagree 1. Most black people . 2. Most black are ashamed of themselves are lazy neglect their families 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 are competent men are ashamed of themselves are laz neglect their families 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 are competent are chauvinistic are charismatic are dominating towards women are respectful towards women are faithful to their partners 114 3. Most black women . are ashamed of themselves are lazy neglect their families 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 are competent are emasculating are competitive are dominating towards men are respectful towards men are feminine Note. The first ten items of the first subscale are the original items on Allen and Hatchett’s (1986) Black Group Perception Scale. APPENDIX D 115 Appendix D African Self-Consciousness 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: 1----2 3----4 5----6 7----8 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 3-4 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. 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. 116 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 7-8 117 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 who are not close friends or relatives. 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 7-8 118 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. 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 Africa as their homeland are more intelligent than those who view America as their homeland. 29. If I saw Black children fighting, I would leave them to settle it alone. 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. 33. Religion is dangerous for Black people when it directs and inspires them to become self-determining and independent of the white community. 119 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. 1-2 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 E 120 Appendix E 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. 1. strongly 2. agree 3. somewhat 4. neutral 5. somewhat 6. dis- 7. strongly agree agree disagree agree 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. 1 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 7 121 7. Though times may change and the future is uncertain; I know my partner will always be ready and wiling 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 9. My partner is very unpredictable. I never know ho he/she is going to act from one day to the next. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. I feel very uncomfortable when my partner has to make decisions which will affect me personally. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11. 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. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. In my relationship with my partner, the future is an unknown which I worry about. 1 2 3 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. 1 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 7 122 17. I usually know how my partner is going to act. He/she will respond in a loving way even before I say anything. 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 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. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 24. When I am with my partner I feel secure in facing unknown new situations. 1 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 Note. Because of a typing error on item number 17, this item was excluded from the analyses. The item should have read: I usually know how my partner is going to act. He/she can be counted on. LIST OF REFERENCES 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., Dawson, M.C., & Brown, R.E. (1989). A schema— based approach to modeling an African—American racial belief system. American Political Science Review, g1, 421-441. Allen, R.L., & Hatchett, S. (1986). The media and social reality effects: Self and system orientations of blacks. Communication Research, 11(1) 97-123. Allen, W. (1978). The search for applicable theories of black family life. Journal of Marriage and the Family, gg, 117-128. 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. & Bell, Y. (1985). The African self-consciousness scale: An afrocentric personality questionnaire. The Western Journal of Black Studies, 2, 61-68. 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. Bell, Y.R., Bouie, C.L., & Baldwin, J.A. (1990). Afrocentric cultural consciousness and African-American male—female relationships. Journal of Black studies, 11(2), 162— 189. Billingsley, A. (1968). Black Families in White America. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 123 124 Broman, C.L., Neighbors, H.W. & Jackson, J.S. (1988). Racial group identification among black adults, Social Forces, 61, 146-158. Burwell, S. (1991). Improving and strengthening black male- female relationships. In L. N. June (Ed.), The Black Family, Past, Present, & Future (pp. 85-96). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House. Butler, J.K. (1986). Reciprocity of dyadic trust in close male-female relationships. Journal of Social Psychology, 126(5), 579-591. Cahn, D.D. (1989). Relative importance of perceived understanding in developing male—female mate relationships. Psychological Reports, Q1, 1339-1342. Chapman, A.B. (1988). Male-female relations: How the past affects the present. In H.P. McAdoo (Ed.), Black Families (pp.190-200), Newbury Park: Sage. Carter, R.T., & Helms, J.E. (1988). The relationship between racial identity attitudes and social class. Journal of Negro Education, 51(1), 22-30. Cross, W.E. (1971). The negro—to-black conversion experience: Toward a psychology of black liberation. Black World, 1Q, 13—27. Cross, W.E. (1978). The Thomas and Cross models of psychological nigrescence: A review. Journal of Black Psychology, 5(1), 13—31. Demo, D.H., & Hughes, M. (1990). Socialization and racial identity among black Americans. Social Psychology Quarterly, §;(4), 364-374. Denton, S.E. (1986). A methodological refinement and validation analysis of the developmental inventory of black consciousness. Dissertation Abstracts International, 11, 2226. Duncan, O.D. (1961). A socioeconomic index for all occupations. In A.J. Reiss (Ed.), Occupations and Social Status. New Your: 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. (1974). Children of the Great Depression. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 125 Erikson, E.H. (1950). Childhood and Society. New York, NY: W.W. Norton and Company. Franklin, J.H. (1988). A historical note on black families. In H.P. McAdoo (Ed.), Black Families (pp. 23-26). Newbury Park: Sage. Gary, L.E. (1986). Predicting interpersonal conflict between men and women: The case of black men. American Behavioral Scientist, 12(5), 635-646. Goldberg, M. (1987). Patterns of disagreement in marriage. Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, 11(3) 42-52. Goody, J. (1976). Production and Reproduction: A Comparative Study of the Domestic Domain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gordon, S., & Waldo, M. (1984). The effects of assertiveness training on couples’ behavior. American Journal of Family Therapy, 11(1), 73-77. Grundy, C. (1988). Effects of internalized racism on marital guality in black couples. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. Gutman, H. (1976). The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom: 1750-1925. New York: Random House. Hacker, A. (1992). Two Nations: Black and WhiteJ Separate, Hostile, Unegual. NY: Scribner's. Hampton, R.L. (1979). Husband’s characteristics and marital disruption in black families. The Sociological Quarterly, 11, 255-266. Helms, J.E. (1989). Considering some methodological issues in racial identity counseling research. The Counseling Psychologist, 11(2), 227-252. Holmes, J.G. & Rempel, J.K. (1989). Trust in Close Relationships. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Close Relationships: Vol. 10. Review of Personality and Social Psychology (pp. 187—220). Newbury Park: Sage. 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. 126 Johnson-George, C., & Swap, W.C. (1982). Measurement of specific interpersonal trust: Construction and validation of a scale to assess trust in a specific other. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 11(6), 1306-1317. 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. Landrum, J.L. (1984). Comparison of minority and nonminority students' attitudes toward counseling-center services and perceived problem areas. Dissertation Abstracts International, 3;, 1290. Larzelere, R.E., & Huston, T.L. (1980). The dyadic trust scale: Towards understanding interpersonal trust in close relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 11, 595—604. Lynch, C., & Blinder, M. (1983). The romantic relationship: why and how people fall in love, the way couples connect, and why they break apart. Family Therapy, 1g(2), 91-104. 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. McLoyd, V.C. (1990). The impact of economic hardship on black families and children: Psychological distress, parenting, and socioemotional development. Child Development, p1, 311-346. Mindel, G.H. (1988). Extended familialism among urban Mexican Americans, Anglos, and Blacks. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 21—34. Moynihan, D.P. (1965). The Negro family: The case for national action. Washington, DC: Office of Planning and Research, U.S. Department of Labor. Parham, T.A. (1989). Cycles of psychological nigrescence. The Counseling Psychologist, 11(2), 187—226. 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, 18, 250-257. 127 Parker, W.M., Berieda, M., & Sloan, D. (1984). Exploring male-female relations among black college students: A survey. Journal of Non-White Concerns, 11(2), 40-47. Ponterotto, J.G. (1989). Expanding directions for racial identity research. The Counselin Ps cholo ist, 11(2), 264-272. Rempel, J.K., Holmes, J.G., and Zanna, M.P. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12(1), 95-112. Rodgers-Rose, L. (1980). The Black Woman. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Rotter, J.B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality, 22, 651- 665. Sabatelli, R.M., Buck, R. & Dreyer, A. (1983). Locus of control, interpersonal trust, and nonverbal communication accuracy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 11(2), 399-409. Scanzoni, J. (1975). Sex roles, economic factors, and marital solidarity in black and white marriages. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 21, 130-144. Sears, D.O. & Kinder, D.R. (1985). Whites’ opposition to busing: on conceptualizing and operationalizing group conflict. Journal of Personality & Social PsychologY, 11(5), 1148-1161. Siegel, J. (1990). Money and marriage: A transparency to the struggles of intimacy. Journal of Independent Social Work, 1(4), 51-60. Smith, E.M.J. (1989). Black racial identity development: Issues and concerns. The Counseling Psychologist, 11(2), 277-288. Spanier G.B. (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. Staples, R. (1981). The World of Black Singles. Westort, CT: Greenwood. Staples, R. (1988). An overview of race and marital status. In H.P. McAdoo (Ed.), Black Families (pp. 187-189). Newbury Park: Sage. 128 Steck, L., Levitan, D., McLane, D., & Kelley, H.H. (1982). Care, need, and conceptions of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12(3) 481-491. Stokes, J.E., Murray, C.B., Peacock, M.J., & Kaiser, R.T. (1994). Assessing the reliability, factor structure, and validity of the African Self-Consciousness Scale in a general population of African Americans. Journal of Black Psychology, 12(1), 62-74. Sudarkasa, N. (1988). Interpreting the African heritage in Afro-American family organization. In H.P. McAdoo (Ed.), Black Families (pp. 27-43). Newbury Park: Sage. Taylor J. (1990) Relationship between internalized racism and marital satisfaction. The Journal of Black Psychology, 12, 45-53. Taylor, J., Wilson, M., & Dobbins, J. (1972). Nadandolitization Scale. Unpublished manuscript, University of Pittsburgh, Institute for the Black Family, Pittsburgh, PA. Taylor, J. & Zhang, X. (1990). Cultural identity in maritally distressed and nondistressed black couples. The Western Journal of Black Studies, 11(4), 205-213. Terrell, F., & Terrell, M. (1981). An inventory to measure cultural mistrust among blacks. Western Journal of Black Studies, 2(3), 180-184. Thomas, C. (1971). Boys No More. Beverly Hills: Glencoe Press. Turner, C.B., & Wilson, W.J. (1976). Dimensions of racial ideology: A study of urban black attitudes. Journal of Social Issues, 21, 139-152. 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. Wright, B.J. & Isenstein, V.R. (1977). Psychological Tests and Minorities (DHEW Publication No. ADM 78-482). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. l ...;f... ill LIBRARIES ii, i l '2930 l. ...:h 2... ..