 

3.5%

:1:
7;.

1‘
“1.

 

& 112:2:23
a. .‘77301: V
:.v .uﬂ vii. T7: . . .
.1. t.”
i V .1 3
Ex. .43.: . .
: 5:15: r.
.23...

. . 0!;
“ i=2; a. a: .
. :55 z:
,.
. «ﬂ... ,

~ 2| .
. _ i

z
E.

.
. .

PEN:

:15...

mummy. N
s s

. {ﬁnvunué
3:32.. at:

5......4:
.Eu‘

 

 

 

LI RAHY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

African American Parents and African American
Church; Examining Relationships Between Racial Socializa-
tion Practices and Adolescent Racial Identity Attitudes

presented by

Pamela P. Martin

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

Ph . D. degree in Ecological Community
Psychology — Urban Studies

1%!

 

 

    

Major professor

5/11/2001

 

Date

MSU is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

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

4

DEC 11
um 302005

SEP

 

6/01 c:/CIRCIDaleDue.p65-p.15

THE AFRICAN AMERICAN CHURCH AND AFRICAN AMERICAN PARENTS:
EXAMINING RELATIONSPHPS BETWEEN RACIAL SOCIALIZATION
PRACTICES AND RACIAL IDENTITY ATTITUDES

By

Pamela Paulette Martin

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Psychology and Urban Studies

2001

ABSTRACT
THE AFRICAN AMERICAN CHURCH AND AFRICAN AMERICAN PARENTS:
EXAMINING RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN RACIAL SOCIALIZATION
PRACTICES AND RACIAL IDENTITY ATTITUDES
By
Pamela P. Martin

After the family, a number of researchers have purported that the African
American church is the second most signiﬁcant institution in the African American
community (Lincoln, 1999; Lincoln & Mamiya, 1990; Paris, 1985). Researchers have
provided some evidence of the beneﬁts of the church in the African American
community (Ellison, 1993; Caldwell, Greene, & Billingsley, 1994; Kunjufu, 1994;
McAdoo, 1995). However, few studies have examined the church as a racial
socialization agent in the African American community, speciﬁcally, to what extent the
church teach parents and their adolescent about race. Study 1(N =21 1) explored the
relationship between parents’ perception of their church and their racial socialization
practices. Study 2 (N =1 35), an exploratory study, examined the extent to which
adolescents’ perceptions of their church and their parents’ socialization practices
inﬂuence their racial identity attitudes.

Several path models were examined to assess the relationships in Study One. The
ﬁndings of Study One indicated that parents’ perception of their church’s spiritual and
faith-based orientations have a direct effect on parental racial socialization practices.
Parents’ endorsement of particular racial identity attitudes either partially or completely
mediated the relationship between church orientation and racial socialization practices.

To investigate the research question in Study Two, various hierarchical regressions were

 

conducted. Adolescents’ perceptions of their church and their perceptions of their
parents’ racial socialization practices are signiﬁcantly related to their racial/ethnic
identity attitudes. More speciﬁcally, adolescents who perceived their church as this-
worldly were more likely to have positive African American racial identity attitudes.
Conversely, adolescents who perceived their church as privatistic were less likely to have
positive African American racial identity attitudes. Adolescents who perceived their
churches as this-worldly, other-worldly, communal, or privatistic were less likely to
endorse ethnic identity achievement and afﬁrming and belonging identity. These results
corroborate previous research that the church is an important socializing agent in the
African American community (Franklin & Franklin, 1985; Harrison, 1985; Lincoln &

Mamiya, 1990; Loﬁon, 1991).

 

 

Copyright by
PAMELA MARTIN
2001

Dedication

I dedicate this dissertation to my brother, Ludie Martin whom I love and dearly miss. He
always encouraged me to set high goals and succeed academically. I also dedicate this

work to Asia, Darren, and Hesakaih, the next generation of Martins.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Foremost, Ilwant to give honor to GOD, my strength and deliverer. F urthermore, 1 want to
thank my parents for their unconditional love, emotional and ﬁnancial support. Also, I want to
thank my Aunt Loretta, my siblings and their spouses, nephews and nieces for their love and
support during my graduate career. I also want to thank my friends whose encouraging words
assisted in completing this journey: Stacy Ebron, Dasha Jackson, Dreama Jackson-McCoy, Gina
Howard, Jonathon and Sherrie Livingston, Ken and Sophia Roberts, Tracy Stone, and Shontaye
Witcher. I also want to thank the late Dr. C. E. Lincoln for his feedback during the infancy of my
conceptualization of the dissertation. Lastly, I want to thank my church families, Greater St. Paul
Missionary Baptist Church in Durham, NC and St. Stephen’s Community Church in Lansing, MI.

I especially thank Dr. Harriette McAdoo, my co-chair, for her mentoring and guidance
throughout my graduate career. Her assistance in developing my ideals was invaluable to the
conceptualization of this manuscript. Her time and patience allowed me to grow as a student.
She is the epitome of the mentoring-model between professor and student. I have thoroughly
enjoyed being her student! In addition, I thank Dr. Pennie Foster-Fishman, my co-chair, for her
critical feedback on the document.

Furthermore, I thank the remaining committee members: Drs. Rick Deshon, Jeanette
Gassaway, and Richard Thomas. Dr. Deshon assisted and enhanced greatly my understanding of
statistics. I appreciate his feedback and willingness to assist in my development as a
psychologist. I thank Dr. Gassaway for her support on multiple levels and especially her
knowledge on religiosity. In addition I thank Dr. Thomas for his continuous support and his
thought provoking questions on the role of history in understanding the theoretical concepts in
this study.

Also thanks go to Drs. Lee June, Dozier Thornton, and Gordon Wood for their support of my
dissertation research, as I would not have been able to complete my dissertation without their

assistance. I thank Dr. William Davidson for recruiting me to MSU and his commitment to my

vi

 

education. In addition, I would like to thank Dr. Rose Colon for her mentoring and guidance. I
also thank Dr. John Schweitzer for his mentoring and friendship during my three years as a
research assistant on his various projects. Dr. Schweitzer was extremely inﬂuential in my
development as a researcher.

While at MSU, I had the support of many people. First, I want to thank my cohort: Nicole
Allen, David Loveland, Christina Rodriguez, and Angie Wolf. In addition, I thank my friends in
the dissertation support group, who have successfully graduated: Drs. Stephen Jefferson.
Sholanda Kelly, Heather Pleasant, and Tracy Thompson, also my friends in the Ecological-
Community support group: Jonathon Livingston, Kelly Lewis, and Oseela Thomas. Their critical
feedback and intellectual discourse was invaluable.

I want to give special thanks to Dr. Helen Draper who has been instrumental in my
development. I appreciate our friendship especially her kind words of encouragement. Also, I
thank David Lounsbury who is my friend, mentor, and teacher. Since my ﬁrst day at MSU, he
taught me to take my time and rekindled my love of learning. Furthermore, I thank my “sista”
support group, without whom, I would not have made it without their friendship and prayers. I
thank all of them for caring and supporting me: LaTrese Adkins, Monique Chism, Anne
Heutsche, Cecilia Samonte, and Chantelle Verna. All of them are blessings from GOD.

Finally, I want to thank the undergraduate and graduate researchers on the African American
Church Project: Michael Hicks, Jonathon Livingston, Simone Robinson, and Brandy Watson as

well as the churches, parents, and their adolescents for participating in my study.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... xii
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... xiii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................................. 9
Historical Signiﬁcance of Racial Socialization of Racial Socialization
among African American Parents .................................................................................. 9
Recent Review of Racial Socialization Literature ......................................................... 12
The African American Church ....................................................................................... 16
Descriptive Models of African American Church ......................................................... 18
Dialectic Model of the Church ....................................................................................... 18
Spiritual Orientation of the Church ................................................................................ 19
Other-worldly Spiritual Orientation ................................................................... 20
This-worldly Spiritual Orientation ..................................................................... 20
Faith-based Programs Orientation ................................................................................. 20
Communal Faith-Based Program Orientation ................................................... 21
Privatistic Faith—Based Program Orientation ..................................................... 21
The Aﬁican American Church As A Racial Socialization Agent .................................. 22
Sunday School Literature ................................................................................... 22
Sermons .............................................................................................................. 23
Community Outreach Programs ........................................................................ 24
Racial Socialization Practices As Inﬂuenced by the Church ......................................... 25
Other-worldly versus This-worldly Orientation ................................................ 26
Communal versus Privatistic Faith-Based Orientation ...................................... 27
Review of the Racial Identity Literature ........................................................................ 28
Cross Nigrescence Model. of Racial Identity .................................................... 28
Multidimensional Model of Black Identity ........................................................ 31
Ideology ................................................................................................. 32
Assimilationist ....................................................................................... 32
Humanist ................................................................................................ 33
Oppressed Minority ............................................................................... 33
Nationalist .............................................................................................. 34
Racial Identity: A Mediator between African American Churches and Racial
Socialization Practices ................................................................................................... 35
Religiosity ..................................................................................................................... 37
Racial Identity: Multiple Pathways to Explain Racial Socialization Practices
among African American Parents .................................................................................. 39
Multiple Pathways to an Individual/Universalistic Socialization Practices ...... 40

Nationalist Ideology: Multiple Pathways to Different Socialization Practices. 40

viii

Oppressed Minority: A Pathways to Integrative-Assertive Racial Socialization

Practices ............................................................................................................. 41
Stereotypes: A Moderator between Nationalist Ideology and Racial Socialization
Practices ......................................................................................................................... 42
Covariates in Study One ................................................................................................ 43

Educational Level .............................................................................................. 44

Interracial Contact .............................................................................................. 44

Age ..................................................................................................................... 44

Parental Religious History ................................................................................. 45
Study Two: The Church and Parent’s Racial Socialization Practices Shaping Values of
Adolescents .................................................................................................................... 45
Identity Development among Adolescents .................................................................... 47

Ethnic Identity Achievement ............................................................................. 47

Ethnic Afﬁrmation and Belonging ..................................................................... 47

African American Racial Identity ...................................................................... 48
Factors Inﬂuencing Adolescent Identity ........................................................................ 49
Covariates in Study Two ................................................................................................ 52
Summary ........................................................................................................................ 52
CONCEPTUAL F RAMEWORKS ................................................................................ 53
Description of Conceptual Framework .......................................................................... 53
Hypotheses for Study One ............................................................................................. 57

Religiosity .......................................................................................................... 57

Stereotypes ......................................................................................................... 57

Spiritual Orientation Hypotheses ....................................................................... 57

F alth Based Program Orientation Hypotheses ................................................... 6O
Hypotheses for Study Two ............................................................................................. 63

Ethnic Identity Achievement ............................................................................. 63

Afﬁrming and Belonging Identity ..................................................................... 66

African American Identity ................................................................................. 69
CHAPTER 2 .................................................................................................................. 73
METHOD ...................................................................................................................... 73
Sample ............................................................................................................................ 73
Churches ........................................................................................................................ 73
Study One and Two Sample .......................................................................................... 76
Procedure ....................................................................................................................... 76

Recruitment and Training of Research Assistants ............................................. 76

Power Analyses for Study One and Study Two ................................................. 77

Recruitment of Churches ................................................................................... 79

Recruitment of Adult Participants ..................................................................... 80

Group Administration of the Parent Questionnaire ........................................... 81

Single Administration of the Parent Questionnaire ........................................... 81

Adolescent Recruitment ..................................................................................... 82
Measures ........................................................................................................................ 82

Demographic Questionnaire .............................................................................. 83

African American Church Scale ........................................................................ 83

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) on the AACS ............................................ 83

ix

 

Psychometric Properties of the AACS ............................................................... 87

Racial Identity Measure of Parents .................................................................... 89
Stereotypes ......................................................................................................... 89
Parent Version of the Racial Socialization Scale ............................................... 90
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EF A) on the PVRS ............................................. 90
Psychometric Properties of the PVRS ............................................................... 95
African American Church Scale-Adolescent ..................................................... 95
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EF A) on the AACS-A ........................................ 95
Psychometric Properties of the AACS-A .......................................................... 98
Adolescent Version Racial Socialization Scale ................................................. 100
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) on the AVRS ............................................ 100
Psychometric Properties of the AVRS ............................................................... 102
Universal Identity Scale for Adolescents ........................................................... 105
African American Identity Scale for Adolescents ............................................. 105
Religiosity .......................................................................................................... l 06
Planned Analysis ............................................................................................................ 107
Study One Analyses ....................................................................................................... 107
Study Two Analyses ...................................................................................................... 107
CHAPTER 3 .................................................................................................................. 110
RESULTS ...................................................................................................................... 110
Study One ....................................................................................................................... 110
Descriptive Statistics .......................................................................................... 110
Regression Analyses: Moderated Effects of Religiosity and Stereotypes ......... 1 10
Path Analyses ..................................................................................................... 1 14
Study Two ...................................................................................................................... 135
Descriptive Statistics .......................................................................................... 135
Hierarchical Regression Analyses ..................................................................... 135
CHAPTER 4 .................................................................................................................. 175
DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................ 175
Study One ....................................................................................................................... 175
Study Two ...................................................................................................................... 185
Implications of Study One and Two .............................................................................. 205
Future Studies ................................................................................................................ 206
Limitations of the Study ................................................................................................ 207
Summary of Study One and Study Two ........................................................................ 209
APPENDIX A - Key Informant Interview ..................................................................... 211
APPENDIX B - Minster/Pastor Recruitment Letter ...................................................... 215
APPENDIX C - Recruitment Flyer ................................................................................ 216
APPENDIX D - Recruitment Statement ........................................................................ 217
APPENDIX E - Consent Form ...................................................................................... 218
APPENDIX F - Demographic Questionnaire ................................................................ 222
APPENDIX G - African American Church Scale (AACS) ........................................... 229
APPENDIX H - Multidimensional Inventory on Black Identity ................................... 231
APPENDIX I — Stereotypes ........................................................................................... 235
APPENDIX J - Parents Version Racial Socialization Scale (PVRS) ............................ 237
APPENDIX K - African American Church Scale Adolescent (AACS-A) .................... 239

APPENDIX L - Adolescent Version Racial Socialization Scale (AVRS) .................... 241

APPENDIX M - Universal Racial Identity Scale for Adolescents ................................ 244
APPENDIX N - African American Racial Identity Scale for Adolescents ................... 247
APPENDIX 0 - Religiosity ........................................................................................... 249
APPENDIX P- Table 22 Regression Equations for Study One ..................................... 256
APPENDIX Q - Table 23 Results of the Regressions Examining the Moderators ....... 259
APPENDIX R - Table 24 Study Two Models ............................................................... 279
REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 303

xi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 - Placement of Churches on the Dialectic Tension Model ............................... 74
Table 2 - Demographic Characteristics of the Parent Participants ................................ 75
Table 3 - Demographic Characteristics of the Adolescent Participants ......................... 76
Table 4 - Determination of Sample Size ........................................................................ 78
Table 5 - Abbreviations of Measures ............................................................................. 82
Table 6 - Factor Loadings for the Four-F actor Solutions on the AACS ........................ 85
Table 7 - Factor Loadings for the Two-F actor Solutions on the AACS ........................ 87
Table 8 - Scale Descriptives and Item-Total Statistics on the AACS ............................ 88
Table 9 - Factor Loadings for the Seven-F actor Solutions on the PVRS ...................... 91
Table 10 - Factor Loadings for the Five-Factor Solutions on the PVRS ....................... 93
Table 11 - Factor Loadings for the Three-Factor Solutions on the PVRS ..................... 94
Table 12 — Scale Descriptives and Item-Total Statistics on the PVRS .......................... 96
Table 13 - Factor Loadings for the F our-F actor Solutions on the AACS-A .................. 97
Table 14 - Scale Descriptives and Item—Total Statistics on the AACS-A ..................... 99
Table 15 - Factor Loadings for the Six-Factor Solutions on the AVRS ........................ 101
Table 16 - Factor Loadings for the Three-Factor Solutions on the AVRS .................... 103
Table 17 - Scale Descriptives and Item-Total Statistics on the AVRS .......................... 104
Table 18 - Descriptive Statistics and Zero-Order Correlations for Study One .............. 111
Table 19 - Descriptive Statistics and Zero-Order Correlations for Study Two ............. 136
Table 20 - Zero-Order Correlations for Interracial Contact ........................................... 13
Table 21 - Summary of Study Two Models ................................................................... 173
xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 - Study One Conceptual Model Parent Sample ............................................... 6
Figure 2 - Study Two Conceptual Model Adolescent Sample ...................................... 7
Figure 3 - Conceptual Model Afﬁrming and Belonging Identity .................................. 55
Figure 4 - Conceptual Model Ethnic Identity Achievement .......................................... 56
Figure 5 - Conceptual Model African American Identity .............................................. 57
Figure 6 - Planned Analyses .......................................................................................... 109
Figure 7 - Spiritual Orientation and Integrative-Assertive Model 1 .............................. 116
Figure 8 - Spiritual Orientation and Integrative-Assertive Model 1 .............................. 118
Figure 9 - Integrative-Assertive Modiﬁed Model 1a ..................................................... 120
Figure 10 - Spiritual Orientation and Cautious-Defensive Model 2 .............................. 121
Figure 11 - Spiritual Orientation and Cautious-Defensive Model 2 .............................. 121
Figure 12 - Cautious-Defensive Modiﬁed Model 2a ..................................................... 123
Figure 13 - Spiritual Orientation and Individualistic-Universalistic Model 3 ............... 124
Figure 14 - Spiritual Orientation and Individualistic-Universalistic Model 3 ............... 124
Figure 15 - Individualistic-Universalistic Modiﬁed. Model 3a ...................................... 126
Figure 16 - Faith-Based Orientation and Integrative-Assertive Model 4 ...................... 127
Figure 17 4 Faith-Based Orientation and Integrative-Assertive Model 4 ...................... 128
Figure 18 - Faith-Based Orientation and Cautious-Defensive Model 5 ........................ 130
Figure 19 - Faith-Based Orientation and Cautious—Defensive Model 5 ........................ 130
Figure 20 - Cautious-Defensive Modiﬁed Model 5a ..................................................... 131
Figure 21 - F aith—Based Orientation and Individualistic-Universalistic Model 6 ......... 132
Figure 22 - Faith-Based Orientation and Individualistic—Universalistic Model 6 ......... 133

xiii

Figure 23 - Individualistic-Universalistic Modiﬁed Model 6a ...................................... 134
Figure 24 - Individualistic-Universalistic Modiﬁed Model 6b ...................................... 135

Figure 25 - Ethnic Identity Achievement: Model 1 Integrative Assertive Racial
Socialization Practices ................................................................................................... 140

Figure 26 - Ethnic Identity Achievement: Model 2 Cautious-Defensive Racial
Socialization Practices ................................................................................................... 143

Figure 27 - Ethnic Identity Achievement: Model 3 Individualistic-Universalistic Racial
Socialization Practices ................................................................................................... 144

Figure 28 - Ethnic Identity Achievement: Model 4 Cautious-Defensive Racial
Socialization Practices ................................................................................................... 146

Figure 29 - Ethnic Identity Achievement: Model 5 Integrative Assertive Racial
Socialization Practices ................................................................................................... 148

Figure 30 - Ethnic Identity Achievement: Model 6 Cautious-Defensive Racial
Socialization Practices ................................................................................................... 149

Figure 31 - Ethnic Identity Achievement: Model 7 Individualistic-Universalistic Racial
Socialization Practices ................................................................................................... 151

Figure 32 - Ethnic Identity Achievement: Model 8 Cautious-Defensive Racial
Socialization Practices ................................................................................................... 152

Figure 33 - Afﬁrming and Belonging Identity: Model 9 Integrative Assertive Racial
Socialization Practices ................................................................................................... 154

Figure 34 - Afﬁrming and Belonging Identity: Model 10 Cautious-Defensive Racial
Socialization Practices ................................................................................................... 155

Figure 35 - Afﬁrming and Belonging Identity: Model 11 Individualistic-Universalistic
Racial Socialization Practices ........................................................................................ 156

Figure 36 - Afﬁrming and Belonging Identity: Model 12 Cautious-Defensive Racial
Socialization Practices ................................................................................................... 157

Figure 37 - Afﬁrming and Belonging Identity: Model 13 Integrative Assertive Racial
Socialization Practices ................................................................................................... 158

Figure 38 - Afﬁrming and Belonging Identity: Model 14 Cautious-Defensive Racial
Socialization Practices ................................................................................................... 159

xiv

Figure 39 - Afﬁrming and Belonging Identity: Model 15 Individualistic-Universalistic
Racial Socialization Practices ........................................................................................ 160

Figure 40 - Afﬁrming and Belonging Identity: Model 16 Cautious-Defensive Racial
Socialization Practices ................................................................................................... 161

Figure 41 - African American Identity: Model 17 Integrative Assertive Racial
Socialization Practices ................................................................................................... 162

Figure 42 - African American Identity: Model 18 Cautious-Defensive Racial
Socialization Practices ................................................................................................... 164

Figure 43 - African American Identity: Model 19 Individualistic-Universalistic Racial
Socialization Practices ................................................................................................... 165

Figure 44 - African American Identity: Model 20 Cautious-Defensive Racial
Socialization Practices ................................................................................................... 166

Figure 45 - African American Identity: Model 21 Integrative Assertive Racial
Socialization Practices ................................................................................................... 168

Figure 46 - African American Identity: Model 22 Cautious-Defensive Racial
Socialization Practices ................................................................................................... 169

Figure 47 - African American Identity: Model 23 Individualistic-Universalistic Racial
Socialization Practices ................................................................................................... 170

Figure 48 —African American Identity: Model 24 Cautious-Defensive Racial
Socialization Practices ................................................................................................... 172

XV

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Discrimination and prejudice are racial experiences many African Americans
continually face. As a result, issues of race and racism are a dominant concern and must
be addressed in order for African Americans to live successfully within this society.
Issues of race and racism are of a particular concern for African American adolescents
who are one of the most discriminated against minority group in the United States (Mont-
Reynaud, Ritter, & Chen, 1990).

Fortunately, both the African American church and African American parents can
play an important role in buttressing African American adolescents from discrimination.
Speciﬁcally, one of the goals of the church and parents is to socialize adolescents to
function successfully in American society (Gustafon, 1961; June, 1991; Lincoln &
Mamiya, 1990; Mitchell & Thomas, 1994; Paris, 1985). This particular type of
socialization is known as racial socialization. Racial socialization is deﬁned as the
transmission of cultural values and race-related messages which speciﬁcally highlight the
importance of being African American (Bowman & Howard, 1985; Jackson,
McCullough, & Gurin, 1997; Peters, 1985; Stevenson, 1994; Stevenson, 1994). To date,
very little research has investigated the role of the church as a racial socialization agent
and even less is known about how the church may affect a parent’s racial socialization
practices]. This is surprising given the importance of the church in the African American
community (Lincoln & Mamiya, 1990). Therefore, this study will investigate how

churches inﬂuence racial socialization practices of parents and how their socialization

practices, in turn, impact their adolescents’ racial identity attitudes. Attention to
adolescents’ racial identity attitudes is critical because it may explain how they cope
within their community and succeed in the larger society.

Several theologians have discussed that one of the responsibilities of the African
American church is to assist parents in teaching their children about race (Lincoln &
Mamiya, 1990; Mitchell & Thomas, 1994; Paris, 1985). They purport the church is a
setting where some parents take their children to develOp a positive racial identity.
Through sermons, church sponsored activities such as rite of passage programs and
educational ministries such as Sunday school, the church instills values in both parents
and their adolescents (Haight, 1998). The religious messages promoted in these activities
may inﬂuence the types of racial socialization messages parents teach to their children.

Churches in the African American community, similar to African American
parents, have divergent perspectives on the signiﬁcance of discussing racial issues.
These differences among churches appear to be represented by two orientations of the
church, spiritual and faith-based. Spiritual orientation is deﬁned by the author as the
religious values instilled by the church that prepare parents to teach their children to live
in the here and now (i.e., this-worldly) or focus on heaven (other-worldly). Faith-based
program orientation is deﬁned by the author as the church imparting religious values that
instruct parents to socialize their children to participate in traditional programs sponsored
by the church (i.e., privatistic) or community outreach programs (i.e., communal).
Churches will instill different religious values regarding race to their congregation

depending on their position on these two orientations. The variations within each

 

lParental racial socialization practices will be used interchangeably with racial child-rearing strategies and
cultural parenting.

orientation will prepare families to impart different socialization messages to their
adolescents.

To illustrate, this-worldly churches use a Black theological spiritual orientation
which conveys Christian values and beliefs as the primary sources to liberate African
Americans from social injustices. On the other hand, other-worldly churches participate
in a “raceless” spiritual orientation which emphasizes Christian faith and minimizes the
need to liberate African Americans from social injustices (Lincoln, 1999). These
contrasts in orientations will affect the parents’ racial socialization practices and their
adolescent’s identity differently because these churches will provide distinct socialization
messages to their congregation about race and how to respond to racism. This-worldly
churches which endorse a Black theological orientation will discuss an African presence
in the m and address social issues prevalent in the African American community.
Parents and adolescents attending these churches will learn an appreciation of African
American culture and will become knowledgeable about the contributions of Africans in
the Bible (Mitchell & Thomas, 1994). Conversely, churches engaging in a “raceless”
theological perspective (i.e., other-worldly churches) will instill values that emphasize
Christian values such as eternal life, salvation and the ediﬁcation of God and Jesus
Christ. Parents and adolescents attending these churches will learn the universal concepts
of the BM such as “everyone is equal in God’s eyes” and “do not hate your enemies”
(Lincoln & Mamiya, 1990 Haight, 1998). These messages are devoid of racial content
and thus, these parents will receive religious messages which are strikingly different from

this-worldly orientation regarding the signiﬁcance of race.

Parents are another important socialization agent for adolescents. Researchers
report that the majority of African American parents socialize their adolescents about
race and racism (Peters, 1985). African American parents, however, impart different
racial socialization messages to their adolescents. Using data from the National Survey
of Black Americans (N SBA), a national probability sample of 2,107 African Americans,
Demo and Hughes (1990) discuss four racial socialization classiﬁcations. These
classiﬁcations are individualistic-universalistic, cautious-defensive, integrative-assertive
and race avoidance. These classiﬁcations represent the extent to which parents teach
their adolescents about race. For example, parents using individualistic-universalistic
practices do not teach their adolescents about race while parents using integrative/
assertive racial socialization messages instill in their adolescents the importance of
African American culture and history.

The difference in the types of racial socialization messages used by African
American parents is associated with the signiﬁcance parents place on issues regarding
race (Boykin & Toms, 1985; Demo & Hughes 1990; Spencer, 1984; Thornton, Chatters,
Taylor, & Allen 1990). Some parents believe teaching their adolescents about race is
important while other African American parents believe it is insigniﬁcant (Spencer,
1983). Given the important role the church plays in the African American community
and the fact that churches vary signiﬁcantly in the emphasis they place on race and
racism, it is highly likely that this variability in parents’ racial socialization practices is
due in part to the type of church parents attend.

A potential important factor in understanding how the church inﬂuences a

parent’s socialization practices is to examine the racial identity attitudes of parents.

Racial identity refers to the degree to which an individual acknowledges, understands,
and identiﬁes with being African American (Martin & Hall, 1992). Racial identity is
critical because it potentially mediates the relationship between the church and racial
socialization practices among African American parents. How does racial identity
mediate this relationship? Since the church transmits, sustains, and develops racial
identity attitudes among its congregation, it may be a precursor to the formation of racial
socialization practices. That is, parents may be inﬂuenced by the church to formulate a
speciﬁc racial identity and this identity will, in turn, lead to the development of speciﬁc
socialization practices. Therefore, this study will examine racial identity of parents as a
mediator between the church and their racial socialization practices.

In addition, two other factors will be investigated in this study. The ﬁrst,
religiosity, will be examined as a factor moderating the relationship between church and
parents’ racial identity. Religiosity refers to the extent to which a parent is spiritual and
the extent to which he/she participates in private and public religious activities such as
church attendance, Bible study, and prayer. It is hypothesized that the church’s spiritual
and faith-based orientations are more likely to impact an individual’s racial identity when
the individual is highly religious, and thus more likely to internalize the messages from
the church. In other words, religiosity will reinforce the values instilled by the church.

The second factor is the endorsement of negative stereotypes about African
American. These stereotypes consist of myths about African Americans found in the
academy and popular culture (Kelly 1998). Stereotypes were assessed as a moderator

between parents’ racial identity attitudes and their socialization practices. It was

 

 

hypothesized that parents with a high endorsement of stereotypes will use a different type
of racial socialization practice than parents with a low endorsement of stereotypes.

Two studies were conducted in this investigation. Study One will explore the
relationship between the church and a parent’s racial socialization practices. One
mediator, racial identity and two moderators (i.e., religiosity and stereotypes) will be
investigated. Study One will examine the following research questions: 1) To what
extent does the church and parents inﬂuence racial socialization practices?; 2) Does racial
identity mediate the relationship between the church and racial socialization practices?;
and 3) Do religiosity and parental stereotypes moderate the relationship between the

church and. racial identity? Figure 1 depicts the relationships in Study 1.

Figure 1: Study One - Parent Sample

 

 

Religiosity Stereotypes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Church , Racial V Racial
Type Identity Socialization

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: Parental age, education, interracial contact, and parental religious history
are covariates in this framework.

Study Two, an exploratory study, examined the extent to which adolescents’
perceptions of their church spiritual and faith based orientation and their parents’

socialization practices impacted their racial identity attitudes. Figure 2 presents the

relationships between the variables in this study. Adolescents are targeted in this study
because developmentally adolescence is a period in which individuals begin to explore
and grapple with their racial identity (Erickson, 1964; Marcia, 1966). The development
of positive racial identity attitudes among adolescents is critical because they assist them
with negotiating their environment and positive racial identity attitudes have been
associated with positive outcomes such as academic achievement (Hrabowowski, Maton,
& Greif, 1998; Marshall, 1995), self-esteem (Hughes & Demo, 1990; Mumford, 1994),

and perceived attractiveness among African American females (Makkar & Strube, 1995).

Figure 2: Adolescent Sample- Study Two

 

Adolescent’s
Perception
Of Church

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parent’s report

on Racial Adolescent

Socialization Identity
Adolescent’s

Perception of
Parents Racial
Socialization

Practrces Note: Age and interracial contact are the covariates in this framework.

 

 

 

Since issues concerning racial identity formation become particularly salient
during adolescence, it is important to examine the inﬂuence of the church and parents’
racial socialization practices on adolescents’ racial identity attitudes. Few researchers

have explored whether racial child-rearing strategies of parents are directly related to

 

their adolescent racial identity attitudes. In addition, it is unclear to what extent the
values instilled by the church are associated with the adolescent’s racial identity. Thus,
the examination of these relationships is critical in understanding whether the church and
parents’ racial socialization practices inﬂuence adolescent’s racial identity attitudes.
Study Two examined the following question: Do parents’ racial socialization practices

and adolescents’ perception of their church affect adolescent racial identity?

LITERATURE REVIEW

The Historical Signiﬁcance of Racial Socialization Practices among African American

 

m

Historically, African American parents have understood the signiﬁcance of
teaching children the importance of race in American society. King (1995), investigating
enslaved children and their families in the nineteenth-century, documents the survival
skills African American parents taught their children to endure the perilous and insidious
conditions of slavery. Some of these racial socialization practices imparted by parents to
their children were the ability to have deference toward their elders and the white
majority, to instill conﬁdence regarding African American physical features (e.g., hair
texture, skin complexion, and lips and nostril size) and to maintain their self-respect. In
these enslaved families, parents indoctrinated their children to comprehend the difference
between their plight as slaves and the sense of community maintained by the African
American community. Moreover, King (1995) also explains that the strong community
bonds in these enslaved communities protected children from some of the brutalities of
the slave system and further, teaching them strategies to maneuver between the white
world and the African American one.

Even after the emancipation of enslaved Africans, the majority of African
Americans living in the United States were forced to live in a racially segregated society.
Billingley (1968) posits that the process of socialization among African American parents
continued to be “doubly challenging” for many parents. Billingsley (1968) provides
three explanations, which elucidate the additional demands placed on African American

families: 1) the legacy of the enslavement period on the development of United States

history; 2) the caste-system of segregation which stratiﬁed and relegated African
Americans to an inferior status; and 3) the economic conditions among African American
parents during this period. These explanations emphasize the inﬂuence of larger society
on the socialization practices among African Americans. This broader context challenges
African American parents to raise children to participate successfully in a white society,
which denigrates African Americans and their culture. Since race is a pertinent
component in these explanations, it may become an important factor in the socialization
process of African American children.

Comparable with the enslaved communities, African American parents during
segregation taught their children the signiﬁcance of being African American and to reject
negative stereotypes. This included discussions concerning skin color and other physical
features, racial pride, a sense of personal worth, setting high standards, and academic
achievement (Billingsley, 1968; Dubois, 1967; Frazier, 1967). Additionally, they
instructed their children on how to interact with the larger society because they might be
subjected to humiliating or life threatening experiences. To illustrate, a father discusses
teaching his son the following:

“We’ve tried to show our son the difference between his value as a person and the

distorted view that people may have of him ....... A lot of time he’d come home in

crying from school or from playing in the courtyard outside. Someone would

have told him something like-“we don’t play with niggers” or “coons stink.” I’d

tell him children often use bad names or say things that are not true, but he’d have

to understand that they needed to do this. It really had nothing to do with him. I

think this helped. He’s been able to cope with it. I’m not sure, but I think a well-

adjusted Negro has to have a clearer picture of himself. The society, too”

(Billingsley, 1968 p. 30).

Investigating racial socialization practices among African American parents,

Billingsley (1968) and Frazier (1967) found that parents differentiated on the types of

10

racial child-rearing strategies they imparted to their children. They describe a variation
of racial socialization practices utilized by African American parents ranging from being
subservient to the white majority to having racial pride. The former cultural child-rearing
practice encompasses parental attitudes and behaviors, which teach children to engage in
activities that outwardly accommodate whites. The latter racial socialization strategy,
racial pride, entails African American parents accentuating the positive contributions of
African Americans despite living in a segregated society. Within this continuum ranging
from subservience to racial pride, some African American parents also use another racial
socialization practice and this involves parents who do not discuss race with their
children. Issues of race are not salient with these parents because they believe that the
larger society will inadvertently teach children about race. Consequently, the primary
focus of these parents’ socialization practices is to protect and isolate their children from
potential negative contacts with the larger society (Billingsley, 1968; Frazier, 1967).
Lastly, Billingsley’s research on African American families provides an example of this
strategy.

“There’s no need to tell your children how some people feel about the Negro, they know
it, man. It seems a parent should try to minimize the child’s concern over it” (Billingsley,
1968 p. 30).

During these historical periods (i.e., enslavement and segregation), African
American parents used different racial socialization practices to teach their children about
race in this society. Thornton (1995) asserts that the strategies developed during these
time periods refute the characterization of African American families “as inherently
deﬁcient and unstable” and that African American parents are merely passive participants

in the socialization of their children. This historical overview of the racial socialization

11

literature supports that the majority of African American parents were aware of their
responsibility to teach their children about race. Since the African American community
is not a monolithic group regarding issues of race, parents vary concerning their racial
socialization practices. However, without the transmission of cultural values, African
American children may not develop the strategies to decipher their environment and to
function successfully in society.

Recent Review of the Racial Socialization Literature

 

The majority of the early research on African American families was conducted
by either sociologists or historians (Dubois, 1967, Billingsley, 1968; Frazier, 1966,1967).
These works have contributed to the understanding of the life experiences of African
Americans, and they have documented some of the racial child-rearing strategies among
African American parents. Only during the last three decades have researchers across
different disciplines begun to investigate racial socialization practices among African
American parents (Bowman & Howard, 1985; Jackson, McCullough, & Gurin, 1988,
1991; Greene, 1992; McAdoo, 1985; Peters, 1985; Spencer, 1983; Stevenson & Renard,
1993; Stevenson, 1994; Thornton, Chatters, Taylor, & Allen, 1990). Peters (1985),
investigating the racial socialization practices of thirty African American parents of
children one to three-years old, found those African American parents used different
types of racial child-rearing strategies with their children. Some parents imparted
messages such as earn a good education and not to expect fair play to be reciprocal, while
others discussed with their children the need to be aware of racism and have self-respect
and pride. From this study, Peters (1985) concluded that African American parents were

aware of the importance of teaching their children about race; however, parents differed

12

on the types of racial messages taught to their children. Similar to previous generations
of African American parents, these parents varied on the types of racial socialization
messages taught to their children. Therefore, these ﬁndings illustrate the variability of
racial socialization practices among parents.

Investigating the differences in racial socialization practices among African
American parents, Demo and Hughes (1990) have offered four racial socialization
classiﬁcations. These classiﬁcations are individualistic -universalistic, cautious-
defensive, integrative-assertive, and avoidance-race neutral. For the purpose of this study
three of these socialization practices were examined: individualistic -universalistic,
cautious-defensive, and integrative- assertive.

The ﬁrst classiﬁcation of race-related messages imparted by parents to their
children is “individualistic-universalistic.” Parents, using this type of racial socialization
practice highlight the signiﬁcance of working hard, excelling, and being a good citizen,
and usually do not discuss race with their children. Demo & Hughes (1990) found that
adults reared in individualistic-universalistic households reported a lower sense of
closeness with the African American community. Peter (1985) and Spencer (1983)
suggest that this type of humanistic parenting may not prepare children appropriately to
negotiate effectively within their community and the larger society. Lastly, Thornton
(1997), citing Ogbu (1983) characterizes these parents using this strategy “as populations
at risk and researchers see children from these families manifesting problems of racial
dissonance” (Thornton, 1997 p. 211).

The second classiﬁcation is the cautious-defensive attitude in which parents

impart racial socialization practices such as White prejudice, Whites have the power, and

13

Whites should be kept at a social distance. Adults reared in cautious-defensive
households are similar to those raised in individualistic-universalistic ones and were less
likely to have a sense of closeness to their own community and culture. As a result,
parents who use this child-rearing strategy are sending their children messages that may
inadvertently lead them to become alienated from their own community.

The third classiﬁcation is the integrative-assertive attitude in which parents tend
to teach their children about the importance of racial pride, the contributions of African
Americans in history, the acceptance of being African American, and standing up for
their rights. Demo & Hughes (1990) report that adults whose parents socialized them
using this perspective identiﬁed strongly with African Americans and their culture.

The last classiﬁcation is the avoidance/race-neutral attitude. Demo & Hughes
(1990) state that parents with this attitude do not teach their children anything about race.
Since this socialization strategy is similar to the individualistic-universalistic, they were
combined to create one racial socialization category because both describe parents who
do not discuss race with their children

Other researchers have also discussed the importance of African American
parents teaching their children about race (Bowman & Howard, 1985; Hale, 1991;
Jackson, McCullough, & Gurin, 1988, 1991; Peters, 1985 ; Spencer, 1983; Stevenson &
Renard, 1993; Stevenson, 1994; Thornton, Chatters, Taylor, & Allen, 1990). Bowman &
Howard (1985), examining the racial socialization of African American youth, found that
sixty-four percent of this sample reported that their parents had imparted racial messages
to their children. Further, Spencer (1983) reported that ﬁfty percent of her Southern

sample socialized their children racially. Similarly, Thornton et a1, (1990), using the

14

National Study of Black Americans 01 SBA), a national probability sample of 2, l 07
African Americans, found that sixty-four percent of the parents in this sample socialized
their children about race. The implications of these studies suggest that most African
American parents teach their children about race.

While these studies report the majority of African Americans socialize their
children regarding race, two studies attempt to explain why some African American
parents do not teach their children about race. Spencer (1984) attempts to explain the
reasons why some African American parents do not discuss race with their children. She
found some parents felt teaching about race only discourages their children from
succeeding. Other parents who ignore race in their child-rearing strategies believe the
social changes from the Civil Rights Movement have made the situation better for
African Americans, and thus, they do not perceive racism as a problem in the present
society. In another study, Peters (1985) found that some African Americans reported that
as children they were not adequately prepared by their own parents for coping with racial
injustices and discrimination they had experienced. Therefore, they felt uncomfortable
about discussing these issues with their own children.

McAdoo (1985), refuting the self-hating hypotheses among African American
children, examined the racial socialization practices among parents and teachers of
children residing in three locations (i.e., Northern, Mid-western, and Southern samples).
She found that children received positive race-related messages in their environment,
especially those children in a majority Southern African American one. This ﬁnding is
signiﬁcant because it illustrates the role of the environment on the development of a

positive racial identity among children. This underscores the need to explore racial

15

socialization of African American children across different settings such as churches,
schools, and community-based organizations. Overall, the aforementioned studies
highlighted the diversity of racial socialization practices used by African American
parents. Therefore, since the majority of these studies focused on the parents as the
primary racial socialization agent, it is important to investigate what factors might
inﬂuence parental socialization practices. One such factor is the African American
church.

The African American Church

 

Besides the family, researchers have indicated the African American church is
probably the most signiﬁcant socialization institution in the African American
community (Lincoln, 1999; Lincoln & Mamiya, 1990; Paris, 1985). Throughout the
history of African Americans in this country, the church has been the cultural center and
foundation of the African American community (Lincoln & Mamiya 1990). The church
is still a signiﬁcant institution in the African American community because it is the ﬁrst
social institution owned and operated by African Americans. The church helped African
Americans resist the hegemonic forces of the larger society and has developed other
social institutions within the African American community such as school, ﬁnancial
institutions, and insurance companies (Lincoln & Mamiya 1990). For these reasons, the
church is a critical institution in the African American community. In this study, the
African American church was deﬁned as a church with a predominantly African
American population.

Several researchers have discussed the beneﬁts of the church in the African

American community (Billingsley & Howard, 1994; Blaine & Crocker, 1995; Brown &

16

Gary; 1985; Ellison, 1993; Haight, 1998; McAdoo, 1995; St. George & McNamara,
1984). These beneﬁts include providing educational and employment opportunities
(Kunjufu, 1994), developing social support networks (Brown & Gary; 1985),
encouraging political participation (Harris, 1994), and increasing psychosocial well-being
(Ellison, 1993; McAdoo, 1995). Clearly, the African Annerican church takes on
additional social responsibilities in addition to the traditional role of spreading the Gospel
and saving souls. Given these multifaceted roles, the church has prominent standing in
the African American community, and therefore, the church is placed in a unique
situation of both “community organizer” and “social change agent."

Although researchers document the contributions of the African American church,
another perspective has emerged that describes the church as impeding social change
within the African American community (Marable, 1989, Marx, 1967). These proponents
do not discount the beneﬁcial services that the church provides to the African American
community, and they acknowledge that the church does participate in protests to
eradicate racism and its discriminatory practices. However, these same researchers
postulate an overwhelming number of African American churches concentrate only on
the spiritual development of their members. Additionally, they report these churches do
not confront the structural conditions that hinder access for African Americans to achieve
equality in this country. Given these contrasting perspectives regarding the African
American church, it is important to examine the descriptive models which attempt to

explain the diversity within the church.

17

 

Descriptive Models of the African American Church

Nelson and Nelson (1976) postulated three models to describe the role of the
church in the African American community. The ﬁrst is the assimilation-isolation model,
which characterizes churches as impeding social change for African Americans and
discouraging their congregations to participate in political and social challenges in the
African American community (Frazier, 1963). Second is the compensatory model,
wherein the church is viewed as a positive social institution in the community. This
model highlights the church’s contributions as a place where African Americans acquired
leadership skills, developed businesses, and obtained literacy skills. Nelson & Nelson
(1976) discuss that the compensatory model is “transitional” between the former model
and the ethnic-community model. Finally, the third model, the ethnic-community,
describes the church as “enhancing individual self-worth and building a functional
community that is based on a sense of group identity and collective interest” (Taylor,
Thornton & Chatters, 1988, p. 126). This model underscores the importance of the
church and especially the minister as promoting social change in the African American
community. Although these models represent a continuum among African American
churches, Lincoln & Mamiya (1990) describe another model of the African American
church.

Dialectic Model of the Church. Supporting some of the characterizations of the

 

previous model, Lincoln and Mamiya (1990) propose a “dialectic model” of the church.
This model presents the diversity of the African American church in terms of six
“dialectic tensions”: (1) priestly and prophetic functions; (2) other-worldly versus this-

worldly; (3) communal versus privatistic; (4) resistance versus accommodation; (5)

18

charismatic versus bureaucratic; and (6) universal versus particularism. Lincoln and
Mamiya (1990) report, within any church, one end of the tension will be more visible and
salient than the other. The dialectic model discusses the multidimensionality of the
African American church and may be beneﬁcial in examining how churches racially
socialize their congregation. In particular, these tensions may explain why African
American churches have diverse perspectives on race (Lincoln & Mamiya, 1990), and
how a church imparts these different race-related messages. Two of the aforementioned
tensions seem particularly relevant to how the church may inﬂuence parental race—related
messages and represent the tensions targeted in this study: other-worldly versus this-
worldly and communal versus privatistic.

Spiritual Orientation of the Church

 

In this study, the other-worldly versus this-worldly dialectic tension is deﬁned by
the author as the spiritual orientation of the church. This orientation refers to how
churches instill racial values in their congregation. Churches will have different spiritual
orientations and thus, they will reﬂect the diversity of attitudes regarding race in the
African American community. The spiritual orientation of the church is an important
factor in capturing this diversity. The author hypothesized churches will utilize different
strategies to instruct parents on how to impart racial values to their adolescents dependent
upon where they fall on this tension (i.e., other-worldly versus this-worldly). Although
African American churches vary on the signiﬁcance given to societal challenges such as
racism, economic inequality, and educational disparities (Hunt & Hunt, 1977; Peck,

1982; Wilmore, 1972), few researchers have attempted to differentiate between churches

19

that advance an other-worldly and a this-worldly theological orientation. A description
of these strategies is presented below.

Other-worldly Spiritual Orientation. Other-worldly churches have been deﬁned

 

as religious institutions that emphasize the preparation for entry into Heaven and do not
discuss the persistent social inequalities and injustices that continue to exist in the
African American community. Parents who attend other-worldly churches will be taught
that race is insigniﬁcant and these individuals may believe that either racism does not
exist or it can be overcome with diligence. Thus, these parents will perceive the social
conditions of African Americans differently.

This-worldly Spiritual Orientation. On the other end of this dialectic tension,

 

“this-worldly churches” incorporate a Black theological orientation in their religious
ideology (Peck, 1982; Wilmore, 1972). These churches emphasize the importance of
African and African American culture, and underscore the signiﬁcance of instructing and
preparing their congregation to negotiate within a society which frequently may
discriminate against them because of their race and cultural heritage.

Faith-based Program Orientation

 

For the purpose of this study, the communal versus privatistic_dialectic tension
will be characterized by the author as the faith-based program orientation of the church.
This tension refers to the kinds of programs sponsored by the church, speciﬁcally the
extent to which churches participate in outreach programs in the African American
community. The author hypothesized that churches socialize their congregation
differently according to the faith-based programs offered. Hence, faith-based program

orientation examined the different types of activities sponsored by a church and types of

20

race-related messages imparted by these programs. An overview of this orientation is
given below.

Communal F aith-Based Program Orientation. The communal end of this tension

 

represents involvement of churches in the economic, political, and social aspects of their
congregation and community through a variety of programming efforts. This theological
orientation views the church as being the center of activities in the African American
community. Overall, these churches strive to develop African American economic and
political structures that strive to erase the marginal status of African Americans (Cone,
1970)

Privatistic Faith-Based Program Orientation. In contrast, the other end of this

 

tension, the privatistic theological orientation, underscores the spiritual needs of the
congregation and churches that ascribe to the privatistic orientation do not participate in
activities outside of their congregation. Billingsley and Howard (1994) report a historical
shift in the number of churches participating in communal orientations. For example, in
1930 the majority of churches did not participate in community social projects (Mays,
1930 cited in Lincoln and Mamiya, 1990) while by 1980 Otis (1980 cited in Lincoln and
Mamiya, 1990) found the majority of the churches in his sample participated in
community outreach programs consisting of either social service or social action.
Moreover, Lincoln and Mamiya’s (1990) results revealed that community outreach has
become a prominent concern for many urban African American churches. Therefore,
these studies reﬂect the increased attention African American churches are giving to

community outreach in their communities.

21

In summary, when investigating the African American church, it is important to
examine the dialectic tension model because it explains the religious diversity within the
African American church and may explain why African American churches differ in the
race-related messages they impart to their congregation.

The African American Church As A Racial Socialization Institution

 

Lincoln & Mamiya (1990) discuss that one of the fundamental responsibilities of
the church is to assist parents in the racial socialization of their children. Churches teach
and sustain the racial values of their congregations through the many religious activities
offered at these places of worship (Gustafson, 1961; Paris, 1985). How do churches
socialize their congregation about race? The church facilitates the transmission of racial
and cultural values through the Sunday school literature, sermons, and community
outreach efforts (Lincoln & Mamiya, 1990). Through these activities, churches will
instill different religious messages to their congregation depending upon the spiritual and
faith-based orientations.

Sunday School Literature. Investigating the importance of having African

 

American illustrations in the religious literature utilized by African American churches,
Lincoln & Mamiya (1990) found sixty-eight percent of clergy believed it was important
to have African American pictures in the Sunday school literature. Churches located on
the this-worldly end of the spiritual orientation socialize their congregation to understand
the duality of Christianity. First, they teach everyone is a representation of God, and
second, they incorporate African American heritage into the Christian experience of their

congregation. Smith (1994) asserts the inclusion of African American history explains

22

how faith enables the African American community to survive the hardships and perilous
conditions living in this society.

Conversely, thirty-two percent of the clergy in the Lincoln & Mamiya study
(1990) felt that skin color was not important in developing a relationship with Christ
while others reported that their was not a “Black church” and thus, racial issues should
not be addressed in the church. Giving these ﬁndings, it appears that other-worldly
churches differ on the signiﬁcance of having African American illustrations in their
Sunday school materials. Churches endorsing an other-worldly religious orientation may
inadvertently instill in the congregation that Jesus is White. Through the depiction of
Christ, as a male sometimes with blue eyes and long blond hair, in the Sunday school
literature, the church teaches its congregation, especially children, that religion is not
inclusive of all people. An illustration is this quote.

“More than one aspiring young black Christian has been prompted to ask:

Reverend, if we are made in the image of God, and if Jesus Christ is the son of

God, why is it that all the pictures of Jesus in our church show him as a white

man?” (Billingsley, 1999 p. 170)

Lincoln and Mamiya (1990) discuss that these depictions of Christ as White may
lead to feelings of inferiority among some African Americans by reinforcing some of the
negative stereotypes held by the larger society. Given these ﬁndings, it appears churches
differ on the signiﬁcance of having African American images in their Sunday school
materials.

Sermons. Sermons are another important racial socialization agent in the church.
Lincoln and Mamiya (1990) state that preaching is one of the ways in which race-related

messages are taught to parents and their children, especially adolescents. They found

ministers’ religious orientation on the dialectic tensions (i.e., other-worldly versus this-

23

worldly and communal versus privatistic) signiﬁcantly inﬂuenced the content of the
sermons preached at different churches. For instance, some ministers practicing an other-
worldly spiritual orientation only preached sermons emphasizing religious themes as they
believed that the church was an inappropriate place to address racial and social issues.
From this perspective, these ministers explained that religion “has no color” and in their
churches, such issues are not discussed.

On the other hand, ministers from this-worldly churches were more inclined to
preach sermons that have themes of racial content such as African American history,
economic development, political participation and community activism (Lincoln &
Mamiya, 1990). Moreover, these ministers believed it was paramount for the church to
teach children about the contributions of African Americans as they believed these types
of sermons increased the congregation’s feelings, especially the children’s about racial
self-esteem and awareness (Lincoln & Mamiya, 1990).

Community Outreach Programs. The ﬁnal method churches sometimes use to

 

socialize their congregation regarding race is through their community outreach
programs. Racial socialization occurs when parents, children and adolescents participate
in these programs (i.e., rite of passage programs and Black History month). Furthermore,
outreach programs sponsored by churches teach their congregation to understand one of
the roles of the church is to provide educational, political, and social guidance in the
African American community and the importance of such community unity. The
participation of some churches in a variety of outreach programs (e.g., voter registration

drives, Head Start, tutorial programs, HIV/AIDS awareness, and economic/community

24

development programs) instill values in children to become involved not only in church-
related programs, but also in programs which assist the community.

Comparable to Sunday school literature and sermons, churches vary on whether
they participate in community outreach programs. Recall that Black theology is deﬁned
as the interpretation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as it relates to the liberation of the
African American community from oppression (Cone, 1997). Lincoln and Mamiya
(1990) suggest that the extent to which a church has a Black theological orientation may
inﬂuence the types of programs a church sponsors. For example, privatistic churches,
which do not endorse this ideology, will sponsor traditional programs (i.e., Bible Study,
Youth choir, and Vacation Bible school). However, in contrast, communal churches
which do ascribe to a Black theological orientation will engage in programs which
address some of the challenges within the African American community. These churches
will have outreach programs such as economic/community development programs,
abstinence programs, HIV/AIDS, drug and alcohol programs.

Finally, the values transmitted by churches support racial solidarity among some
African Americans (Mitchell & Thomas, 1994). By instilling religious and moral values,
churches inﬂuence racial identity of their congregations by maintaining, nurturing, and
creating adoptive strategies that promote the culture of African Americans (Mitchell &
Thomas, 1994; Paris, 1985). Therefore, the types of race-related messages taught by
churches to their congregation through religious activities (i.e., Sunday school, sermons,
and community outreach programs) will impact parent’s racial socialization practices.

Racial Socialization Practices As Inﬂuenced By The Church

 

25

Presently, a need exists to assess the impact of a church’s of spiritual orientation
(i.e., other-worldly versus this-worldly) and faith-based programs (i.e., communal versus
privatistic) on parental racial socialization practices. In this study, the church’s
orientations on these two tensions will be assessed via parental perceptions of their
church. Perceptual data is appropriate to examine settings when based on the individuals
who comprise of the membership of the organization or institution (Florin, et al., 1990;
Forehand & Gilmer, 1964; James & Jones, 1974; Koslowski & Hults, 1987 cited in
F oster-Fishman, Salem, Allen & Fahrbach, 1999). Researchers discuss the beneﬁt of
perceptual data is it provides an understanding of how the setting may impact attitudes
and behavior (Foster-Fishman et al., 1999). To date, very few researchers have explored
empirically the relationship between parents’ perceptions of their church and their racial
socialization practices.

Other-worldly versus This- Worldly Spiritual Orientation. When churches

 

endorse an other-worldly spiritual orientation, they help inﬂuence parents’ racial
socialization practices by preparing their congregations to become good Christians.
Other-worldly churches emphasize the spiritual development of their members and issues
of race are rarely discussed. Hence, parents may focus their racial socialization practices
to include universal socialization messages which instill the behavior of a good Christian
including working hard, excelling, and being a good citizen.

Similar to other-worldly churches, this-worldly churches instruct their
congregations to be good Christians also. However, because Black theology is a
signiﬁcant component of this-worldly spiritual orientation, they instill different racial

socialization messages to their congregation than other-worldly churches. These

26

messages include racial pride, acceptance of being African American and standing up for
your rights. By providing these types of socialization messages, the church imparts
values to its congregation which are likely to assist parents in teaching their children and
adolescents the signiﬁcance of race.

Communal versus Privastistic Faith-Based Program Orientation. Consistent with

 

the this-worldly tension, black theology is a component of the communal religious
orientation. Communal churches will teach their congregation that the signiﬁcance of
Christianity extends beyond their own religious salvation to the societal concerns in the
African American community (Lincoln & Mamiya, 1990). These churches will
encourage their congregation to become involved in church programs that tackle some of
these concerns. The racial socialization messages in communal churches will highlight
the importance of solving problems in the African American community. In addition, an
underlying racial socialization message is the commitment to the African American
community and a part of this commitment is to accentuate the history of self—help in the
African American community and church (Thomas, 1992). Furthermore, it is the
participation in these outreach programs by communal churches that assist parents in
teaching their adolescents the importance of becoming involved to help eradicate some of
the societal concerns in the African American community. These types of churches also
help parents in instructing their adolescents about the history of self-help in the African
American community. Most parents in these churches will also teach their children the
signiﬁcance of becoming involved in church-related outreach programs and

understanding the legacy of self-help in the church and African American community.

27

In contrast, the privatistic theological orientation involves churches’ participation
in faith-based programs such as Usher Board, Choir, and Bible Study. These programs
stress the signiﬁcance of teaching Christianity and being good stewards. If they
participate in any faith-based outreach programs, they are the traditional ones such as
having clothing drives and offering meals to the homeless. Their programs do not
emphasize the economical and political development of the African American
community. Privatistic churches socialize their congregation to become better Christians
and they do not sponsor programs which address and ameliorate societal concerns in the
African American community. Consequently, the most important socialization message
in these churches is to meet only the religious needs of their congregation (Lincoln &
Mamiya, 1990). Parents in these churches will focus their socialization practices on
instilling religious values to their children.

Overall, since the spiritual and faith-based orientations of the church are strongly
related to the church’s stance on race, it is likely that parents’ perceptions of these
orientations will affect parents’ racial child rearing strategies. However, questions still
remain regarding how parents’ perceptions of their church impacts parental socialization
practices. One potential mediating factor is parental racial identity.

Review of the Racial Identity Literature

 

Cross Nigrescence Model of Racial Identity. Racial identity is deﬁned as the degree to

 

which an individual acknowledges, understands, and identiﬁes with being African
American (Martin & Hall, 1992). Before discussing the current racial identity literature,

Cross’ seminal contribution to the racial identity literature must be reviewed.

28

Developed in 1971, Cross’ model of Nigrescence is a ﬁve stage developmental
theory of racial identity. This model describes the stages that African Americans
transcend to procure a positive orientation towards being African American and to
develop psychologically a healthy African American identity (Cross, 1971, 1991, 1994;
Helms, 1990; Parham, 1989; Sellers, Smith, Shelton, Rowley, & Chavous, 1997). Each
stage is deﬁned by certain characteristics that explicate the variation of racial identity
attitudes among African Americans. In reviewing Cross’ model, Helms (1986) interprets
these stages as the interaction of feelings, cognitions, attitudes, and behaviors among
African Americans. According to Parham (1989), individuals may recycle through the
stages of the Nigrescence and this process allows individuals to modify their
understanding of being African American. Lastly, Cross (1994) discusses that these
stages are hierarchical, however, they are not mutually exclusive. In the ﬁrst stage of the
Nigrescence model, preencounter represents individuals who may have low salience
towards being African American and endorse attitudes that are anti-black or race-neutral.
Cross (1994) posits that African Americans in this stage may inadvertently endorse
negative stereotypes about African Americans, embrace positive stereotypes of Whites,
and may use the human race as their self-referent rather than identifying with being
African American.

Either a positive encounter with Africans Americans or a negative one with White
Americans usually causes the encounter, the second stage. After this experience,
individuals in this stage may begin to question and challenge their previous negative
attitudes and behaviors toward African Americans. Cross (1994) reports that individuals

in this stage may temporarily experience anger, anxiety, confusion, depression and guilt.

29

During this stage, individuals will begin to progress to a more positive identiﬁcation with
being African American.

The third stage, immersion/emersion, is described as the pro-black and anti-white
stage of development. In this stage, individuals have departed from the “dissonance-

arousing” stage of encounter and have begun to delve heavily into African American

culture. To illustrate, many African Americans in this stage may begin to wear African :1

P "

1 t’
t j 1
l ‘: J.-
..

attire, change their names to African ones, discontinue participation in previous
preencounter organizations, and join African American organizations. An important
characteristic of this stage is that individuals are attempting to internalize all of the
positive behaviors and traditions of African American culture.

The fourth stage, internalization, is when individuals are characterized by an
acceptance of being African American. Therefore, the previous anti-white beliefs are
diminished and the individuals have begun to attain an inner peace about their racial
group. During this stage, Cross (1994) postulates individuals differentiate on the degree
of salience on being African American. For instance, this differentiation extends from a
strong nationalist perspective to a multicultural orientation.

Finally, individuals progress to the internalization-commitment. This stage is
typiﬁed by a responsibility to engage in political activities that lead to social change for
African Americans. By participating in these activities, Cross (1994) distinguishes this
stage from the previous one, and states that current research does not demarcate the
internalization stage and the ﬁnal one.

The Nigrescence theory has provided an explanation for the diverse attitudes

African Americans have toward their racial identity. Many researchers have utilized this

30

 

model to examine the relationship between racial identity and different psychosocial
outcomes such as psychological functioning (Carter, 1991), feelings of closeness to other
African Americans (Brookins, Anyabwile, & Nacosite, 1996), racial preference of a
counselor (Parham & Helms, 1981), and academic achievement (Arroyo & Zigler, 1995).
Although this model has contributed to the understanding among African Americans,
other models exist which attempt to explain racial identity attitudes among African
Americans (Baldwin & Bell, 1985, Milliones, 1980; and Sellers, Smith, Shelton, Rowley
& Chavous, 1997). Sellers et a1. (1998) have proposed a multidimensional model of
racial identity titled the Multidimensional Model of Black Identity (MMBI) which will be
utilized in this study.

Multidimensional Model of Black Identity. The MMBI measures the importance

 

an individual places on his/ her group membership within the African American
community and analyzes the qualitative meaning by which an individual characterizes
him/herself as being African American (Sellers et al., 1998). This model incorporates
many of the fundamental assumptions of two distinct perspectives (i.e., mainstream and
underground) in the racial identity literature. These perspectives differ in the signiﬁcance
that African Americans ascribe to their unique cultural and historical experiences. The
mainstream approach describes identity development, regardless of race and ethnicity, as
possessing universal concepts that an individual may identify with such as race, gender,
social economic status, or sexual orientation (Gaines & Reed, 1994; 1995). The
mainstream approach is known also as the race generic (Smith, Fogle, & Jacobs, 2001)

and pan-ethnic (Cross, 1994).

31

Further, the mainstream approach suggests that these universal concepts exist in a
hierarchy. To illustrate, an individual may indicate gender as his/her primary preference.
In contrast, the underground approach emphasizes the importance of the unique cultural
and historical experiences of African Americans and highlights the signiﬁcance of these
experiences in the identity development among African Americans (Gaines & Reed,
1994; 1995). By merging these perspectives, the MMBI provides a comprehensive
investigation of racial identity among African Americans, examines the signiﬁcance
African Americans ascribe to their racial group, and explores what other universal
concepts with which they may identify (Sellers et al., 1997). Thus the MMBI examines
three dimensions of racial identity: 1) centrality, 2) regard, and 3) ideology. For the
purpose of this study, only the ideology scale will be examined as a measure of racial
identity.

Ideology. The ideology scale measures four philosophies (Assimilationist,

Humanist, Nationalist, and Oppressed Minority) which explains the ways African
Americans should behave and act concerning race (Sellers et al., 1998). One component
of the ideology scale is that it examines overt behaviors such as attitudes, beliefs, and
opinions that African Americans should share as a group. Sellers et a1. (1998) describe
the philosophies as situational and suggest that an individual may endorse attitudes and
behaviors across different ideologies. They give the following example:
“A person could believe that African Americans should primarily patronize African
American-owned businesses (nationalist) and at the same time feel that African
Americans should integrate Whites institutions (assimilationist)” (Sellers et al., 1998 p.
27).

Assimilationist. An individual with an assimilationist ideology de-emphasizes the

 

cultural and historical difference between African Americans and the larger society.

32

Sellers et a1. (1998) asserts that an individual with this ideology is not anti African
American, but simply recognizes the signiﬁcance of race in this country, and therefore,
the best strategy for African Americans is to conform to the values of America such as
the Protestant work ethic and economic equality. In addition, assimilationists identify
with being an American only and think that African Americans need to work within the
existing social structure to achieve equality. Similar to the assimilationists, who do not
distinguish between American and African American, the humanist does not make a
distinction among ethnic/racial groups.

Humanist. A humanist avoids making distinctions among the characteristics that
identify a person by such as class, gender, race, and sexual orientation (Sellers et al.,
1997). Unlike the assimilationist, who understands the signiﬁcance of race in this
country, a humanist believes that race is not an impediment to economic mobility and
overall quality of life for African Americans. In the research literature on racial identity,
a discrepancy exists among researchers as to whether this ideology is at the beginning or
ﬁnal stage of identity development (Cross, 1990; Penn et al., 1993). Since the
assimilationist and humanist minimize the cultural and historical legacy of African
Americans, they differ from those people who are an oppressed minority who have as
ideology which stresses a belief that the culture and history of all racial/ethnic groups are
important (Sellers et al., 1998).

Oppressed Minority. The oppressed minority dimension stresses the importance
of understanding the oppression of all disenfranchised groups. Speciﬁcally, an individual
with this ideology is characterized as participating in diverse social groups and

organizations. Therefore, comprehension of oppression in this society allows an

33

 

individual with an oppressed minority ideology to build alliances with multiethnic and
gender-speciﬁc organizations to promote social change (Sellers et al., 1998). In
summary, a distinction occurs in the deﬁnition of oppressed groups. Some people
believe that oppressed groups consist only of racial/ethnic groups while others’ deﬁnition
is broader and encompasses women and sexual orientation. Thus, while an individual
with an oppressed minority philosophy is concerned with all disenfranchised groups, the
individual with a nationalist perspective is interested only in people of African descent
(Sellers et al., 1998).

Nationalist. The fourth ideology is the nationalist perspective, which emphasizes
the cultural and historical experiences of African Americans. An individual with this
ideological viewpoint believes that African Americans have distinct experiences (e.g.,
enslavement, segregation, racism and discrimination) that distinguish them from other
groups residing in the United States (Sellers et al., 1998). Further, an individual with this
perspective has a strong afﬁliation with other people of African descent and prefers to
participate and socialize only with African Americans. As with the humanistic ideology,
researchers debate the developmental hierarchy of this stage. Asante (1980) asserts that
this ideology is the best identity for African Americans while Cross (1994) posits that
some of the characteristics of this dimension are not a completely developed identity for
African Americans. Thus, these researchers differ on the psychosocial beneﬁts of this
ideology for African Americans.

In summary, the MMBI examines the dimensions of racial identity and measures
racial identity across different settings. Sellers et a1. (1998) explicate that the MMBI

merges two approaches on racial identity; and therefore, this model allows for an

34

integration of the cultural and historic experiences which may or may not inﬂuence how
individuals identify with being African American. Since African Americans differ on the
degree of racial identity and this difference has been associated with church membership
it is possible that racial identity may mediate the relationship between the church and
parental racial socialization practices.

Racial Identity: A Mediator between the African American Church and Racial

 

Socialization Practices

 

After reviewing the literature regarding racial identity among African Americans,
one consistent ﬁnding is that African Americans vary on their racial identity attitudes
(Carter, 1991; Cross, 1971, 1991, 1894;Parham, 1989; Parham & Helms; 1981, Sellers et
al., 1998). This highlights that the African American community is not a monolithic one
and, in fact, represents extremely diverse views regarding the signiﬁcance of being
African American. This study examined racial identity as a mediator between parents’
perceptions of their church’s theological orientations (i.e., other-worldly versus this-
worldly theological orientation and communal versus privatistic theological orientation)
and their racial socialization practices. This study hypothesized that parents’ racial
identity attitudes will be inﬂuenced by their perceptions of the values articulated by their
churches. For example, other-worldly churches which endorse a “raceless” theological
orientation, highlighting that race is not paramount in relaying the message of Jesus and
that everyone regardless of race is a child of God, will promote either assimilationist or
humanist racial identity attitudes among their congregation members. Assimilationist

views emphasize the similarities between African Americans and the wider society and

35

humanists believe everyone belongs to the human race. Both of these racial identities
minimize the role of race within the church.

On the other end of this tension, this worldly churches teach their congregation to
understand Christianity from an African American experience. These churches highlight
the signiﬁcance of African American culture and history in their theological orientation.
This-worldly churches affect racial identity by imparting messages such as racial pride
and standing up for your rights. Thus the theological orientation of these churches will
promote either an oppressed minority or nationalist racial identity attitudes.

Similar to the other-worldly churches, privatistic churches also accentuate
religious values while ignoring some of the social ills in the African American
community. In their programming efforts, these churches do not emphasize race and they
consistently impart the following messages: be a good Christian, love all people, and
religion has no color. These messages, in turn, are likely to promote within their
congregation assimilationist and humanist racial identities. Both of these perspectives
highlight the importance of either belonging to the human race or joining the larger
society.

Comparable with this-worldly churches, communal churches underscore the
signiﬁcance of race in their church related activities and they participate in community
outreach programs which attempt to address some of the societal concerns in the African
American community. These churches instill messages such as an appreciation of
African American culture, the African presence in the Bible, and the signiﬁcance of
community development (i.e., educationally, economically, and spiritually). These

messages promote in their congregation nationalist and oppressed minority racial

36

 

 

identities. Both of these racial ideologies emphasize the importance of race in
understanding and negotiating the larger society.

Overall, both the spiritual orientations (i.e., other-worldly and this-worldly) and faith
based orientations (i.e., communal and privatistic) will inﬂuence the racial identity of
their congregation differently due to their diverse religious orientation about race. Since
an other-worldly spiritual orientation and a privatistic faith based orientation highlight
universal theological perspectives, they teach their congregation to have assimilationist or
humanist racial ideologies. In contrast, this-worldly and communal faith-based churches
include issues pertaining to race in their theological perspectives. Churches having these
orientations impart vales in their congregation consistent with nationalist and oppressed
minority racial identity attitudes. The extent to which parents perceive their church as
expounding a particular orientation may affect parents’ racial identity attitudes. This
relationship will be affected by parents’ religiosity and stereotypes. This is described
below.

Religiosity

Religiosity is another important variable that impacts racial identity attitudes of
parents. Researchers have recognized that religiosity is multidimensional and consists of
several important components: 1) spirituality, 2) organizational involvement, 3)
nonorganizational involvement and 4) subjective religiosity (Levin, Taylor and Chatters,
1995; McAdoo, 1995; Paragament, 1999; Zinnabauer, Paragament, Cole, Rye, Butter,
Belavich, Hipp, & Scott, 1997). Spirituality is deﬁned as the belief in a Supreme Being
and has been associated with some African American parents perceiving it as an

additional strength to their parenting practices (Hurd, Porter, Moore & Rogers, 1995).

37

These parents believe that their spiritual beliefs plus their church congregation are
signiﬁcant in assisting with child-rearing. Thus, spirituality is an important factor to
examine among African American parents.

The involvement of individuals in religious activities such as church attendance.
prayer, and watching religious programs is also recognized as a critical part of religiosity.
Organizational involvement is deﬁned as attending church regularly and participating in
church organizations while nonorganizational involvement is deﬁned as reading the
Bibi, praying alone, listening to religious radio stations, and watching religious
programs on television. Finally, subjective religiosity has been deﬁned as the importance
of religion in a person’s life.

Researchers have discussed that religiosity is essential in the lives of African
Americans (Billingsley & Giovannoni, 1972; Levin et al., 1995; Taylor & Chatters,
1991). A few studies have reported that religiosity among African Americans is related
to their racial identity (Ellison, 1991; Hammond, 1988; Stout, 1975). Ellison (1991)
found that private religiousness (i.e., nonorganizational involvement) is positively
associated to racial identity. The participation in these religious activities imparts
religious values which shape individuals’ behaviors and attitudes. Ellison (1997)
describes this behavior as “role taking” and posits the following:

“Individuals may come to understand their own life circumstances, including

family relations, in terms of a scriptural ﬁgure’s situation, and they may begin to

reconsider their situations from the point of view of the “God role”-that is, what a

divine other would expect in terms of appropriate parental or spousal demeanor

and deportment” (Ellison, 1997 p. 121).

The involvement of African Americans in religious activities such as prayer,

meditation, and scriptural readings may inﬂuence parents’ racial identity attitudes by

38

instilling values on how to live successfully as a Christian. As mentioned previously.
Mitchell and Thomas (1994) have discussed that religion impacts racial solidarity, and
parents who are involved in these activities will more likely have their racial identity
attitudes reinforced and strengthened.

Religiosity will likely moderate the relationship between church orientations (i.e.,
spiritual and faith-based) and racial identity attitudes. More speciﬁcally, the church’s
spiritual and faith-based orientations are more likely to impact racial identity when a
parent is highly religious. Through a parent’s religiosity, the involvement in activities
such as prayer, mediation, and scriptural reading will more likely strengthen the values
espoused by a particular church orientation. For example, parents who perceive their
church as having a this-worldly spiritual orientation instill values associated with an
appreciation of African American culture. By participating in speciﬁc religious activities
(e. g., prayer, meditation, and scriptural readings), these activities will strengthen their
nationalist racial identity attitudes because they are reinforcing the values of the church.

Racial Identity: Multiple Pathways to Explain Racial Socialization Practices among

 

African Americans Parents

 

The research examining the relationship between the parents’ racial identity and
their racial socialization practices is scarce. Of the studies which have examined this
relationship, the majority have asked adult participants about their parents’ racial
socialization practices and the impact of these practices on the participants’ degree of
identiﬁcation with being African American (Demo and Hughes, 1990; Sanders-
Thompson, 1994). The implications of these ﬁndings suggest the racial identiﬁcation of

the adult participants is consistent with their parents’ racial socialization practices. For

39

example, Demo and Hughes (1990) report that African Americans who have a high
identiﬁcation with being African American were raised in an environment which
emphasized racial pride, the acceptance of being African American, and the importance
of getting along with others. In contrast, this same study found that African Americans
who identiﬁed less with being African American were raised in a home which
emphasized with excelling, working hard and treating everyone as equal. The following
section describes how each type of racial identity targeted in this study will differently
inﬂuence the racial socialization practices of parents.

Multiple Pathways to an Individual/Universalistic Socialization Practices. In a

 

study investigating the relationship between parents’ racial identity attitudes and their
racial socialization practice, Thomas & Speight (1999) found that the degree to which
parents identiﬁed with being African American is associated with the types of racial
socialization messages they impart to their children. More speciﬁcally, they reported
African American parents who identiﬁed less with being African American instill values
such as to work hard and to conform to the larger society.

Since parents who ascribe to either an Assimilationist or Humanist ideology
believe that race is not a signiﬁcant factor in their lives, they may not socialize their
children about race for the following reasons: 1) they may believe that such socialization
may discourage their children from achieving their goals (Peters, 1985); 2) they may
believe that the social movements have improved the conditions of African Americans
(Spencer, 1984); 3) and they did not receive racial socialization messages as children and

thus, they do not feel comfortable discussing race with their children (Peters, 1985).

40

Consequently, it appears that parents who identify less with being African Americans
will socialize their children with values consistent to their racial identity.

Nationalist Ideology: Multiple Pathws to Different Socialization Practices. In
the racial identity literature, a debate exists whether a strong Nationalist ideology is the
best achieved identity for African Americans (Asante, 1980; Cross, 1991). Asante (1980)
states that this ideology is the optimal identity for African Americans whereas Cross
(1994) explains that this ideology may not be a completely developed identity for African
Americans. Supporting these contrasting standpoints, Thomas and Speight (1999) posits
that parents who support this ideology may still be struggling with their earlier negative
attitudes toward African Americans and consequently, parents may ascribe to this
ideology outwardly (i.e., celebrating African American history and culture and teaching
their children about African culture); however, it may not be a fully internalized identity.
In another study, Kelly (1998), examining satisfaction among African American
heterosexual relationships, found that couples who endorsed a Nationalist ideology also
expressed having negative stereotypes regarding African Americans. The authors of this
study reported that this ideology was not conducive to positive relationships among
African American couples. Thus these studies indicate that a Nationalist ideology may
be either a positive or negative orientation for African Americans. Some parents may
instill in their children positive messages about being African American (i.e., integrative-
assertive racial socialization practices). Conversely, other Nationalists parents may use a
cautious-defensive racial socialization practice, one that teaches African American
children and adolescents to distrust Whites and that they continuously discriminate

against all minorities especially African Americans.

41

Oppressed Minority: A Pathway to Integrative/ Assertive Racial Socialization
Practices. Parents who identify with the oppression of all disenfranchised groups may
believe it is signiﬁcant to socialize their children about race. Since these parents have
explored their identity and incorporated positive attributes about being African American
into their self concept, they may use racial socialization messages such as standing up for
your rights and racial pride. This identity may be the most positive for African
Americans because they have internalized the African American experience and are
committed to social change activities for all people (Cross, 1978; Sellers et. a1. 1997).
These parents may teach their children acceptance of their culture and a comprehension
of the oppression among all groups. Thus, they will use an integrative/assertive
socialization practice because it teaches children the importance of racial pride, African
American history, and the acceptance of being African American.

In summary, because racial identity may explain how parents’ perceptions of the
different dialectic tensions of the church inﬂuence their racial child-rearing strategies, it
is critical to include it as a mediator of this relationship. By examining racial identity,
researchers gain a better understanding of how the church supports parents’ racial
socialization practices by supporting their racial identity attitudes.

Stereotypes: A Moderator between Racial Ideology and Racial Socialization

 

Practices. An explanation of the multiple pathways from racial ideology to parental
racial socialization practices is the endorsement of negative stereotypes by African
American parents. Several theorists discuss the effects of racism on African Americans
and a result of living in a racist society is that some African Americans parents endorse

negative stereotypes about being African Americans (Cross, 1971, 1991). For example,

42

parents who have a high endorsement of negative stereotypes will identify with either an
Assimilationist (i.e., underscoring the commonalities between African American and
American society) or a Nationalist ideology that is anti-white/pro-black and is
characteristic of the immersion-emersion attitudes of Cross’ theory where African
Americans have a rigid philosophy about the meaning of Blackness (Cross, 1971). Since
researchers report that Assimilationist parents are in the earliest stage of identity
according to Cross’ model (Sellers et al., 1998), and parents who endorse Nationalist
ideology are developing a new African American identity, both ideologies have not
resolved their prior negative beliefs regarding being African American and will endorse
high negative stereotypes about African Americans. Assilimationist parents will likely
impart individualistic-universalistic racial-child-rearing strategies while Nationalist
parents will likely socialize their children using a cautious/defensive parenting strategy
which may teach adolescents to be distrustful of whites.

The second pathway characterizes African American parents who may endorse
Humanist attitudes. These parents will have a low endorsement of negative stereotypes.
These individuals teach their children to focus on humankind rather than race (Sellers et
al., 1998). Similar to the Assimilationist, Humanist parents will instill universal values
such as hard work and respect for all human beings.

The third and fourth pathway represent African American parents who also
identify either with a Nationalist ideology too or Oppressed Minority, but have a low
endorsement of negative stereotypes about African Americans. These individuals have a
deep appreciation of African American culture and are committed to social change in the

African community and larger society. Therefore, these parents are more likely to teach

43

their children to stand up for their rights and to value being part of the African American
community. These messages represent the integrative/ assertive racial socialization
practices.

Covariates in Study One

 

In exploring the diverse racial socialization practices among African Americans,
several social-demographic factors consistently appeared in the literature (Demo and
Hughes, 1990; Spencer 1984; Thornton et a1. 1990). Educational level, interracial
contact, and age will be included as the covariates in this study.

Education Level. Available evidence indicates that parents’ education may

 

predict racial socialization patterns among African Americans. Thornton et a1. (1990)
found that African Americans who had earned higher levels of education racially
socialized their children more than individuals with less education, suggesting that
African American parents who have a high level of education were more inclined to place
signiﬁcance on socializing their children regarding race. For this reason, parental
education level will be covaried out in this study.

Interracial Contact. The second covariate is interracial contact. This refers to a

 

minority member who has interacted with individuals from other groups in the larger
society throughout his/her lifetime (Demo & Hughes 1990). Several empirical studies
found that importance of interracial contact among African Americans during childhood
affected their racial socialization patterns (Demo & Hughes, 1990; Ellison and Powers,
1994; Sigelman, Bledsoe, Welch, and Combs; 1996). Demo and Hughes’ (1990) indicate
that interracial contact during childhood was negatively related to closeness with other

African Americans in adulthood. As these studies suggest, interracial contact at an

44

earlier age may inﬂuence adult attitudes and behaviors including racial socialization
practices. Interracial contact will also be covaried out in this study.

Ag; Age is the third covariate in this study. Thornton et al. (1990) report that
older parents are more likely to socialize their adolescents racially than younger parents.
In addition, this study elucidates that older African Americans have a stronger
identiﬁcation with being African American and therefore, older parents are more inclined
to instill race-related messages to their children. Furthermore, Thornton et al. (1990)
indicate that older African American parents believed that racial socializing their children
is an important part of their child-rearing strategies. These research ﬁndings highlight the
importance of age on the complexities of understanding racial socialization patterns
among African Americans. Thus, for the purpose of this study, parental age will be
assessed as a covariate.

Parental Religious History. The fourth covariate is parental religious history.

 

This predictor examines the church participation of parents across their lifetime. By
covarying out parental religious history this study attempts to minimize the potential
selection bias regarding prior church attendance by the participants in this study.

Study Two: The Church and Parents’ Racial Socialization Practices Shaping Values of

 

Adolescents

The second purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between
adolescents’ perceptions of the church, parental racial socialization practices, and
adolescents’ perceptions of parental racial socialization on adolescent racial identity
development. During adolescence, one of the fundamental goals is to begin to investigate

and develop one’s identity (Erikson, 1968). Tatum (1997) discusses that adolescence

45

grapple with the questions of “Who am I?” and “Who can I be?” This involves the
integration of different dimensions of an adolescent’s life such as religious beliefs,
racial/ethnic identities, and vocational plans (Phinney, 1992; Phinney & Rosenthal, 1992;
Tatum, 1997). In the case of African Americans and other minorities, the search to
acquire an optimal racial identity entails the successful incorporation of the values of
their culture and the values of the larger society. Tatum (1997) asserts that this involves
asking the questions about “Who am I racially?” and ‘What does it mean to be African
American?” These questions are signiﬁcant because they illustrate the process that
African American adolescents have to contend with to understand that their experiences
may be different because of prejudice, discrimination, and structural barriers which limit
aspirations and hinder their achievement (Tatum, 1997).

To achieve a positive identity, it is important to understand the social environment
in which individuals mature and change. One such environment to examine is the
church. Stevenson (1994) discusses racial socialization is “maximally effective” when it
is buttressed by family, peers, and social institutions with a particular community.
Hence, this study attempts to investigate the relationship between adolescents’
perceptions of their church and adolescents’ identity development.

An important part of assessing identity development is the extent to which
adolescents have developed their ethnic identity. Three components of racial identity
will be examined in this study: ethnic identity achievement, afﬁrmation and belonging,
and African American racial identity. Ethnic identity achievement and afﬁrmation and
belonging identity represent the mainstream approach in understanding racial identity.

Recall this approach characterizes identity development, regardless of race and ethnicity,

46

as possessing universal concepts that an individual may identify with such as race,
gender, social economic status, or sexual orientation. In this study, the mainstream
approach will be known as the universal approach because of the emphasis of
commonalities among racial/ethnic groupsz. Each component of identity will be
addressed below.

Ethnic Identity Achievement. To understand how adolescents develop a healthy

 

identity, Phinney, using the work of Marcia (1966), explains that adolescents may
explore their identity using four statuses: 1) diffuse, 2) foreclosed 3) moratorium, and 4)
achieved. The ﬁrst state, diffuse, represents an adolescent who has not begun his/her
identity search and little commitment has been made to examine his/her race or ethnicity.
In the second status, foreclosed, African American adolescents have made a commitment
to their racial identity, exploring their beliefs regarding being African American.
Individuals in this status have adopted the values of their parents. The next status is
moratorium which is characterized by adolescents who have begun the process of
examining their racial identity, but they have not made a commitment to their identity.
Additionally, the achieved identity denotes an individual who has made a commitment
after completing an exploration of roles and beliefs and this status is seen as the healthiest
identity. Phinney (1989) suggests that these statuses are not a developmental progression
and adolescents may begin their search starting at a particular status. She purports that
socialization by the family and other social institutions (i.e., educational settings, peer
groups, media, and religious institutions) in which adolescents are involved will inﬂuence

where they begin their exploration (Phinney, 1996). Finally, Phinney (1989) found

 

2 The author uses universal identity to include both ethnic identity achievement and afﬁrming and
belonging identity.

47

evidence for three stages of ethnic identity achievement and they are
diffusion/foreclosure, moratorium, and achieved.

Ethnic Afﬁrmation and Belonging. Another key characteristic of universal

 

identity development is the extent to which adolescents feel like they belong to their
ethnic/racial group. Phinney (1992) discusses that when minority adolescents afﬁrm and
feel part of a particular racial/ethnic group they will endorse behaviors that accentuate
racial/ethnic pride, a positive afﬁrmation toward their culture and historical background,
and identify with their racial/ethnic group. When adolescents are investigating their
identity, they may be at a particular ethnic identity status (i.e., diffuse or moratorium) but
fail to afﬁrm their cultural group. Given this relationship, it is important to assess these
two components (i.e., ethnic identity achievement and afﬁrmation and belonging) of
ethnic identity when understanding the diversity of racial identity attitudes among
African American adolescents.

Although Phinney’s conceptualization of identity development among adolescents
has signiﬁcantly increased our understanding of identity, this approach has failed to
incorporate the historical and cultural differences among various racial and ethnic groups
in their explanation of racial identity. (Sellers et al. 1998). This approach also assumes
that identity development, regardless of race and ethnicity, possesses universal
characteristics across all racial and ethnic groups (Phinney 1990, 1992). This assumption
represents the mainstream or universal approach in assessing identity development by
individuals. Consequently, the exclusion of cultural and historical differences among

minority groups does not address the pertinent transmission of cultural values among

48

these groups. The construct African American racial identity provides such a perspective
which includes cultural characteristics and the historical legacy of this group.

African American Racial Identity. Smith & Brookins (1997) have proposed a

 

theoretical model of racial identity attitudes among adolescents which incorporates the
historical and cultural experiences of African Americans. This model includes 1)
positive orientation toward African Americans in terms of physical and social
characteristics (Williams & Robertson, 1967), 2) positive attitudes toward African
Americans as a group, 3) and emphasis on group cooperation instead of competitiveness
(Baldwin & Bell, 1985; Cross, 1971; Parham & Helms, 1985). Their scale consists of: 1)
social orientation, 2) appearance orientation, 3) attitudinal subscale, and 4) cooperative
value scale. The ﬁrst scale explores an adolescent’s afﬁnity toward interacting with
his/her group. Second is appearance orientation and this involves the acceptance of
African American physical features. The next scale assesses the degree to which an
adolescent intemalizes either positive or negative stereotypes of African Americans.
Lastly, the cooperative value scale examines the degree to which an adolescent identiﬁes
with either communal or individualistic beliefs. Examining African American racial
identity provides additional information regarding identity development among African
American adolescents because such captures how African American adolescents perceive
their racial group and identify with being African American. To examine both the
universal components of identity and African American racial identity provides a more
comprehensive understanding of the signiﬁcance of being African American among
adolescents since the universal component does not incorporate the cultural and historical

experiences of African Americans.

49

Factors Inﬂuencing Adolescent Identity

 

Three potential factors may be related to adolescent identity. These factors
include adolescents’ perceptions of the church, parental racial socialization practices, and
adolescents’ perceptions of parental racial socialization. Adolescents’ perceptions of the
church examine their understanding of how prevalent each church orientation is in their
church. Therefore, adolescents who perceive their churches as other-worldly will be the
least likely to endorse a strong racial identity while adolescents who perceive their
churches as this-worldly will be more likely to endorse a strong identiﬁcation with being
African American. Because other-worldly churches do not discuss race and racial issues,
these adolescents will be least likely to endorse strong feelings of belonging or
afﬁrmation of their racial group. Further, these adolescents will have either a diffuse
identity because they either have not begun to investigate their racial background or
explore without making a commitment (Phinney, 1989). In contrast, this-worldly
churches believe it is paramount to include issues of race in their religious orientations.
Therefore, adolescents who attend this-worldly churches will more likely endorse strong
feelings of belonging or afﬁrmation of their racial group. Since these adolescents will
have a stronger identiﬁcation with being African American, they will have either an
achieved or diffuse identity. Adolescents endorsing an achieved identity will have
completed their identity search while individuals with a diffuse identity will have adopted
the values of their parents and other social institutions such as the church.

In addition, adolescents who perceive their churches as privatistic will be less
likely to endorse a strong racial identity while adolescents who perceive their churches as

communal will be more likely to endorse a strong identiﬁcation with being African

50

American. Since privatistic churches participate in traditional faith-based programs (e. g.,
Bible Study, Vacation Bible Study, and women and men auxiliary groups), adolescents
from these churches will be least likely to endorse strong feelings of belonging or
afﬁrmation of their racial group. Moreover, these adolescents will have either a diffuse
identity because they either have not begun to investigate their racial background or
explore without making a commitment (Phinney, 1989). Conversely, communal
churches participate in faith-base programs which attempt to ameliorate conditions in the
African American community. Thus, adolescents who attend communal churches will
more likely endorse strong feelings of belonging or afﬁrmation of their racial group.
Because these adolescents will have a stronger identiﬁcation with being African
American, they will have either an achieved or diffuse identity.

Parental racial socialization practices and adolescents’ perceptions of parental
racial socialization practices are also hypothesized to inﬂuence adolescence racial
identity. The former examines what types of racial message parents report imparting to
their adolescents (i.e., individualistic-universalistic, cautious—defensive and integrative-
assertive) and the latter investigates adolescents’ perceptions of their parental racial
socialization practices. Because parents, who use integrative/ assertive racial
socialization practices, will instill values such as racial pride, African American history,
the acceptance of being African American, and standing up for your rights, their
adolescents will likely endorse positive African American racial identity attitudes.
Conversely, parents who use individualistic-universalistic socialization practices will
impart values such as working hard, excelling and being a good citizen, their adolescents

will less likely identify with being African American. Thus they will more likely

51

perceive themselves as American only and do not differentiate between racial/ethnic
groups.

Parents who use cautious-defense socialization practices will teach values such as
Whites have all the power and Whites should be kept at a social distance. Because these
parents use this type of parenting strategy, they mainly focus on the power differential
between African Americans and Whites. This may lead to antipathy towards Whites and
having both positive and negative attitudes regarding being African American parents
(Thornton, 1997). Thornton (1995) asserts that “parents using this strategy do not feel
close to any group (p. 60).” Because these parents use cautious/defensive racial
socialization practices, they may inadvertently impart conﬂicting messages to their
adolescents. Consequently, their adolescents either will likely endorse positive African
American racial identity attitudes or will less likely identify with being African
American.

Covariates in Study Two

 

Two covariates will be examined in Study Two and these are the adolescent’s age
and interracial contact. Developmentally, adolescence is a period to examine and
understand one’s racial identity. Furthermore, the age of an adolescent may determine
when an individual begins to explore his/her racial identity. The age of an adolescent
may describe where an individual is in his/her identity search and therefore, needs to be
covaried out.

Interracial contact is the second covariate in this study. Similar to the adult
literature, the level of interracial contact during adolescence may inﬂuence one’s racial

identity attitudes. Spencer (1987) reports contact with the larger society assists in

52

shaping the identity of African American adolescents. Thus, the level of interracial
contact will be covaried out in this study.
Summary

Although the church is recognized as the cultural center in the African American
community, very little research has examined the role of African American churches as a
racial socializing agent. Therefore, the purpose of this study is twofold: 1) to examine the
extent to which the parents’ perceptions of their church inﬂuence the racial identity and
racial socialization practices of African American parents; and 2) to examine the extent to
which adolescents’ perceptions of the church, parental racial socialization practices, and
adolescents’ perceptions of parental racial socialization on adolescents’ racial identity
attitudes. The conceptual frameworks of the proposed study are described below.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS

Description of Conceptual Framework

 

Figure 1 (Refer to p. 6) represents the framework for Study One. This study
examines how parents’ perceptions of their church inﬂuence racial socialization practices
among African American parents. Overall, this model suggests that parental racial
identity attitudes will mediate the relationslup between parents’ perceptions of their
church and parental racial socialization practices. This model also suggests that
religiosity will moderate the relationship between parents’ perceptions of their church
and parental racial identity attitudes. Lastly, this model examines stereotypes, as a
moderator, between a Nationalist ideology and racial socialization practices among

African American parents.

53

For Study Two, a series of conceptual frameworks exist which examine the
association between three factors (i.e., parental racial socialization practices, adolescents’
perception of the church, and adolescents’ perceptions of their parents’ racial
socialization practices) and adolescent racial identity attitudes. Figure 3 suggests
adolescents’ perceptions of their church (i.e., spiritual orientations), parental racial
socialization practices, and adolescents’ perceptions of their parent’s racial socialization
practices will be related to adolescent sense of afﬁrming and belonging. Further, Figure
4 illustrates the relationships of three independent variables (i.e., adolescents’ perceptions
of their church, parental racial socialization practices, and adolescents’ perceptions of
their parents’ racial socialization practices) and adolescent ethnic identity achievement.
Similar to Figure 4, Figure 5 examines the same relationships, however the outcome

variable is African American identity.

54

Figure 3: Adolescent Sample-Afﬁrming and Belonging

 

Adolescent’s
Perceptions
Of Church

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parent’s report

on Racial Afﬁrming and

Socialization Belonging
Adolescent’s

Perceptions of
Parents Racial
Socialization

Practrces Note: Age and interracial contact are the covariates in this framework.

 

 

55

Figure 4: Adolescent Sample-Ethnic Identity Achievement

 

Adolescent’s

Perceptions
Of Church

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parent’s report

on Racial Ethnic Identity

Socialization Achievement
Adolescent’s

Perceptions of
Parents Racial
Socialization
Practices

 

Note: Age and interracial contact are the covariates in this framework.

 

56

Figure 5: Adolescent Sample-African American Identity

 

Adolescent’s
Perceptions
Of Church

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parent’s report Af .
on Racial A rlcan
Socialization met 1can
Identrty
Adolescent’s

Perceptions of
Parents Racial
Socialization
Practices

 

 

Note: Age and interracial contact are the covariates in this framework.

 

Hypotheses for Study One

 

Religiosity
1. Religiosity will moderate the relationship between church orientation and
racial identity among African American parents.
Stereotypes
2. Stereotypes will moderate the relationship between racial identity attitudes
and racial socialization practices.
Spiritual Orientation and Integrative-Assertive Racial Socialization Practice Hypotheses
3. Parents who perceive their churches as having an other-worldly versus this-
worldly spiritual orientation will be more likely to endorse Oppressed

Minority racial identity attitudes.

57

a. Parents who endorse Oppressed Minority racial identity attitudes will be
more likely to use integrative-assertive racial socialization practices.

b. It is hypothesized that the relationship between other-worldly versus this-
worldly spiritual orientation and integrative- assertive racial socialization
practices will be mediated by Oppressed Minority racial identity attitudes.

c. It is hypothesized also that other-worldly versus this-worldly spiritual
orientation will have a direct relationship on integrative-assertive racial
socialization practices.

Parents who perceive their churches as having an other-worldly versus this-

worldly spiritual orientation will be more likely to endorse Nationalist racial

identity attitudes.

a. Parents who endorse Nationalist racial identity attitudes will be more likely
to use integrative-assertive racial socialization practices.

b. It is hypothesized the relationship between other-worldly versus this-
worldly spiritual orientation and integrative-assertive racial socialization

practices will be mediated by Nationalist racial identity attitudes.

Spiritual Orientation and Cautious-Defensive Racial Socialization Practices Hypotheses

 

5.

Parents who perceive their churches as having an other-worldly versus this-
worldly spiritual orientation will be more likely to endorse Nationalist racial
identity attitudes.

a. Parents who endorse Nationalist racial identity attitudes will be more likely

to use cautious-defensive racial socialization practices.

58

 

 

352179

 

b. It is hypothesized the relationship between other-worldly versus this-
worldly spiritual orientation and cautious-defensive racial socialization
practices will be mediated by Nationalist racial identity attitudes.

c. It is hypothesized also that other-worldly versus this-worldly spiritual
orientation will have a direct relationship on integrative-assertive racial

socialization practices.

Spiritual Orientation and Individualistic-Universalistic Racial Socialization Practices

 

Hypotheses

6.

Parents who perceive their churches as having an other-worldly versus this-
worldly spiritual orientation will be more likely to endorse Assimilationist
racial identity attitudes.

a. Parents who endorse Assimilationist racial identity attitudes will be more
likely to use individualistic/ universalistic racial socialization practices.

b. It is hypothesized the relationship between other—worldly versus this-
worldly spiritual orientation and individual/ universalistic racial
socialization practices will be mediated by Assimilationist racial identity
attitudes.

c. It is hypothesized also that other-worldly versus this-worldly spiritual
orientation will have a direct relationship on individual/ universalistic
racial socialization practices.

Parents who perceive their churches as having an other-worldly versus this-

worldly spiritual orientation will be more likely to endorse Humanist racial

identity attitudes.

59

a. Parents who endorse Humanist racial identity attitudes will be more likely
to use individualistic/ universalistic racial socialization practices.

b. It is hypothesized the relationship between other-worldly church versus
this-worldly spiritual orientation and individual/ universalistic racial
socialization practices will be mediated by Humanist racial identity

attitudes.

Faith-Based Orientation and Integrative-Assertive Racial Socialization Practices

Hypotheses

8.

Parents who perceive their churches as having a communal versus privatistic
faith based orientation will be more likely to endorse Oppressed Minority
racial identity attitudes.

a. Parents who positively endorse Oppressed Minority racial identity
attitudes will be more likely to use integrative-assertive racial socialization
practices.

b. It is hypothesized the relationship between the communal versus
privatistic faith-based orientation and integrative-assertive racial
socialization practices will be mediated by Oppressed Minority racial
identity attitudes.

c. It is hypothesized also that communal versus privatistic spiritual
orientation will have a direct relationship on integrative-assertive racial

socialization practices.

60

9. Parents who perceive their churches as having a communal versus privatistic

faith-based orientation will be more likely to endorse Nationalist racial

identity attitudes.

a.

Parents who endorse Nationalist racial identity attitudes will be more likely
to use integrative-assertive racial socialization practices.

It is hypothesized the relationship between communal versus privatistic
faith-based orientation and integrative-assertive racial socialization

practices will be mediated by Nationalist racial identity attitudes.

Faith—Based Orientation and Cautious-Defensive Racial Socialization Practices

 

Hypotheses

10. Parents who perceive their churches as having a communal versus privatistic

faith-based orientation will be more likely to endorse Nationalist racial

identity attitudes.

a.

Parents who endorse Nationalist racial identity attitudes will be more likely
to use cautious-defensive racial socialization practices racial socialization
practices.

It is hypothesized the relationship between communal versus privatistic
faith-based orientation and cautious-defensive racial socialization

practices will be mediated by Nationalist racial identity attitudes.

It is hypothesized also that communal versus privatistic spiritual
orientation will have a direct relationship on integrative-assertive racial

socialization practices.

61

Faith—Based Orientation and Individualistic-Universalistic Racial Socialization Practices

Hypotheses

11.

12.

Parents who perceive their churches as having a communal versus privatistic

faith-based orientation will be less likely to endorse Assimilationist racial

identity attitudes.

a.

Parents who endorse Assimilationist racial identity attitudes will be more
likely to endorse individualistic-universalistic racial socialization
practices.

It is hypothesized the relationship between communal versus privatistic
faith-based orientation and individualistic/ universalistic racial
socialization practices will be mediated by parents who endorse
Assimilationist racial identity attitudes.

It is hypothesized also that communal versus privatistic spiritual
orientation will have a direct relationship on individualistic/ universalistic

racial socialization practices.

Parents who perceive their churches as having a communal versus privatistic

faith-based orientation will be less likely endorse Humanist racial identity

attitudes.

a.

Parents who endorse Humanist racial identity attitudes will be more likely
to use individualistic-universalistic racial socialization practices.

It is hypothesized the relationship communal versus privatistic faith-based
orientation and individualistic racial socialization practices will be

mediated by parents who endorse Humanist racial identity attitudes.

62

Hypotheses for Study Two

 

This—Worldly Spiritual Orientation and Ethnic Identity Achievement

 

13. Adolescents who perceive their church as having a This-Worldly Spiritual

Orientation will be more likely to have an Achieved Ethnic Identity.

a. Parents who report using Integrative- Assertive Racial Socialization
Practices with their adolescent will be more likely to have adolescents with
an Achieved Ethnic Identity.

b. Adolescents who perceive their parents as having Integrative- Assertive
Racial Socialization Practices will be more likely to have an Achieved
Ethnic Identity.

14. Adolescents who perceive their church as having a This-Worldly Spiritual

Orientation will likely to have an Achieved Ethnic Identity.

a. Parents who report using Cautious-Defensive Racial Socialization
Practices their adolescents will be more likely to have adolescents with an
Achieved Ethnic Identity.

b. Adolescents who perceive their parents as having Cautious-Defensive
Racial Socialization Practices will be more likely to have an Achieved
Ethnic Identity.

Other-Worldly Spiritual Orientation and Ethnic Identity Achievement

 

15. Adolescents who perceive their church as having an Other-Worldly Spiritual

Orientation will be less likely to have an Achieved Ethnic Identity.

63

16.

a. Parents who report using Individualistic-Universalistic Racial
Socialization Practices their adolescents will be less likely to have
adolescent with an Achieved Ethnic Identity.

b. Adolescents who perceive their parents as having Individualistic-
Universalistic Racial Socialization Practices will be less likely to have an
Achieved Ethnic Identity.

Adolescents who perceive their church as having an Other-Worldly Spiritual

Orientation will be less likely to have an Achieved Ethnic Identity.

a. Parents who report using Cautious-Defensive Racial Socialization
Practices with their adolescent will be less likely to have adolescents with
an Achieved Ethnic Identity.

b. Adolescents who perceive their parents as having Cautious-Defensive
Racial Socialization Practices will be less likely to have an Achieved

Ethnic Identity.

Communal Faith-Based Orientation and Ethnic Identity Achievement

 

l7.

Adolescents who perceive their church as having a Communal F aith-Based

Orientation will be more likely to have an Achieved Ethnic Identity.

a. Parents who report using Integrative- Assertive Racial Socialization
Practices with their adolescents will be more likely to have adolescents
with an Achieved Ethnic Identity.

b. Adolescents who perceive their parents as having lntegrative- Assertive
Racial Socialization Practices will be more likely to have an Achieved

Ethnic Identity.

64

18. Adolescents who perceive their church as having a Communal F aith-Based

Orientation will be more likely to have an Achieved Ethnic Identity.

a. Parents who report using Cautious-Defensive Racial Socialization
Practices with their adolescent will be more likely to have adolescents with
an Achieved Ethnic Identity.

b. Adolescents who perceive their parents as having Cautious-Defensive
Racial Socialization Practices will be more likely to have an Achieved
Ethnic Identity.

Privatistic F aith-Based Orientation and Ethnic Identity Achievement
19. Adolescents who perceive their church as having a Privatistic F aith-Based

Orientation will be less likely to have an Achieved Ethnic Identity.

a. Parents who report using Individualistic-Universalistic Racial
Socialization Practices with their adolescents will be less likely to have
adolescents with an Achieved Ethnic Identity.

b. Adolescents who perceive their parents as having Individualistic-
Universalistic Racial Socialization Practices will be less likely to have an
Achieved Ethnic Identity.

20. Adolescents who perceive their church as having a Privatistic Faith-Based

Orientation will be less likely to have an Achieved Ethnic Identity.

a. Parents who report using Cautious-Defensive Racial Socialization
Practices with their adolescents will be less likely to have adolescents with

an Achieved Ethnic Identity.

65

b. Adolescents who perceive their parents as having Cautious-Defensive
Racial Socialization Practices will be less likely to have an Achieved

Ethnic Identity.

This-Worldly Spiritual Orientation and Afﬁrming and Belonging Identity

 

21.

22.

Adolescents who perceive their church as having a This-Worldly Spiritual
Orientation will be more likely to afﬁrm and report a belonging to their racial
group.

a. Parents who report using Integrative- Assertive Racial Socialization
Practices with their adolescent will be more likely to have adolescents that
afﬁrm and report a belonging to their racial group.

b. Adolescents who perceive their parents as having Integrative- Assertive
Racial Socialization Practices will be more likely to afﬁrm and report a
belonging to their racial group.

Adolescents who perceive their church as having a This-Worldly Spiritual

Orientation will be more likely to afﬁrm and report a belonging to their racial

group.

a. Parents who report using Cautious-Defensive Racial Socialization
Practices with their adolescents will be more likely to have adolescents
that afﬁrm and report a belonging to their racial group.

b. Adolescents who perceive their parents as having Cautious-Defensive
Racial Socialization Practices will be more likely to afﬁrm and report a

belonging to their racial group.

66

Other-Worldly Spiritual Orientation and Afﬁrming and Belonging Identity

23. Adolescents who perceive their church as having an Other-Worldly Spiritual
Orientation will be less likely to afﬁrm and report a belonging to their racial
group.

a. Parents who report using Individualistic-Universalistic Racial
Socialization Practices with their adolescents will be less likely to have
adolescents that afﬁrm and report a belonging to their racial group.

b. Adolescents who perceive their parents as having Individualistic-
Universalistic Racial Socialization Practices will be less likely to afﬁrm
and report a belonging to their racial group.

24. Adolescents who perceive their church as having an Other-Worldly Spiritual
Orientation will be less likely to afﬁrm and report a belonging to their racial
group.

a. Parents who report using Cautious-Defensive Racial Socialization
Practices with their adolescent will be less likely to have adolescents that
afﬁrm and report a belonging to their racial group.

b. Adolescents who perceive their parents as having Cautious-Defensive
Racial Socialization Practices will be less likely to afﬁrm and report a
belonging to their racial group.

Communal Faith-Based Orientation and Afﬁrming and Belonging Identity
25. Adolescents who perceive their church as having a Communal Faith-Based

Orientation will be more likely to afﬁrm and report a belonging to their racial

group.

67

 

 

a. Parents who report using Integrative- Assertive Racial Socialization
Practices with their adolescents will be more likely to have adolescents
that afﬁrm and report a belonging to their racial group.

b. Adolescents who perceive their parents as having Integrative- Assertive
Racial Socialization Practices will be more likely to afﬁrm and report a
belonging to their racial group.

26. Adolescents who perceive their church as having a Communal Faith-Based
Orientation will be more likely to afﬁrm and report a belonging to their racial
group.

a. Parents who report using Cautious-Defensive Racial Socialization
Practices with their adolescent will be more likely to have adolescents that
afﬁrm and report a belonging to their racial group.

b. Adolescents who perceive their parents as having Cautious-Defensive
Racial Socialization Practices will be more likely to afﬁrm and report a
belonging to their racial group.

Privatistic Faith-Based Orientation and Afﬁrming and Belonging Identity

 

27. Adolescents who perceive their church as having a Privatistic Faith-Based
Orientation will be less likely to afﬁrm and report a belonging to their racial
group.

a. Parents who report using Individualistic-Universalistic Racial
Socialization Practices with their adolescents will be less likely to have

adolescents that afﬁrm and report a belonging to their racial group.

68

 

 

b. Adolescents who perceive their parents as having Individualistic-
Universalistic Racial Socialization Practices will be less likely to afﬁrm
and report a belonging to their racial group.

28. Adolescents who perceive their church as having Privatistic Faith-Based
Orientation will be less likely to afﬁrm and report a belonging to their racial
group.

a. Parents who report using Cautious-Defensive Racial Socialization
Practices with their adolescents will be less likely to have adolescents that
afﬁrm and report a belonging to their racial group.

b. Adolescents who perceive their parents as having Cautious-Defensive
Racial Socialization Practices will be less likely to have adolescents to
afﬁrm and report a belonging to their racial group.

This-Worldly Spiritual Orientation and Aﬁican American Identity

 

29. Adolescents who perceive their church as having a This-Worldly Spiritual

Orientation will be more likely to have an African American identity.

a. Parents who report using Integrative— Assertive Racial Socialization
Practices with their adolescent will be more likely to have adolescents with
an African American identity.

b. Adolescents who perceive their parents as having Integrative- Assertive
Racial Socialization Practices will be more likely to have an African
American identity.

30. Adolescents who perceive their church as having a This-Worldly Spiritual

Orientation will likely to have an African American identity.

69

a.

Parents who report using Cautious-Defensive Racial Socialization
Practices with their adolescent will be more likely to have adolescents with
an African American identity.

Adolescents who perceive their parents as having Cautious-Defensive
Racial Socialization Practices will be more likely to have an African

American identity.

Other-Worldly Spiritual Orientation and African American Identity

 

31.

32.

Adolescents who perceive their church as having an Other-Worldly Spiritual

Orientation will be less likely to have an African American identity.

Parents who report using Individualistic-Universalistic Racial
Socialization Practices with their adolescents will be less likely to have
adolescents with an African American identity.

Adolescents who perceive their parents as having Individualistic-
Universalistic Racial Socialization Practices will be less likely to have an

African American identity.

Adolescents who perceive their church as having an Other-Worldly Spiritual

Orientation will be less likely to have an African American identity.

a. Parents who report using Cautious-Defensive Racial Socialization

Practices with their adolescent will be less likely to have adolescents with
an African American identity.

Adolescents who perceive their parents as having Cautious-Defensive
Racial Socialization Practices will be less likely to have an African

American identity.

70

Communal Faith-Based Orientation and African American Identity
33. Adolescents who perceive their church as having Cormnunal F aith-Based

Orientation will be more likely to have an African American identity.

a. Parents who report using Integrative-Assertive Racial Socialization
Practices with their adolescents will be more likely to have adolescents
with an African American identity.

b. Adolescents who perceive their parents as having Integrative-Assertive
Racial Socialization Practices will be more likely to have an African
American identity.

34. Adolescents who perceive their church as having a Communal Faith-Based

Orientation will be more likely to have an African American identity.

a. Parents who report using Cautious-Defensive Racial Socialization
Practices with their adolescent will be more likely to have adolescents with
an African American identity.

b. Adolescents who perceive their parents as having Cautious-Defensive
Racial Socialization Practices will be more likely to have an African
American identity.

Privatistic F aith-Based Orientation and African American Identity

 

35. Adolescents who perceive their church as having a Privatistic F aith-Based
Orientation will be less likely to have an African American identity.
a. Parents who report using Individualistic-Universalistic Racial
Socialization Practices with their adolescents will be less likely to have

adolescents with an African American identity.

71

b. Adolescents who perceive their parents as having Individualistic-
Universalistic Racial Socialization Practices will be less likely to have an
African American identity.

36. Adolescents who perceive their church as having a Privatistic F aith-Based

Orientation will be less likely to have an African American identity.

a. Parents who report using Cautious-Defensive Racial Socialization
Practices with their adolescents will be less likely to have adolescents with
an African American identity.

b. Adolescents who perceive their parents as having Cautious-Defensive
Racial Socialization Practices will be less likely to have an African

American identity.

72

CHAPTER 2
METHOD

Sam 1e

Churches. A purposeful sample of twenty predominantly African American
churches was selected for this study. These churches were recruited from the Greater
Lansing, MI and Detroit, MI area. These churches were purposively selected based on
their spiritual and faith-based orientations with the ultimate goal of having 10 churches
representing each orientation within each of the two dialectic tensions. Speciﬁcally, this
sample was selected so that within each sub-sample (e. g., this-worldly versus other
worldly) the churches ranged on the other dimension (e. g., communal versus privatistic)
as much as possible. Eighteen churches participated in this study and two churches
declined. Table 1 displays the placement of each church on the dialectic tensions.

Adult Participants: Study One. A total of 211 African American parent/primary

 

caregivers were recruited from twenty churches. The requirements to participate in the
study were: 1) must identify with being African American; 2) must be an attendee of the
church, and 3) must have an adolescent between the ages of 12-19. Table 2 summarizes
the demographic characteristics of the participants. The sample was predominately
female (85% female, 15% male), average age was 40 years old, with a medium income of
$42,000 and the majority of the participants were married (56%). In relationship to the

adolescent, mothers comprised of an overwhelming percentage (79%) of the sample.

73

 

Goad
a u 5 e 655

ex; .mV
5 n 5 a £35

@003
an a n 556

same
3 n 5 m e225

can
a n a a £35

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$3.3 cane as?
8331 m 11225 an n a 0 £235 A: u a a £825 a u a 0 e225 cease u 856
$.98
sag: came $5 a: same
am u .3 m 655 2 a u a z 555 2 n a a 655 n a a 655 2: u a m 555
$03: 30:; ease $3. : €18
:m u .8 o 555 2: n a 2 e220 2: u a H 5.56 Q n a m 655 A: n a < 656
oumwgim
maﬁa; 338800
baggage
3:28:00 T Se? 3253-550 angina
3253-...5 accessed llW 3253-350

 

 

332 206:3. 282me 2: so 8:835 we EoEoowE ._ 2an

74

 

Table 2. Demographic Characteristics of the Parent Participants

 

 

Characteristic Mean SD n Percentage
Age 40 .66
Education Some College 1.5
Some high school or less 7 3.4
High school/GED 27 13.0
Associate Degree 43 20.7
Some college 40 19.2
College degree 36 17.3
Graduate degree 55 26.4
Income
Under-14,999 7 3.4
15,000—34,999 45 22.2
35,000—49,999 46 22.7
50,000-74,999 48 23.6
75,000 or higher 57 28.1
Gender
Female 178 84.8
Male 32 15.2
Martial Status
Single 26 12.6
Married 115 55.8
Divorced/separated 62 30.1
Widowed 3 1.5
Number of children
One 36 17.2
Two 77 36.7
Three 61 29.0
Four 21 10.0
Five or more 15 7.1
Occupation Status
Unemployed 8 3.9
Labor/ Skilled Craftperson 19 9.4
Manager 18 8.8
Clerical worker 30 14.7
Professional 82 40.2
Other 47 23.0
Relationship to child
Mother 164 79.0
Father 27 13 .0
Other relative or person 17 8.0

 

75

Adolescent Participants: Study Two. Participants were 135 adolescents who
parents/primary caregivers were respondents in Study One. The adolescent sample
consisted of approximately equal percentage of males (51.1%) and females (48.9%). The
participants averaged age was 14 years old and eighty-two percent of the adolescents
attended public schools (refer to Table 3). The overall sample for Study Two was 135
parent/primary caregiver-adolescent dyads.

Table 3. Demographic Characteristics of the Adolescent Participants

 

 

 

Characteristic Mean SD n Percentage
Age 14.6 1.7
Education 9th grade .63
Fifth grade 2 1.5
Middle school 45 33.3
High School 75 56.3
GED/Community College/College 12 8.9
Gender
Female 66 48.9
Male 69 51.1
School Type
Public 109 82.0
Private 7 5.3
Charter 12 9.0
Other 5 3.8
Procedure

Recruitment and Trainingof Research Assistants. The research team consisted of

 

the primary investigator, two graduate students and two research assistants, who are
undergraduate students. The recruitment strategies to encourage undergraduate
participation consisted of posting ﬂyers in academic buildings, posting an announcement
on the Black Student Alliance listserve, “the 411”, plus giving oral presentations at the

Black Caucus meetings, an African American student organization located in each

76

residence hall. Each of the undergraduate research assistants were paid $9.00 dollars an
hour and worked a total of ten hours a week.

Upon completion of the recruitment of the undergraduate students, all of the
research assistants participated in twenty hours of training regarding different aspects of
the project. First, an overview on the purpose of the study was given which included a
review of the research literature on racial identity, racial socialization, and the African
American church. Second, the research assistants were instructed regarding the
signiﬁcance of conﬁdentiality and code of conduct in contacting participants. Third, they
learned about data management, interviewing techniques and giving oral presentations.
Fourth, the job responsibilities of the assistants were to recruit participants, to interview
participants, and to enter data.

Power Analyses for Study One and Study Two. Considering each analysis to be

 

conducted in Study One and Study Two, three separate power analysis procedures were
used to determine a sufﬁcient sample size. For study one, the ﬁrst power analysis was
conducted to determine the appropriate sample size for an exploratory factor analysis
(EFA). Table 4 shows that Tabachnick and Fidell (1996) recommend a sample of 200 is
acceptable to carry out an EF A.

Applying Cohen’s power tables (Cohen, 1992), the second power analysis was
conducted using a power of .80 to detect a medium effect size. Basing the power analysis
for this study on a medium effect size is reasonable given that other researchers (e.g.,
Smith & Brookins, 1997; Thomas & Speight, 1999) who have examined some of the

relationships included in this study found medium size effects.

77

 

 

 

 

:06me @38on £9.50

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Egg/Ewen 33959;“:
8” negoﬁaegeseogatéaep Began
Em Beau so 383 mix—Em been
aéeazaasaﬁmsaﬁuﬁzaﬂ
360% a £88 wee/838% Embers
8n seamen tines cairn, i .t 0e @313
c: 8232 w 8. H5 ow. 93.45%
as can: a more a. so?
asses
@3558 case”? as:
@8588 Em BE age/H ea? Eon 85am saga:
338m an
an adage eggs; e 82815< ablazseaaaaaaaem
z 850 ageing mania a?

 

 

am anew no 85:58 .4 nae

78

The most complicated hierarchical regression equation was used to determine the sample
size. The most complex hierarchical regression equation for Study One has nine
independent variables which suggests a sample size of 120. This reﬂects an 80% chance
of detecting a signiﬁcant medium effect size. To estimate an appropriate sample size for
a path analysis, extrapolation was used as a reasonable and feasible method because it is
impossible to conduct a power analysis based on effect sizes. Therefore, the
recommended sample size for an EF A and the most complex hierarchical regression with
a medium effect size suggests sample sizes of 200 and 120 participants. For Study One, a
sample size of 211 is reasonable because it met the requirement to conduct an EFA and
surpassed the sample size needed to detect a medium effect size with a power of .80.

For Study Two, the most complex hierarchical regression equation has seven
independent variables and indicates a sample size of 107. A sample of 107 participants
detects a medium effect size with a power of .80. A total of 135 parent-adolescent dyads
was a sufﬁcient sample size to meet these requirements.

Recruitment of Churches. To identify the churches to be selected for this study,

 

the primary investigator interviewed a total of eight key informants from Lansing, MI and
Detroit, MI (See Appendix A). These informants were representatives from either
predominately African American organizations or community leaders. These informants
were selected because of their knowledge of churches in these two cities and were asked
to identify churches which have each type of spiritual orientation and each type of faith-
based orientation targeted in this study. From these key informant interviews, a list of
churches was developed which ranked churches according to their location on the

spiritual (i.e., other-worldly versus this-worldly) and faith-based orientation tensions (i.e.,

79

 

 

communal versus privatistic). This list contained ten churches which were identiﬁed as
high other-worldly, and ten identiﬁed as this-worldly and these churches ranged in their
placement on the communal-privatistic dimension.

A letter was sent to the minister/pastor of each targeted church to explain the
purpose of the study and to request a meeting with the minister/pastor (See Appendix B).
The objective of the meeting was to explain more fully the goals of the study and to gain
the minister’s support and consent. Once this was achieved, the researcher discussed
with the minister/pastor the following: 1) date to attend the Sunday service to recruit
members; 2) meeting with church organizations such as Choir Usher Board, and Youth
Ministry to solicit participants; and 3) approval to place an insert in the church program
to announce the study.

Recruitment of Adult Participants. Once the minister and the primary investigator

 

agreed upon a date to speak with the congregation, the researcher attended a service.
Prior to the service, an insert was placed in all of the church programs so when the
congregation members arrived they would see it (See Appendix C). The insert explained
the purpose of the project and contained a scripture that emphasized the signiﬁcance of
church and family in raising children. To encourage participation, each person in the
study received $10.00. If the researcher was asked to make a statement in regard to the
study, the researcher obliged with a prepared statement. In this statement, the researcher
ﬁrst thanked the congregation for their participation and then gave a brief overview of the
study (See Appendix D).

At the end of the church service, the primary investigator located herself in a

place convenient to recruit participants. Once everyone was assembled, a presentation

80

was given regarding the purpose of the study. During the presentation, a research
assistant provided child-care so parents could attend the orientation regarding the study.
When the presentation was completed, the researcher collected the names, phone
numbers, and addresses of all of the individuals interested in participating in the study. If
some of the participants wanted to be interviewed then the measures were administered.
Finally, the respondents were called to arrange an interview in an appropriate location
(e.g., home, local malls, library, and church).

Group Administration of the Parent Questionnaires. Participants were offered the

 

opportunity to complete the questionnaire in a group setting. The primary investigator
met with the appropriate church members (i.e., choir director, Bible study teacher, and
men and women auxiliaries) to obtain permission to interview participants during their
meeting times. This allowed for different church organizations to take the instrument
before or during their weekly church meetings such as Bible Study, rites of passage
program, and choir rehearsal. Before administering the measures, the interview
explained to the participants their rights to participate and conﬁdentiality guidelines.
During the group administration, the researcher read the questionnaire to control for
different reading abilities among the participants.

Single Administration of the Parent Questionnaires. Parents who were unable to

 

attend a group administration of the interview were given the option to be interviewed
individually. After conﬁrming a meeting time to conduct an interview, each
parent/guardian was informed of his/her rights to participate, conﬁdentiality guidelines
and the administration of the questiomraires would take approximately an hour. The

participants were informed that they may chose to participate and were not penalized if

81

they refused. Furthermore, the participants were informed about the consent procedures
and conﬁdentiality (See Appendix E). Finally, at the completion of either the group or
single administration of the questionnaires, each adult participant was asked to identify
other individuals who attend his/her church who ﬁt the criteria and who might be
interested in participating in the study. Thus, the snowballing technique was used to
recruit more participants.

Adolescent Recruitment. After receiving parental consent, either the primary

 

investigator or research assistants contacted the adolescent via the telephone to arrange a
time for an interview. Before the commencement of each interview, the consent
procedures and conﬁdentiality guidelines were explained and each adolescent was asked
to complete the survey. Similar to the parent interviews, the adolescents were given the
option to be interviewed either in a group or single administration of the questionnaires.
It is important to note that the snowballing technique was used only with the adult
sample.
Measures

A description of each measure is given below and Table 5 presents the

abbreviations for some of the measures.

 

Table 5. Abbreviations of Measures

Study One

African American Church Scale (AACS)
Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity (MIBI)
Parent Version of the Racial Socialization Scale (PRVS)

 

Study Two
African American Church Scale-Adolescent Version (AACS-A)
Adolescent Version of the Racial Socialization Scale (ARVS)

 

 

 

82

Demographic Questionnaire. Demographic characteristics were examined to

 

assess parent’s age, education, gender, interracial contact, occupation and socioeconomic
status. This questionnaire also contained items on prior religious activities. (See
Appendix F).

African American Church Scale Adult Version (AACS). A l3-item scale, which

 

was adopted from the seminal work of Lincoln & Mamiya (1990) was used in this study.
Open-ended questions from Lincoln’s & Mamiya’s study on African American clergy
were converted to a Likert scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree.
Two subscales represented each component of the two dialectic tensions investigated in
this study. The Other-worldly versus This-worldly subscale measured the extent to
which the religious messages at a particular church preaches about race. Examples of
this subscale are: "In my church, the race of Jesus (God) is not an issue”; and “In my
church, my culture/ethnicity are represented in the religious icons and materials such as
stained glass windows, images of Jesus and other religious ﬁgures, and Sunday school
material.” The “Communal versus Privatistic” faith-based orientation subscale, measured
the variety of church programs from traditional programs to community outreach
programs. Examples of these items are “My church focuses only on the spiritual
development of its congregation.” and“ My church participates in activities, which
promote Black Pride such as Kwanzaa and Black History Month is an example of this
subscale.” (Please refer to Appendix G)

Exploratory Factor Analyses (EFA) on the AACS. An EFA was conducted on the

AACS in Study One. Principal component and varimax rotation analyses were carried

83

out to identify the most appropriate factors. Five criteria were utilized to assess the factor
solutions: 1) a Scree Test (Cattrell, 1960); 2) eigenvalues greater than 1.0 (Kaiser, 1960);
3) factor loadings less than 3.0 (Kim & Mueller, 1978) 4) review of item total
correlations, and 5) theoretically and conceptually relevant. Table 6 presents the results
of the factor analysis and shows a four-factor solution on the AACS for the 21 1
parents/primary caregivers. The eigenvalues are 4.23 for factor one, 1.74 for factor two,
1.35 for factor three, 1.04 for factor four and .930 for factor ﬁve. The four-factor
solution represented 60% of the variance. The AACS was conceptualized to have ﬁfteen
items and item one was deleted prior to running the EFA due to ambiguity in the wording
of it (See Appendix G). After examining the above ﬁve criteria, item 4 was deleted
because it was an one-item factor.

A two-step process was utilized to investigate the remaining factor structure. The
ﬁrst-step assessed whether the other-worldly versus this-worldly spiritual orientation will
produce two separate factors. An additional factor analysis was conducted on the three
items representing the other-worldly factor structure and three items from the this-
worldly communal factor structure that correspond most with the this-worldly orientation
(e.g., In my church, my cultural culture/ethnicity are represented in the religious icons
and materials such as stained glass windows, images of Jesus and other religious ﬁgures,
and Sunday school material”). A content analysis determined the three items from the
this-worldly communal factor structure that were used in this factor analysis. These items
were selected because of their conceptual relevance and the theoretical framework

proposed by Lincoln and Mamiya (1990).

84

amazeme— eogoﬂ 2: 8233: 2 3222933 coon 022. 2QO 02:0 28: 2:. m

 

 

5w. 2 _. omo. 35.- 8: code 2: co E58 8 28 59:50 macho BLEEEESmaQ of we 20.53 2; v :3:
Son coaomm
0mm. 23. woo. nmmr 355 035 mm :03 25:on 232:3: Eco 2022?. 55:0 .32 m. :8:
SN. m:. N2. 5 _.- 3E3 xoﬁm co xoﬂm mm :25 32mm; 3:85 He: 20 mu_:m_:_E 585:0 32 2 Eu:
mmm. emu. 3:. coo; 523: 3:5 2 cosﬁmaua on: :0 Eco £58 5833 .3: E 352on 2: 3 Eu:
32:1 corona
cmv. coo; vow: of. 28:20 x85 use 8.53 2: 50332 858:6 of 2:298 5825 .32 5 Eu:
m3. me. man. :or 25$ an “on mm 3320 Quad m :8:
meet moo. N5. cvo. oocmocEwE 38w came 2 530 :3? .32 N :5:
oar—r Sauna
oom. mom; 33... 5?. 88 top—Co mcocsﬁtcg 2: Bone 56:5 sow“; m :5:
0:. v3? T2. wvm. 32:3 new .322 £58 .323 .2953 mo_o>on_ 0 Eu:
2 _.- 3o. cmvr mmm. mace. 253:8 of E 328382 8m bEEﬁoBstu o Eu:
3o. a3- m3. 25. 83:2: 25% 288 ﬁr: 2 ea:
moor NS: wit Sin 0303 xoﬂm mo notion: 2: Boom :ocmwﬂwcoo Bmosem m 80:
woo. EN; mmmr cmn. c.3532 we :03 5035 xoﬂm can 028 xoﬁm 80:55 2 :8:
meet ocmr ovo. 21.. .. 3:58:80 xoﬁm 2: E EoquESc 28953 30805 2 Eu:
25 Snow”—
:oSQtomoQ Eu: eonﬁsz :8:
mo; 3; E m3 8225mm
>~ E E H

 

2 Zuzv mU<< 2: co mcociom Louommisom of c8 32:30: 535— .o 03.:

85

 

The ﬁndings indicate a two-factor solution on the Other-Worldly versusWorldly
Spiritual Orientation. The eigenvalues were 2.50 for factor one, 1.17 second factor, and
.790 third factor. The ﬁrst factor, This-Worldly, accounted for 31% with factor loadings
ranged between .612 to .888. Factor two, Other-Worldly, other captured 30% of variance
and the loadings were from.667 and .859. Sixty-one percent of the variance is accounted
for by these two factors. Table 7 summarizes the factor structure of the Spiritual
Orientation subscales of the AACS for the parent sample.

The second-step involved conducting a factor analysis on the three items of the
privatistic factor and the remaining items of the this-worldly-communal factor which
represented the communal orientation. The eigenvalues were 2.99 for factor one, 1.15
second factor, and .765 third factor. Table 7 summarizes the factor loadings of the Faith-
Based Orientation subscale. Factor 1, Communal, is comprised of four items. The factor
loadings of these items ranged from .648 to .827. Forty-three percent of the variance is
accounted for by this factor. The second factor is the Privatistic Faith-Based Orientation
and has three items with factor loadings between .693 and .829. The Privatistic factor
captured 17% of the variance and the overall variance accounted for the Faith-Based

Orientation is 60%.

86

Table 7. Factor Loadings for the Two-Factor Solutions on the AACS (N= 21 I)

 

Eigenvalues

Item Number Item Description

Item 5
Item 6
Item 8

Item 2

Item 3
Item 7

Item I I
Item 12
Item 10
Item 9

Item 13
Item 14
Item IS

Factor One

Educate congregation about the liberation of Black people a
Culture/ethnicity are represented in the religious icons
Teach children about the contributions oftheir race

Factor Two

My skin color is ofno great significance b

Race of Jesus is not an issue b

My church explains the difference between the White and Black Church b

Eigenvalues

Factor One

Promote economic development in the Black community
Promote Black pride and Black History such as Kwanzaa
Teach people about HIV/AIDS

Develop schools, banks, credit unions, and banks

Factor Two

My church sponsors only traditional programs such as Bible Study b

The programs in my church focus only on the preparation to enter Heaven b

My church ministries do not discuss issues such as Black on Black crime b

a The items of the scale have been paraphrased to illustrate the factor loadings.
b These items are recoded.

 

2.50

.888
.745
.61 l

-.033

.223
.345

2.99

.827
.731
.729
.648

.063
.145
.279

-.060
.214
.250

.859

.706
.667

.252
.249
-.057
.307

.829
.698
.693

Psychometric Properties of the AACS. The item means, standard deviations, and

corrected item-total correlation are presented in Table 8. Scoring involved calculating

the mean for each subscale. To create a scale reﬂecting churches placement on the this-

worldly versus other-worldly orientation, the Other-Worldly subscale was reversed

scored and averaged in with the This-Worldly score. This overall mean score reﬂected

the extent to which a church is other-worldly (i.e., low score) or this-worldly (i.e., high

score)3. The corrected item-total correlation ranged from .37 to .51 on the this-worldly

 

3This-worldly versus other-worldly will be used instead of other-worldly versus this-worldly to reﬂect the
scoring procedure of this subscale.

87

versus other-worldly spiritual orientation. The reliability of the this-worldly versus other-

worldly spiritual orientation subscale was .72.

Table 8. Scale Descriptives and Item-Total Statistics on the AACS

This-worldly verses Other-worldly Spiritual Orientation a = .72
Corrected Item-

Item Standard Total Alpha If
Item Description Item Mean Deviation Correlation Item Deleted
CI~IP2 My skin color is ofno great significance3 1‘93 1-3 0-4473 09894
CHP3 Race ofJesus is not an issue3 2-19 1-3 05075 09646
CHP7 My church explains the difference between the White church 3.53 1.13 0.3729 0.7027
and the Black church
CHPS Educate congregation about the liberation ofBIack people 3.48 1.36 0.4517 0.6817
CHP6 Culture/ethnicity are represented in the religious icons 2.31 1.16 0.4252 0.6886
CHP8 Teach children about the contributions of their race 3.69 1.17 0.5159 0.6625
Communal versus Privatistic Faith-Based Orientation or = .77

Item Description

CHP9 Develop schools, banks. credit unions. and banks 3.83 1.13 0.5174 0.7294
CHPIO Teach about HIV/AIDS 3 1.09 0.3565 0.7607
CHPI 1 Promote economic development in the Black Community 399 1.05 0.6396 0.7069
CHP 12 Promote Black pride and Black History such as Kwanzaa 4 1.05 0.5522 0.7241
CHPI3 My church sponsors only traditional programs such as Bible 3.39 1.43 0.51 l 1 0.7328
Study a

CHPI4 The programs in my church focus only on the preparation to 3.74 1.23 0.4419 0.7455
enter Heaven 3

CHPIS My church ministries do not discuss such as issues suc as 3.87 1.18 0.4128 0.7509

Black on Black crime a

a These items are recoded.

In addition, to create the communal versus privatistic subscale, the privatistic
items were reversed scored and averaged in with the communal score. This overall mean
score for the communal versus privatistic faith-based orientation represented the extent to
which a church is privatistic (i.e., low score) to strongly communal (i.e., high score). The
communal versus privatistic faith-based orientation, corrected item-total correlation
ranged from .35 to .55. The coefﬁcient alpha on the Communal versus Privatistic
subscale was .77. Lastly, the item-total correlation for the entire scale ranged from .30 to

.64. and the overall reliability of the AACS was .81.

88

Racial Identity Measure for Parents. The Multidimensional Inventory of Black
Identity (MIBI) is a 47-item inventory, which is scored on a 7-point Likert scale ranging
from (1) very strongly disagree to (7) very strongly agree. For the purpose of this study,
only the ideology scale was used and consisted of four subscales with a total of nine
items in each subscale. These subscales are Assimilationist (alpha=.70), Humanist
(alpha=.70), National (alpha=.79) and Oppressed minority (alpha=.76). An example of
the Assimilationist subscale is “Blacks should strive to integrate all institutions which are
segregated.” An illustration of the Humanist subscale is “Blacks should have the choice
to marry interracially.” Concerning the Nationalist and Oppressed Minority subscales, an
example of the former is ‘Black people should organize themselves into a separate Black
political force.” and the latter is “Black people should treat other oppressed people as
allies.” The mean for the four subscales was calculated. (Please refer to Appendix H)

Stereotypes. This measure examines the extent to which an individual
internalizes negative myths about African Americans. Negative stereotypes are assessed
by three checklists, which include stereotypes about African American men (i.e., 19
items), women (i.e., 19 items), and the entire group (i.e., 14 items) (Allen & Hatchett,
1986; Kelly, 1994; Jewell, 1983; Taylor & Zhang, 1990). Kelly (1994) modiﬁed the
original scale developed by Allen & Hatchett (1986) by including gender speciﬁc
stereotypes with men and women subscales. Respondents indicated the extent to which
they agree with these stereotypes. A ﬁve-point Likert scale ranging from (1) strongly
agree to (5) strongly disagree was used to assess the extent to which an individual
endorse stereotypes about African Americans. The reported reliability of the overall scale

is .94 (Kelly, 1994). Some examples of items are “Most Black people are ashamed of

89

 

   

themselves.” and “Most Black people are hard working.” The scoring procedure for this
measure was to reverse score the endorsement of negative stereotypes of Black people
and average in with the endorsement of positive stereotypes of Black people. This
overall mean reﬂected the extent to which negative stereotypes are low or positive
stereotypes are high (Please refer to Appendix 1).

Parent Version of the Racial Socialization Scale LPVRS). Racial socialization
practices were examined by using a measure adopted by the author from the National
Survey of Black Americans (N SBA) data base. The response options to these questions
were modiﬁed to a Likert-type scale ranging from (1) never to (4) all the time. These
items assessed the three classiﬁcations of racial socialization practices reported by Demo
& Hughes (1990). This measure contained 14 items with three subscales. An example of
an item on the Individualistic-Universalistic subscale is “All individuals are equal in this
society.” and Integrative-Assertive subscale is “Black History month is every month.”
An example of an item from the ﬁnal subscale, Cautious-Defensive, is “White people are
prejudiced against Blacks.” (Please refer to Appendix J)

EFA on the PVRS. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted to evaluate the

 

factor structure of the PVRS. Principal component and varimax rotation analyses were
conducted to identify the simple structure of the PVRS. The initial factor analysis
encompassed seven-factors. Table 9 presents the eigenvalues and factor loadings for the
PRVS. The eigenvalues ranged from 5.80 for factor one to .911 for factor eight. Sixty-
three percent of the variance was captured by these factor loadings.

The PVRS initially contained twenty—four items. The original conceptualization

of the items was compared to the results of the EFA. The content of each of the factors

90

 

 

 

.250 b: 8 ESE :0 some made: 02: *

 

£2. 2 m. 8:. 30.- $0.. :2. SN. :25: 2: =8. 22: 822:3 03E 8
mg. 8 _. 88. E. :8. :2. :3- 2: 2: 2.2 2:: 52:2 2.88: 2 82:8 82 :92: 22:0 E 03E mm
2 2. m8. :8. 23.- :8. 8:. as. 8223 2:8 2 22.8 82 a: 2: 2 2:28 2: 02: 8
NS. 8:. 3m. :2. E. 3.. .- m3. :8 02: a 288 2 :02 22:w =5 :2: :2: 03E :
:2. 83.. m8. 2:. mo. .- 22. 3:. 22:2 :2 22:82: 2 52:: :8m 2. :22: 03E _
2: .- 5:. mm». 3.0.- 2;. 8m. :3. 88:8 :8 8:222 :2, 2:: 2: 2 8:838 USE N
2%. 8m. 05.- an. 48.- :2. :2. 8223 :_ 8:: :2: a: as: 2 63E a
:8. 28.. 22. 2:. :m. o: .- :8. 83 252:: a :8MW 8: 2 2E2: :2: BE 2
25. 80.. E _. NS. :5- z m. :8. 2:2: :2: 2: 23 :28 2 03E 2
woo. 2:. 83.- 5. Na. :8. :2. 22:2 0: 2 88:8 a: as: 2 03E 2
Rm. N a. :3. :2. mm. 2:. z: .- 2:8: =MN :23 2.2: am 2 E 288 82 oz: 2.
:2. :5- NR. :2. ms. 30.. m: .- 2:208 2 :28 2: 28223 =HN oz: m
88.. 2o. :8. $0.- E. a _. 08.- 2228 :2 £53 :2: 2 :22: a a: 2 :28 :28 03E 2
m8. 2:. 2:. SN. 8:. 8m. 2;. 28:0: 8225 82:2 2.8528 :0 88:82 2: 03E _ _
:8- :2 .- NE. 25. :5. :3. EN. 22 22:2? 2:22: :o 88:82 2: oz: 2
so. :8. N2. 25. 88.- 2:. :8. 8:2 2:: 2:8: :58 Em2 2.58 22: :2: 03E 2
88.. N3. 3:. or. 2:. mm». NNN. 8:: :2: 22:2 2 222: 03E 2
so. 3. 8:. 8 _. so. 8:. :0. 5:2: .35 2 5:8: .922; :22: oz: 2
ms. :2 .- 8:. 30.- RN. :8. 5:. 2228: 288 82:3 .22 a: 0: 03E 2
:8. 0mm. :2 .- :8. 3.0.- SN. 3:. .220 8:: 22:? E: 2 :82 2:25 2222:: 22:3 2:8 oz: 2
m2 .- E _. N2. EN. :8. 8:. 82. E2: .2 :2: 2 2:2: :8 822:3 2:8 03E 3
2: .- :2. :8. :3. 25.- am. am». 22:: 2:8: M2:222 2: 822E 2:8 oz: 2
80.. 3: m8. 8.. 8m- 2:. E. 82:52:: :o :0: 2 22:8 82: 8223 2:8 oz: 3
NS. $0. 8 _. N8- 08. 2:. NE. .122. 8: .2: 82E 2:23 2:8 :2: 03E 0
n o m w m N _ 5:834 E0:
2: 2: z ._ 02 2: 2: 8.: 82:52:

:> S > >2 E : _

 

2 #NHZV m>~E 2: co 20:28 SUEEoim E: @533 .5:on .m 03::

91

was evaluated to assess the three out the four classiﬁcations described by Demo &
Hughes (1990). These classiﬁcations were: 1) integrative-assertive; 2) individualistic-
universalistic; and 3) cautious-defensive. Several items were deleted because they loaded
on two or more factors. These items were 5, 7, 20, 21, and 22.

Another EFA was conducted with the remaining items and the eigenvalues ranged
from 5.30 for factor 1 to 1.02 for factor ﬁve. The eigenvalue for factor six was .856.
Factor ﬁve was deleted because it was a two-item factor. Reliability analyses were
conducted on remaining factors. Because the coefﬁcient alpha of factor four (or = .51)
were low, this factor was also deleted. Table 10 presents the ﬁndings of the intermediate
factor analyses.

Applying the ﬁve aforementioned criteria, another factor analysis was conducted
on the remaining reduced items and a ﬁnal three-factor solution emerged. The
eigenvalues were 4.82 factor one, 2.12 factor two, 1.50 factor three, and .819 factor four.
The ﬁrst factor is the Cautious-Defensive subscale and has six items with loadings
between .539 and .834. Factor I captured 25% of the variance. The second factor is
Integrative-Assertive and represents 22% of the variance. This factor consisted of ﬁve
items with loadings from .653 and .797. The ﬁnal factor, Individualistic-Universalistic,
has three items with loadings between .623 and .835. This factor captured 13% of the
variance. The total variance of this scale accounted for 60% o the variance. Table 11

summarizes the factor structure on the PVRS.

92

.mecmE 88$ :5 8:52: 8 835928 soon 02:; 28m :5 mo :80: 2:- :

 

:8. 8:; N:N. :8. 8 _. 222: 2: 2 82:8: 2: :22. 2 oz: :_
:8. :2. _8.- SN. :8. 2:2: :2: 8: :: :28 2 oz: 2
::N. 8:. :2. :2 .- SN. :8 :2: a 288 2 2:: 32:w E3 :83 :2: oz: :
8: 8:. m 8. EN. :8. 2:22 2: 22:82 2 52:: :8: m 2:2: 8:: _
:8.- 8:. :8. 8: :8. 8:88 :8 82222 3:3 2:: 2: 2 8:828 02.: N
N::. N:N. :8. _8.- N8.- 28:: a... :23 :22: a: 2 2: 28:8 8: oz: :
8: :8. 8:. N::.- :2 .- 32:8 2 2:8 2: 282362 :: 22: m
8. .- 8_.- :8. :2. :::.- 32:8 2 :83 :2: :_ :22: a a: 2 :28 228 82: w
:2. N::. 8:. :8. :3. 832:6: 8252:. 28:2 83:28:: 8:25:22 2: oz: :
:8. :m _. N8.- :E. :2. :2 2:283 2:223: 88:82 2: 03E N_
8 _. 8:. 8.. 5. ::N. 8:: :2: 3:2: 2 23:: oz: 2
:8. N::. N8.- 8:. 8N. 8:? 2:: 2:8: 25:: E:2 2.58 32: :2: oz: :_
N_N. :8. 8.. N8. :8. 5:2: 23>: 2 2:2: 2:22: 2222 :2: 3
:: _ .- :8. SN. :8. 8:. 2:28: :288. 8223 :2: 8: :: 03E :_
:8. 8:- :8.- ::N. N::. :22: 8:: 22:3 :2: 2 253 :53 5:22: 22;: 2:8 03E M:
8:. 8:. 8:; N:N. 3:. 5:2: 2: :2: 22.2. 8223 2:8 :2: oz: :
:2. N2. N:_.- 8:. m8. 22: :2 :2: 2 8:2: :8 8223 :28 22: :N
E. N8. 8:. MNN. :m. 82222 82:2: 8632: 2: 82:3: :28 03E 8
:8. :8. :2; 8_. 8:. . 822.5228 :8: 2 22:2 :22: 82:3 2:8 :2: :N
85:52 8::
N:._ m: :2. 8N :2: 82852:
> E E = _

 

C SHZV m>~E on: so mcosaom SSﬁ-ozm on: :8 $5284 :82»: .o_ 23:..-

93

 

 

8:. 8:. :8.- 2:8: 8 :23 ::2: 8: 2 :2 28:: 8: 03E :

8:. :8.- N8.- 888 2 :83 2:: :_ :28: : 8: 2 :28 :2: 02: :
:8. :8; 8:.. 888 2 :88 2: 28282 =: 02-: m
3m. H mag—3 00:08:: :o::~::_0om .303: ozmzwﬂozcbbsmm3:239:
:2. :8. 8 _. 82 2:283 :23: 8 8828:: :2 03E 2
woo: :::.- Eﬂ. 898:0; 828:2 Swot-F: $589200 :0 8:28:82: of 02-: ﬂ _
8:. N::. E. 8:: 2:: 8:8: 2 88: 02-: 2
:8.- m8. 8:. :25: 2:: 2:8: 25:: 2:2 28:: 8:: 8:: 03E :_
N8.- :::. :8. :28: 2:3: 2 :::E 222: 2:2: 02-: 3
3:. H «:28 00:08:: cosmNzﬁoom .203: 390842232232:
N _ N. ::N. :8. 2228: :288 82:3 :2: 8: 8 03E :_
$1.- wvm. So. 520 00:0 €2.33 :33 0: 3:3 “to? 28220 8E? :80: 02,: M:
8.- :2. N::. 82822:: 2:: 2 222:: 82: 82:3 2:8 03E 8
8:.- :8. :8. 82:: 2: 8:: :88: 82:3 2:8 8:: 03E :
8:. :8. 8:. 2:: :2 2:: 2 :22: :8 82:3 2:8 03E 8
m: T :3. :8. :82: 828: 8:222: 2: 82:3 2:8 02:: :

Cw. H 87:3 850:5 cotmNzﬁoom 1203: ozmcﬂoﬂésotsmo
89:32 :5:
ocN mod om: mo:_:>:ow_m
E E H

 

2 _NHZV $5: :5 co ::osiom :ouomméQE-w on: :8 8:26:04 88:”: .2 2%.:

94

Psychometric Properties of the PVRS. Table 12 presents the item means, standard

 

deviations, and corrected item-total correlation for each of the PRVS subscales. The
corrected item-total correlation for each subscale is the following: .49 to .65 integrative-
assertive; .34 to .47 individualistic-universalistic; and .42 to .74 cautious-defensive. The
reliabilities are respectively are .81 integrative-assertive, .58 individualistic-universalistic
and .85 cautious-defensive. The overall reliability of the PVRS was .81. Similar to the
previous scales, computing the mean for the three subscales was the scoring procedure
for this scale.

African American Church Scale Adolescent Version (AACS-A). This 13-item

 

Likert scale, ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree, was developed
using the same theoretical framework as the parent scale. The AACS-A was reworded
from the parent version to examine adolescents’ perceptions of their church. This scale is
comprised of two subscales: 1) Other-Worldly and Privatistic Orientation and 2) This-
Worldly and Communal Orientation. An example of an other-worldly and privatistic
item is "In my church, the race of Jesus (God) is not an issue.” “In my church, the
religious icons such as stained glass windows, images of Jesus, church programs, and
Sunday school material look like me” is an example of a this-worldly and communal
item. (Refer to Appendix K)

EFA on the AACS-A. Similar to the AACS, the AACS-A was conceptualized to

 

have fifteen items and item one was deleted prior to running the EFA due to ambiguity in
the wording of it (See Appendix K). Table 13 presents the results of the factor analysis
and indicates a four-factor solution on the AACS for the 135 adolescents. The four-

factor solution represented 57% of variance. The eigenvalue for each factor is

95

 

 

 

mowed
33.0
vmmd

Noon:
5050
pond
mmwnd
35.0

omowd
Nw_w.o
:Nwd
mmowd
ommwd
~_ 5.0

SEED
Eu:

: 2:2

:0de
30:6
vwnvd

$3.0
$3.0
vaod
wooed
.movd

Nomnd
Nmmod
:36
.8de
vmmvd
$3.0

coca—0:00
_So._.-Eu:
3.8250

No.—
de
3.0

3.0
5.0
36
mo.—
ad

No.0
wad
mod
owd
N.—
wad

E53335
Emocﬁm Eu:

3.».
:5
mm.m

3a..
NWM
Wm
mw.~
BN5”

mod
m:.~
SYN
E:
wYN
NON

232 Eu:

3:03. E 583 :2: E .82: a :0: m: 530 ::m 02.: w
2:3: :a ::3 was: How 8 .9: 2:05. :0» 02: v
b203, E :33 2: 2.32:9: :: 02.: m
3:68: SEE—Boom 2:05. on:.35::D-o:m:a=:_>6£
32:6: smoEE< SSE< 95:50.3 .8 85:59:: 2: 02.: 2
£2 x0253 MERE: :o 85:88: 2: 02.: N:
“ma: :2: Hows.“ 8 55: 02.: m—
moE< :5: 2:3: Eon: 5:2 2:05 02.: 3
5:9: 555 .: 5:0: @055 :85 02.: 3
8:88: :ozwuzﬂoom 2:8: o>Eomm<b>sﬁw85
2253: 360% 8::5 3% go: o: 02.: 3
Eu: ::3 >2: 9 :55 :53 5.220 0:55 2:8 02.: w:
:83: Pa 35 30:0: 3:55 2:8 :2: 02.: a
:2: 8: En: : 8:2: :3 8:55 2:8 02.: em
832m 55mm: 363.73: 2: 3:55 2:8 02: E
33858.8 :8: 5 £253 82: 3:55 2:8 02: vm
30:22: cosmgﬁoom 2:8: 365393330

:ozqtomom E»: 38:32 Eu:

 

$5: 2: :o 85:35 38::8: :5 338580 23m .2 2an

96

.mwaﬁ8_ 86mm uﬁ 03:85 935353 93 28m Bio m5: 9: m

 

 

mu. ma. wNN. mum. ESEBBaoaoaﬁse 282
3. SN- o8- ma. @368 xasgiageams §§_o§ @808 05o: :80:
3a. 20.. E.- m8 égéésﬁsgﬁﬁooﬁ @205 $3
2:88 son 55$
Km. 8:. v8- mm. €56 Maﬁmuaeﬁsguﬁéﬁabgeﬁaaﬁa 82:2 is:
com. so. m8. 2.- a: £320 m3 055E920 Eco gags? 2:0 898%; we”:
SN- «8. 8m- $0. gaugewoaﬁséaﬁ Nam:
29. E. N3. 5.- Biggeméaaog mam:
€83.58 85 swam
mg. 80. so. am- 28x85 so x8532“; gisaﬁaeasmaé ﬁsﬁg 280:
20.- SN. «a. ma. §§b§o§§§8€o 88% agnoﬁaaaapag: 3:3
02.- 02.- an. ac. Sumosmmaﬁaaaapﬁaouﬁiao macaw €232 2:3
3.ng 05%. 56mm
8m. 8m- «8.. em. 28% EEO cogmgaﬁgoﬁwmacs 0% was:
5.. mm. 3.. E. gmaoaaegsnoaﬁaapabgﬁgqo 98:
Mom. ma... oi. 3.. gmasé SE: Emnaoua Em 052m N28:
mom. mg. as. E. «82220 aogsqegasa :9an 689 was:
Egon Em §H§¢E
. sagas: gszéz
mi 3: 8a mom 8:303
E E H

 

Gm TZV <8: 05 so mqouﬁom Hogméﬁom How @384 56mm .ﬂ 2an

97

respectively 3.35 for factor one, 2.03 for factor two, 1.44 for factor three, 1.08 for factor
four, and .970 for factor ﬁve. Item seven was deleted because it loaded onto three
factors. After deleting this item, the thematic structure of each factor was assessed. The
ﬁrst factor represented a this-worldly factor structure. The second factor contained a
privatistic factor structure. The third constituted an other-worldly factor structure and the
fourth indicated a communal factor structure.

Psychometric Properties of the AACS-A. Table 14 summarizes item means,

 

standard deviations, and corrected item-total correlation for the subscales of the AACS-
A. For this-worldly/communal orientation, the corrected item-total correlation ranged
from .25 to .58. The corrected item-total for the other-worldly/privatistic orientation
varied from .26 to .45. Item 2 was deleted because it reduced the reliability of the other-
worldly and privatistic orientation subscale to .55. The reliability for each of the
subscales is .71 this-worldly and communal and .62 other-worldly/privatistic. The
overall reliability of the AACS-A was .68.

In summary, it is important to note that the results from the adolescent sample
revealed a different factor structure on the AACS than the parent sample. Factor 1 for the
adolescent sample comprised: 1) the This-Worldly Spiritual Orientation and Communal
F aith-Based Orientation and 2) Other-Worldly Spiritual Orientation and Privatistic Faith-
Based Orientation. Conversely, the factor structure of the parent sample produced two
subscales: 1) This-Worldly versus Other-Worldly Spiritual Orientation; and 2)
Communal versus Privatistic Faith-Based Orientation. The results indicated that the two
samples have disparate perceptions of the dimensionality of the church. Each of the

factors (i.e., this-worldly, other-worldly, communal, and privatistic) were examined

98

.meRB 58$ 05 8832: 8 vommﬁaﬁma :82 3m: 2.8m oﬁmo was: 2:. a

 

Sémd
wmmd
mnwmd
_ Tamd
:umod

momod
vowed
Nmmﬁo
vmond
mmmod
mmmnd
owned

cos—o0
Em:

cumgaaa

vw 3.0 84 NON
Nvad VN; 2 .N
oovﬁo no; wv. m
VMNvd co; Wm

mmomd mm; id
Emod m: ©©.m
wmﬁud m_ ._ mod
Sommd NA cw.m
ogmd _ 2 m.m

vowmd : 3mm
wowmd _ 2 SN
::md 36 Dim

:0 mcomuwm>®Q Emu: E0:
30:8 385%
Bob 50:
-Eo:

UQHOOEOU

2E8 xoﬁm co xoﬂm mm :25 832 $386 Ho: ow 8:338 £830 >2
523$ SEQ S cowﬁaoﬁ 05 :0 Eco msoom 505:0 b: E aacwoa 2E.
33m 055 mm :03 £52on 320$me bco acmcam 585:0 b2

0E some. 2: :0 300m 9 38 53:0 b: .«o hopmmcwctowmmm 2: mo maoscom 2:.
03$ 5». Ho: mm mzmom mo 8mm

me. u «an? cosmEoco ocmumzhm 98 3283-550

«353M mm :03 >555 x85 28 03a xoﬂm BoEoi

bEzEEoo x85 2: E. 5:2: 98% 5 EoEmoEEv 28288 8080.5
mQZSE Son—m Bacon :83.

823 can hEOE: :88 has .ﬂoosom Ame—gum

8E :05 mo mcousnmbcoo 05 Sosa 56:50 :88.

£52 msomwzm: o5 E BEomoEB 2m bmowﬁwobhsﬁu

a Bacon xoﬁm no 20583: 2: Soon coumwoewaono 883m

mm. H maﬁa 20:85ch 1258800 new 328382...

2 so:
3 so:
2 so:
4 so:
m so:

2 so:
: so:
2 as:
a .5:
m Eu:
0 .5:
m so:

559.630 :5: HonEsz So:

 

$216 <-mo<< 2: so 8:265 33-80: Ea azacoaa 28m .3 23

99

separately in conducting the analyses for the adolescent sample. Since the factor
structure of the adolescent scale differed from the parent scale, scoring involved
calculating the mean for each subscale. More speciﬁcally, the mean was calculated
separately for other-worldly, this-worldly, communal, and privatistic.

Adolescent Version of the Racial Socialization Scale (AVRS). The perceptions of

 

adolescent racial socialization practices was assessed in this study using a measure
adopted by the author employing verbatim from the NSBA data set. This measure is
reworded from the parent version to investigate an adolescent’s perceptions of his/her
parent’s racial socialization practices. This measure contained fourteen items with three
subscales. An example of an item on the Individualistic-Universalistic subscale is “ My
parents teach me that all individuals are equal in this society.” “My parents teach me that
Black History month is every month” is an example of an item on the Integrative-
Assertive subscale. An example of an item on the Cautious-Defensive is “My parents
teach me that White people are prejudiced against Blacks.” section (Please refer to
Appendix L).

EFA on the AVRS. The factor structure of the AVRS was assessed (refer to

 

Table 15). Principal component analysis and varimax rotation were conducted to
examine the dimensions of this scale. The factor analysis indicates a six-factor loading.
Sixty-one percent of the variance was captured by the six-factor loadings. The
eigenvalue for the six-factor solution is 6.49 for factor one, 2.51 for factor two, 1.90 for
factor three, 1.52 for factor four, 1.23 for factor ﬁve, and 1.15 for factor six. The seventh

eigenvalue is .988 for factor eight.

100

may
2 _.
2m;

we.

2.—

owor
mum.

$2.-
_N_..
mm_.

50.

v2.

gm.
woo.
oi.
Nmo.
$0.-

03..
vvo.

_

5

5

05m.

EN.

EN

03..
NNN.
#3..

02.
N2.
:2.
N2.

.momqwmwvch EOE—WN— ~2qu 5G.— .a Bop—ma m 0:: OH 0 CE 50 OMB mucosa £5qu

8:23 2:8 0: 0?on :0» .33 2: E zeoﬁo on 02.: m
:0?2: a 2:08 0: =0: 30:: E? 0:03 :::— 2 F5 0

0&0 0:05: m: woow mm 3 230: :2: 2 :5 5
E258: 300% 8:55 03m :0: 0: 2.5 S
0:: 35 8:: 3:3 5:2: 5:80: : 252:8 u>0_ so»: :::0 b: 2.5 mm
530: 2: :m 0%: 8:55 2.5 om
8:55 E as: :2: S: .55: 3 2.5 _~
2500: =: 5:5 w:0_m 6w 9 b: 25% :0» 2.5 v
3.68 E :53 an. £5222: a... z: m
.9208 E 5:03 :2: E :82: a :0: a .200 :07. 2 .5 w
520 00:0 E233 >25 00 En? 2:03 5.620 22S» 2:8 2.5 M:
32:0ch 50 Eoc 5 Bots: 003: 3:23 2:8 2.5 vm
3:0: 0:: :2: 05:0: 8:55 080m 85 2 :5 o
E2: :0.— Ea: : 0:2: :8 8:; 058 2.5 mm
50:5 :23? 02:30.5 0:: 8:55 2:8 2.5 C
xoﬂm on 0: 8:35: on :05: 0: 2.5 :—
mxoﬂm :05 ::mtoaaE ﬂ :0NEo voom a wﬁon 2.5 _
an»: .35 a: :5 29m 2 2: 2
90: 05005:: 9:an 50 oocmtomé 2: 2.5 2
@326: 585:? :85 w::€:28 50 oogtomé 2: 2.5 2
30003 :8 Eon—m .83 2:0 2: 2 5:838 02.5 N
SE< E0: 2585 50% .52 Ezozm :2: :2: U2 .5 2
5:2: be: m_ 5:02: E035 20:5 0255 E
a 7.5 :2: “0905 0: .53: 2 55 m—

 

m0:_:>:om E

 

GQHZV mm>< 2: :0 20:28 Sofia :05 mwcﬁmoq 86:5 .2 03::

101

The conceptualization of the AVRS was similar to the PRVS and the exact
procedure utilized to construct the parent scale was employed to determine the
psychometric properties of the AVRS. Items 1, 13, and 22 were removed for double
loading on two factors. Factor 5 was deleted because it was an one—item factor. Four
additional items (i.e., items 5, 6, 20, and 21) were deleted because they did not load on
the appropriate factors and therefore, were not conceptually consistent with the content of
the scale.

Another factor analysis was conducted to ascertain whether the same factor
structure emerged as on the PRVS. The factor analysis produced a three-factor solution
which was similar to the parent factor structure (refer to Table 16). The eigenvalues were
4.72 factor one, 1.79 factor two, 1.59 factor three, and 1.04 factor four. Cautious-
Defensive subscale is the ﬁrst factor solution and has six items with loadings between
.439 and .814. Factor 1 captured 23% of the variance. The second factor,
Integrative-Assertive, represents 22% of the variance and consists of ﬁve items with
loadings from .704 and .817. The third factor, Individualistic-Universalistic, has three
items with loadings between .557 and .800. This factor captured 12% of the variance.
The total variance of this scale accounted for 57% o the variance.

Psychometric Properties of the AVRS. The corrected item total-correlation, item

 

mean, and item standard deviation for each scale are illustrated in Table 17. The
corrected item total-correlation for each scale ranged from .31 to .47 individualistic-
universalistic, .29 to .51 integrative-assertive, .22 to .55 cautious defensive. The
reliability on each of the racial socialization scale is .58 Individualistic-Universalistic, .83

Integrative-Assertive, and .81 Cautious-Defensive. The overall scale reliability on the

102

 

 

0mm.
$0.

09.
:8.

08.-

QB.
20.

we:
>9.

mm_..

.2.

02.-

:8.

mm:

E

:2.
mg.
28..

3:.
war.
03..
mg.
:5.

mmm.
$0.
mum.
who.
_ K.
wmm.

ob.—

EN.

mom-

:6.
0mm.
mom.
SN.
m2.

amv.
Se.
Nd:
Eb.
n5.
3:.

N;

2:00: :0. ::3 w:o:~ 0w 9 E: 2:08 :0» 02.: v
0.068 E ::03 :2: E :80: 0 :0: m: :28 :0: 02: w
088 a. :38 2.... :35: as 02: m
mm. H 0 8:8: 25:88.08 300m 08:§0>:5.0:m:§:2:£
29 :85? :82: :0 8:809: 2: 03:: a:
88:0: 58:08:. SSE»: @8528 :0 85:05:: 2: 02.: _ :
88 :2: Hows: 0: :05: 02.: m:
8:2 so: 2%: 30% Eﬁ 032m 05 a: 02: 2
5:0: b0>0 a. 5:0: E02: :85 02: E
Q. n a 8:8: 88:38 :8: 9:829:35
:88: 300% 03:): 02w :0: on 02: 2
$20 00:0 50:? >35 0: :63 3:03 5:230 233 9:8 02: w:
888:: :o :0: a Eta: 08: 855 9:8 0.2.: 8
0:0: 0:: >2: 05:09 8:33 9:8 :9: 02: a
:0: :0: Eu: : 0:9: :8 8::3 2:8 02: vm
$85 85%.: 00:0: .52: 0:: 8:33 9:8 02: E
5. u 0 8:085 :oéﬁom :85 02820980800

3:2 :0:

858:8:

 

81,: mm>< 0: 8 95:8 52:82:. a: 0:83 as: .2 2:2

103

 

0......0
N500.0
.900

0005.0
305.0
055.0
. 0m00
. 000.0

N0550
0005.0
0000.0
0005.0
080.0
5505.0

00:0.0D
50:.

. .30
. . .00
.0500

005.0
.vad
00 . 0.0
550m0
000.0

0000.0
0500.0
050N0
00.0 .0
55NN.0
0530

8:20:00
33%:
.: 2:7. 80:80

3..
00.0
00.0

00.0
00..
50..
.0..
00.0

00..
00.0
00.0
00.0
v. ..
N0.

$.23qu 0582 E0:
0558 52.

.0.N
50.0
N..0

0...N
No.0
00.0
00.0
00.N

05.N
00.0
.00..
m. .0
00.N
.0.N

00.08 E 5:03 :05 :_ 5:00.: 0 :0: m. :0.00 :20 02... 0
03000 :0 5.3 0:20 :00 0: .0: 2:08 :05 0.2.: v
.028: a: :83 8 £350: a. 92: m
08:00:: 808.3000 .905. 08:28.2.08082205
85.: :5: 0.000: :08: E8. 2:05 02.5. 0.
:8: :05 005.: o: :05: 02.: 2
5:9: .080 0. 5:9: .008... 0.02m 02.... v.
98: 0.85.3 0: $0.: :0 858:: 9.: USE m.
0002.0: 500.580: 85¢. 0558.800 85:09:. 05 0.2.: . .
82:02: 88380 38: 9:89:83:
85:05:: .:0 ::05 :. 0:059. 80.0 00:23 9:8 0.2.... 0N
E05 :0: ES. :_ 00.9: :8 00:23 9:8 0.2.: mm
:020 8:0 E05 53 .00.: 0: ::03 :.:03 52.00 0:23 9:8 0.2.5. 0.
00.005 8500: 8.2.0:: 0:0 8:23 8:8 03E 5.
E950: 38:: 8:23 0.3.0 :0: o: 02: o.
0:00 0:0 .65 05:00 00:23 058 :05 0.25. a
08:00:. 858.3000 .200”. 0320009000200

8.50.5000 80:. 05:02 50:.

 

.00..“70 0y.>< 05 :0 00.8590 50550:. 0:0 0025.880 0.80 .5. 0.00...

104

 

 

 

AVRS is .83. Finally, computing the mean for the three subscales was used as the
scoring procedure for this scale.

Universal Identity Scale for Adolescents. The Multigroup Ethnic Identity

 

Measure (MEIM) is a twenty-three item measure that assesses ethnic identity among
adolescents (Phinney, 1992). This scale used a four-point Likert scale ranging from (1)
strongly disagree, (2) somewhat disagree, (3) somewhat agree, and (4) agree. It contains
three subscales: 1) the Afﬁrmation and Belonging (i.e., ﬁve items); 2) Ethnic Identity
Achievement (i.e., 6 items); and 3) Ethnic Behaviors (i.e., 2 items). The Afﬁrmation and
Belonging subscale (alpha = .75) examines the extent to which an adolescent feels a
sense of belonging to one’s racial/ethnic group (e.g., “I am happy that I am a member of
the group I belong to.”) The second subscale, Ethnic Identity Achievement (alpha=.69),
investigated the degree to which efforts have been put forth to discover one’s
racial/ethnic identity. An example of an item on this scale is “I have a clear sense of my
ethnic background and what it means to me.” The ﬁnal subscale which was not used in
the study is the Ethnic behaviors (alpha not reported) which analyzes participation in
activities that characterize one’s ethnic group (e.g., ‘I participate in cultural practices of
my own group, such as special foods, music, or customs”). Phinney (1992) reported that
the overall alpha coefﬁcient is .81. The scoring of this scale involved computing the
mean for each subscale (See Appendix M).

African American Identity Scale for Adolescents. The Multi-Construct of African

 

American Identity Questionnaire (MCAIQ) consists of twenty-ﬁve items that assesses
racial identity among adolescents (Smith & Brookins, 1997). This scale used a four-point

Likert scale ranging from (1) that’s very true about me, (2) that’s sort of true of me, (3)

105

that’s not very true of me, and (4) that’s not at all true of me. In this study, the twenty-
one items representing racial identity scale was used. Smith & Brookins (1997) report
that the overall alpha coefﬁcient. is .87. The reliability on the twenty-one items of the
MCAIQ (or = .77) was assessed by the current author. Finally, examples of this scale are
“Whites do better in school.” and “Black is beautiful.” The scoring scheme of this scale
was to calculate the mean (Please refer to Appendix N).

Religiosity. Religiosity was measured with four subscales that reﬂect the four
dimensions of religiosity targeted in this study. The ﬁrst three subscales (i.e.,
organizational, nonorganizational, and subjective) examined the multidimensional nature
of religious involvement among African Americans. The ﬁrst subscale-organizational
included ﬁve questions that ask the extent to which an individual participates in religious
activities at his/her church (e. g., How many church clubs or organizations do you belong
to or participate in?) The second subscale- nonorganizational included four questions
and assessed the extent to which an individual participates in private religious activities
such as reading religious books, listening to religious TV and radio, and praying (e. g.,
How often do you pray?) The third subscale-subjective included three questions and
examined how important religion is in a person’s life (e.g., How religious would you say
you are?) These three subscales are from Levin, Taylor & Chatters (1995) These
authors conducted a factor analysis and structural equation model to develop the
Multidimensional Measure of Religious Involvement Scale (Levin et al. 1995). The scale
items are located in Appendix 0. Lastly, the four dimension-spirituality was assessed by

three items developed by McAdoo (1995) which examined the extent to which an

106

 

 

 

individual believes he/she is a spiritual being (e.g., “How spiritual would you say you
are?” and “How important is your spirituality to you?”)

To score this measure, the mean was calculated for each subscale and the mean
for each subscale was converted to z-scores. This transformation was done because the
subscales use different measurement scales. After transforming the mean of each subscale
to z-scores, these z-scores were summed to obtain an overall religiosity score.

Planned Analysis

 

Study One Analyses. A correlational matrix was created for all of the variables in

 

Study One to assess the relationships among the variables in the study. If a covariate was
signiﬁcant with the targeted outcomes then it was covaried out in the analysis. In Study
One, the ﬁrst relationship was to assess the moderators (i.e., religiosity and stereotypes).
Each moderating relationship was assessed using a hierarchical regression technique. If
these moderators proved to be insigniﬁcant then a path analysis using the statistical
program AMOS was conducted to examine the other relationships in the conceptual
framework. For this analysis, a covariance matrix was calculated excluding the
moderators and these scores was used to run a path analysis. Conversely, if the
moderators are signiﬁcant then a series of hierarchical regressions was conducted to test
the rest of the model.

Study Two Analyses Similar to Study One, a correlational analysis was

 

conducted to assess the relationships among all of the variables in the study. If a
covariate was signiﬁcant then it was covaried out in the hierarchical regressions. A
hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to assess the relationship between the

predictor variables and each outcome variable. The covariates were entered in the ﬁrst

107

block, adolescents” perceptions of church orientations were entered in second block,
entered in the third block was parents’ perceptions of their racial child-rearing strategies
and the ﬁnal block was adolescents’ perceptions of their parents” racial child-rearing

strategies. Figure 6 presents the planned analyses for Study One and Study Two.

108

 

 

Flglue 6: PlamedAmlyses

StudyOIe

 

 

EFA ‘
'G'lumh Scale
-Racial Socialization
Scales

 

 

 

 

 

Heraldﬁcal

 

 

.2

 

 

Ifthennderatas
aremtsigniﬁcant
thenoorrluxa
pathalﬂysis

 

 

K.

 

 

Ifﬂrennderatas
aresigriﬁcant
ﬂienccnimewith
hierardiicalregtessim

 

 

Studmi

'Hierardiical Regression

109

 

CHAPTER 3

RESULTS
Descriptive Statistics

 

The descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations for Study One are presented
in Table 18.

Regression Analyses: Moderated Effects of Religiosity and Stereotypes

 

Religiosity and stereotypes were the hypothesized moderators in Study One and
these moderating relationships were examined ﬁrst before the path analyses were
conducted. It was hypothesized that religiosity was a moderator between church
orientation (i.e., spiritual and faith-based) and racial identity (i.e., assimilationist,
humanist, nationalist, and oppressed minority). An interaction term was calculated for
this analysis. Appendix P presents the regression equations examined in this study.

To test the aforementioned relationships, the ﬁrst hierarchical regression is used
as an example of the process employed to assess the moderators. The regression equation
is Assimilationist = bO + b1(Age) + b2(Education) + b3(Interracial Contact)+ b4 (Parental
Religious History) + b5 (This-worldly versus other-worldly) + b6(Re1igiosity) + b7(This-
worldly versus other-worldly *Religiosity) + e. This regression equation investigated the
extent to which religiosity moderated the relationship between the this-worldly versus
other-worldly spiritual orientation and assimilationist racial identity attitudes. The
covariates (i.e., age, education, interracial contact, and parent religious history) were
entered in step one and this-worldly versus other-worldly spiritual orientation, a main

effect, was entered in the second step. At the third step, the main effect of religiosity was

110

 

 

co. ﬁn 2.- 8.- mm. «4. vim. a W. m; 5:825 mp
2.. mo. 00. mo; we. co. mo. mo. 3. ea %.< 3
so. 3.- 8. 8.- we. 3. :. we. a. 8. bag: 3293 E25 2
2.. 8.- 9. 5. 2.- 2.. 8.- ﬁn E. 3 3955 state: 2
co. 8. 3.- 8. co. 8. 5.- oo 3. mm. baoazom 3
co. we. 2. mo. 2. mo. 3. N1 mm. Noe 39902on or
no. a I.- o _ .- .mﬂ a _|v. w|_ co. :5 >552 3:2282 a
mm. % wwa q co. .8. .3.- oo - mm. 85 9:52 £552 @88an m
2. ad. ad. win in an 2 - S. B: 3:53 Egan: -
ow. 0d 8.- S.- j ﬁn E. A _ e 3:53 aeozwzémg o
mm 8. 2.- ﬂ 2.- mo. 2% 0:2623E3553.6362 m
5. am- m-m. Na 9 E .m o>Eomm<bz§wBE v
3. a wl_.. .22 _m.~ 03380930330 m
S ﬂ- oom a: 2.252050225325- N
BB. 05. 09m Bang—ECU tam oﬂmswzum —.

w a o m w m N _ am :82 29%;

 

C HNHZV 25 33m 5 moEme> 8.82 2:. 8m mqouﬂoboo EEO-QBN was mosmuﬁm 969E800 .5 2an

111

30:00-6 mo. v m Ema-tag $5358 0x00 031098 05-
6028-2 5. V m 300$:me E0858 0x00 051095 was Eon 0E. ”08 Z

b23300 0%: won 809-

 

I 2.0 2.- S. 8. ﬂ- NW 8:830 my
I 8. ﬁt. 2. co. S.- 00< 3
I 8.- Nd S. 3.- :82: 220232 228 3

on. mo: 2. «ﬂ..- Hoﬁcoo 1:00:85 NF

E. S. 8.- 3:20:32 3

cm. mo. 39300005 er

3. £22: “£2232 m

33:02 5:332 c0mm0aa0 w

>320“: 3:22:23 5

33:03 E_:o:0__§mm< m

2320203:3-052032305 m

0>_t0mm<-0>:2w005 v

033300-32300 n

SEEESEESEEE N

3:58:80 0:0 030-3035 _.

2 E 2 2 Z S a 033:;
C 5H7: 0:0 303m 5 m030§> 8.32 05 How 28:20:00 00EO-OH0N 98 mommuﬁm 0>smtom0m .2 033- .Eoo

112

included in the regression equation. The interaction term (i.e., this-worldly versus other-
worldly spiritual orientation* religiosity) was entered in the fourth step.

In each step, assimilationist racial identity was regressed upon each independent
variable. This procedure was repeated to investigate the other racial identity attitudes
(i.e., humanist, nationalist, and oppressed minority). Speciﬁcally, using the same
procedure to enter the independent variables, each racial identity attitude was regressed
upon the communal versus privatistic faith-based orientation. To illustrate, one of the
regression equation assessed Nationalist = b0 + bI(Age) + b2(Education) + b3(Interracial
Contact)+ b4 (Parental Religious History) + b5 (Communal versus Privatistic) +
b6(Religiosity) + b7(Communal versus Privatistic *Religiosity) + e.

Stereotypes were the second moderating relationship analyzed. It was
hypothesized that stereotypes would moderate the relationship between racial identity and
racial socialization practices. The process of entering the variables was identical to the
one used to assess religiosity. An example of a regression equation to investigate this
moderator relationship is Individualistic-Universalistic Racial Socialization Practices = bO
+ bI(Age) + b2(Education) + b3(Interracial Contact)+ b4 (Parental Religious History) + b5
(Assimilationist) + b6(Stereotypes) + b7(assimilationist *Stereotypes) + e. In the ﬁrst
step, the covariates were entered. Racial identity (i.e., separately assimilationisit,
humanist, oppressed minority, and nationalist) and stereotypes were entered at the second
and third steps respectively. Next, the interaction term, the fourth step, was created to
examine whether the relationship between racial identity and racial socialization vary as a

function of parental stereotypes about African Americans (e. g., assimilationist racial

113

identity * stereotypes). Appendix Q presents the results of the regression examined to
assess the moderators in Study One.

Lastly, the following structural regression assumptions were investigated: 1)
examine the measurement error (i.e., check the reliability) and 2) the relationship
between the predictor and outcome variable should be linear. The residual assumptions
of regression were also assessed: 1) the residuals follow a normal distribution; 2) the
residuals are independent; and 3) the residuals have equal variances.

The regression models for religiosity and stereotypes were insigniﬁcant.
Religiosity, as a moderator, was not a signiﬁcant predictor of the relationship between
church orientations and religiosity. Similar to religiosity, stereotypes, a moderator, was
not a signiﬁcant predictor of the relationship between parental racial identity attitudes and
their racial socialization practices. As mentioned previous, Appendices R and. S present
the results of these regression analyses. Recall if religiosity and stereotypes were not
signiﬁcant predictors then a series of path analyses was conducted on the remaining
predictor variables (i.e., covariates, church orientations, and parental racial identity
attitudes) and the outcome variables (i.e., racial socialization practices). Refer to Figure
6 for a review of the planned analyses.

Path Model Analyses

 

To evaluate the overall adequacy of the proposed models, several goodness-of-ﬁt
indices were examined. Fit indices fall into two categories: 1) absolute and 2)
incremental (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Absolute indices measure the extent to which an a
priori model is supported by the sample data while incremental assesses modiﬁcations to

the target model by comparing it to another model. Fit indices supplement the X2

114

goodness of ﬁt statistics which examines the difference between the theoretical and
observed covariance matrices. Hu and Bentler (1999) discuss several conventional
cutoffs and combinational rules when using ﬁt indices. They assert these guidelines
improve the evaluation of models especially reducing the likelihood to commit a Type I
or 11 error. In addition, they recommend these cutoffs to lessen misspeciﬁed models due
to small sample sizes N f 250. Since the sample (N =211) in this study is small, Hu and
Bentler (1999) recommend examining the following indices in combination: 1) Tucker
Lewis Index (TLI) close to .95 and 2) standardized root mean square residual (SRMR)
close to .08. The former is an example of an incremental index and the latter is an
absolute index. In addition, the root mean square of approximation (RMSEA) was
assessed.

In this study, the SRMR was not used because AMOS only reports the root mean
square residual (RMR). The RMR measures the lack of ﬁt between the predicted (i.e.,
theoretical) and observed variance-covariance matrix. Pedhazer (1997) discusses the
challenges of interpreting the RMR and proposes the Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index
(AGFI) as an appropriate substitution. The AGFI is a model of ﬁt and model parsimony
indices. An acceptable interpretation of AGFI is no ﬁt (i.e., zero) to perfect ﬁt (i.e., one).
Schumacker & Lomax (1996) indicate a model having value of .90 or greater as an
appropriate criteria for assessing AGFI. Therefore, AGFI, TLI, and RMSEA were
examined to determine model ﬁt in this study.

Spiritual Orientation and Integrative-Assertive Model 1. The model in Figure 7

 

displays the relationships for hypotheses 3 to 3.c and hypotheses 4 to 4b. This model

investigates whether integrative-assertive racial socialization practices, the dependent

115

variable, is related to nationalist racial identity attitudes, oppressed minority racial
identity attitudes, and this-worldly versus other-worldly spiritual orientation. This model
included three covariates (i.e., education, age, and interracial contact). Lastly, it is
important to note that parental religious history was excluded from these analyses

because it only correlated signiﬁcantly with religiosity.

Figure 7: Spiritual Orientation and Integrative—Assertive Model 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

3b
Covariates / Oppressed
Minority
Age / Racial Identity +32,
+3*
Education /This-Worldly +3c Integrative-
Other-Worldly ' Assertive
Interracial +4
Contact \ +43

 

 

 

 

\ﬁr Nationalist
\ Racial Identity

4b

 

 

 

*The plus or minus denotes the direction ofthe hypotheses and the number indicates the hypothesis.

As shown in Figure 8, the hypotheses were not supported in this model. The X2
for this model was signiﬁcant (X2: 20.06, df = 7, p < .00). In this analysis, the model ﬁt
indices were respectively AGFI = .89, TLI = .70, and RMSEA = .09. The results
suggested the model does not ﬁt the data. Some of the paths were signiﬁcant in this
model. Speciﬁcally, this-worldly versus other-worldly spiritual orientation was a positive
and a direct effect on nationalist racial identity attitudes (B = .26, p < .05). Nationalist
racial identity attitudes were found to have a positive and direct effect on integrative-

assertive racial socialization practices ([3 = .36, p < .05). Parents who perceived their

116

churches as having a this-worldly versus other-worldly spiritual orientation were more
likely to use integrative-assertive racial socialization practices. Parents who perceived
their churches as having a this-worldly versus other-worldly spiritual orientation were
more likely to endorse nationalist racial identity attitudes. In addition, an indirect effect
was found, meaning that the relationship between this-worldly versus other-worldly
spiritual orientation and integrative-assertive racial socialization practices was mediated
by nationalist racial identity attitudes (refer to Figure 8). This ﬁnding suggests that
nationalist racial identity attitudes partially explained the relationship between parents’
perceptions of this-worldly versus other-worldly spiritual orientation and integrative-
assertive racial socialization practices. The ﬁndings indicate also that parents’ perception
of this-worldly versus other-worldly spiritual orientation were not related to oppressed
minority attitudes and these attitudes did not mediate the relationship between this-
worldly versus other-worldly spiritual orientation and integrative-assertive child-rearing
practices.

In addition, education as a covariate has a positive and direct effect on nationalist
racial identity attitudes (B = .13, p < .05). Education also has a positive and direct effect
on this-worldly versus other-worldly spiritual orientation ([3 = .13, p < .05). Interracial
contact, a covariate, has a direct negative effect on nationalist racial identity attitudes (B =
-.13, p < .05) and oppressed minority racial identity attitudes ([3 = —.l 1, p < .05). Parents
who reported higher levels of interracial contact were less likely to endorse nationalist
racial identity attitudes. Similar to nationalist parents, parents who reported higher levels
of interracial contact were less likely to endorse oppressed minority racial identity

attitudes.

117

Figure 8: Spiritual Orientation and Integrative—Assertive Model 1

Covariates

 

Age

 

-. 12 Oppressed

 

 

 

Education

    

This-Worldly

 

 

 

Interracial
Contact

 

Other-Worldly

 

Minority
Racial Identity

 

 

 

.26

 

Integrative-

 

 

 

.0

.26

 

 

 

 

Chi-square = 20.06 AGFI = .89 TLI = .70 RMSEA=.09

df= 7
p=.00

Note: Only the signiﬁcant paths are presented in the models

-. l 3 . .
\ Nationalist
Racial Identity

 

Assertive

 

 

 

Integrative-Assertive Modiﬁed Model 1a. This model was modiﬁed by removing

 

non-signiﬁcant paths and adding covariance terms. The chi-square test (X2 = 15.96, df =

10, p < .10) was non-signiﬁcant. The ﬁt indices suggested a better model ﬁt of the

sample data and they are presented in Figure 9. The hypotheses (i.e., 4 to 4.b) were

supported. Speciﬁcally, parents who perceived their churches as this-worldly versus

other-worldly were more likely to report using integrative-assertive racial socialization

practices ([3 = .25, p < .05). In addition, parents who perceived their church as this-

worldly versus other-worldly were more likely to endorse nationalist racial identity

attitudes (B = .26, p < .05). Nationalist racial identity attitudes were positively related to

integrative-assertive socialization practices ([3 = .36, p < .05). Parents who endorsed

118

nationalist racial identity attitudes were more likely to use integrative-assertive racial
socialization practices. The results also found that an indirect relationship existed
between this-worldly versus other-worldly spiritual orientation and integrative-assertive
racial socialization practices. This suggested that nationalist racial identity attitudes
partially mediated the relationship between this-worldly spiritual orientation and
integrative-assertive child-rearing practices. Integrative-assertive racial socialization
practices are more likely to happen when parents perceive their churches as a this-
worldly versus other-worldly spiritual orientation.

Also, education was signiﬁcantly and positively related to both this-worldly
versus other-worldly spiritual orientation (B = .12, p < .05) and nationalist racial identity
attitudes (B = .06, p < .05). This suggests that parents with higher levels of education
were more likely to perceive their church as having a this-worldly versus other-worldly
orientation and to endorse nationalist racial identity attitudes. Interracial contact as a
covariate was negatively related to nationalist racial identity attitudes (B = -. l 3, p < .05).
As mentioned previously, this suggests that parents who reported higher levels of
interracial contact were less likely to endorse nationalist racial identity attitudes. In
contrast to the previous model, interracial contact was not related to oppressed minority
attitudes. Age was signiﬁcantly and negatively related to oppressed minority attitudes (B

=-.11,9<.05).

119

Figure 9 : Integrative—Assertive Modiﬁed Model 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Covariates - . 1 1 Oppressed
Minority
Age Racial Identity
Education ° 1 2 This-Worldly 25 Integrative-

 

 

Assertive

 

 

 

Other-Worldly

   

 

 

 

 

 

§ Interracial
Contact

.36

 

 

 

Nationalist
Racial Identity

 

 

 

 

Chi-square = 15.96 AGFI = .94 TLI = .90 RMSEA=.05
df= 10
p = .10

Spiritual Orientation and Cautious-Defensive Model 2. This model examined

 

this-worldly versus other-worldly spiritual orientation and nationalist racial identity
attitudes as predictors of cautious-defensive racial socialization practices. Hypotheses 5
to 5.c are represented by model 2 (Refer to Figure 10). Age, education and interracial
contact were covariates in this model. Moreover, it was hypothesized that nationalist
racial identity was a mediator between this-worldly versus other-worldly spiritual
orientation. This model did not ﬁt the data (X2 = 13.03, df = 6, p < .04). Figure 1 1
presents the results of model 2. The ﬁt indices were AGFI = .93, TL] = .81, and RMSEA

=.08.

120

Figure 10: Spiritual Orientation and Cautious-Defensive Model 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5b
Covariates
/' Nationalist
Age Racial Identity +5a
+5
Education This-Worldly +50 Cautious-
/ Other-Worldly r Defenswe

 

 

 

 

Interracial /
Contact

 

 

 

* The plus or minus denotes the direction of the hypotheses and the number indicates the hypotheses.

Figure 11: Spiritual Orientation and Cautious-Defensive Model 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Covariates
Nationalist
4 . .
Age Racral Identity .42

Education ' / , Cautious-

- .13 This-Worldly Defensive

Other-World] y

Interracial
Contact /

 

 

Chi-square = 13.03 AGFI = .93 TLI = .81 RMSEA=.08
df = 6
p=.04
Several of the ﬁt indices were very close in indicating model ﬁt (i.e., AGFI and

RMSEA). This suggests that ﬁt indices are near the criteria established by Hu & Bentler

(1999). The model had several signiﬁcant path coefﬁcients. This-worldly versus other-

121

worldly spiritual orientation (B = .26, p < .05) has a direct effect on nationalist racial
identity. Nationalist racial identity (B = .42, p < .05) has a signiﬁcant and positive direct
effect on cautious-defensive racial identity attitudes. Education as a covariate has a
positive direct effect on nationalist racial identity attitudes (B = .06, p < .05) and this-
worldly versus other-worldly orientation (B = .13, p < .05). The path coefﬁcient (B =

-. l 3, p < .05) indicated a signiﬁcant and negative direct effect of interracial contact on
nationalist racial identity attitudes. Again, parents who reported higher levels of
interracial contact were less likely to endorse nationalist racial identity attitudes.

Cautious-Defensive Modiﬁed Model 2a. This model was modiﬁed by removing

 

non-signiﬁcant paths and adding covariances. The resulting model enhanced the model
ﬁt of the sample data. The chi-square test (X2 = 4.57, df = 3, p < .21) was non-
signiﬁcant. As shown in Figure 12, the ﬁt indices suggested a good model ﬁt and model
comparison (AGF I = .96, TLI = .94, and RMSEA = .05). Similar to the previous models,
this-worldly versus other-worldly spiritual orientation was positively related to nationalist
racial identity attitudes (B = .26, p < .05). Parents who perceived their church as having a
this-worldly versus other-worldly spiritual orientation were more likely to endorse
nationalist racial identity attitudes. Nationalist racial identity attitudes were positively
related to cautious-defensive socialization practices (B = .46, p < .05). The results
indicated that parents who endorsed nationalist racial identity attitudes were more likely
to use cautious-defensive racial socialization practices. The ﬁndings also suggested that
an indirect relationship existed between this-worldly spiritual orientation and cautious-

defensive racial socialization practices. As predicted, nationalist racial identity attitudes

122

mediated the relationship between this-worldly spiritual orientation and cautious-

defensive racial socialization practices.

Figure 12: Cautious-Defensive Modiﬁed Model 2a

Covariates

 

Education

 

.06

 

Nationalist

 

 

 

 

Interracial
Contact

 

 

 

Chi-square = 4.57

df = 3
p=.21

   

Racial Identity

 

 

 

/

 

 

This-Worldly
Other-Worldly

 

 

AGFI = .96 TLI = .94 RMSEA=.05

.46

 

 

Cautious-
Defensive

 

 

Spiritual Orientation and Individual-Universalistic Model 3. Hypotheses 6 to 6.c

 

and 7 to 7b were evaluated in Model 3 (refer to Figure 13). In this model, the

independent variables were this-worldly versus other-worldly spiritual orientation,

assimilationist racial identity attitudes, and humanist racial identity attitudes. The

dependent variable was individual-universalistic racial socialization practices. The

covariates were the same as in the other models (i.e., age, education and interracial

contact). In addition, it was hypothesized that racial identity attitudes (i.e., assimilationsit

and humanist) were mediators between this-worldly versus other-worldly spiritual

orientation and individual-universalistic racial socialization practices. The chi-square is

signiﬁcant (X2 = 99.68, df = 7, p < .00). As presented in Figure 14, the ﬁt indices were

123

AGF I = .60, TLI = -.90, and RMSEA =.25. Since the acceptable level for TLI and

RMSEA are indices close to .95 and p < .08, the model suggested a poor model of ﬁt.

Figure 13: Spiritual Orientation and Individualistic-Universalistic Model 3

Covariates

 

Age

6b

 

4

 

 

 

Education

 

Assimilationist

 

 

/

 

/

 

 

 

Interracial
Contact

 

 

 

 

This-Worldly

 

Individualistic—

 

Other-Worldly

 

 

\-

 

N

Universalistic

 

 

 

Racial Identity \
- 6c
Humanist

Racial Identity

 

7b

/

* The plus or minus denotes the direction of the hypotheses and the number indicates the hypotheses.

Figure 14: Spiritual Orientation and Individualistic-Universalistic Model 3

Covariates

 

Age

 

Assimilationist

 

 

 

Education

 

 

 

 

Interracial
Contact

 

 

 

    

Chi-square = 98.67

df = 7
p=.00

 

 

This-Worldly

Racial Identity

 

 

 

-.l2

\

 

 

Other-Worldly

 

 

AGFI = .60

 

Individualistic-
Universalistic

 

 

-.20
. 6
Humanist

Racial Identity

 

 

 

124

/

TLI = -.90 RMSEA=.25

 

Individualistic-Universalistic Modiﬁed Model 3a. The non-signiﬁcant paths were

 

deleted from the original model (refer Figure 15). The modiﬁed model indicated an
excellent ﬁt of the data. The chi-square test (X2 = .68, df = 3, p < .88) was non-
signiﬁcant. Figure 15 displays the ﬁt indices for model 3a and they are AGFI = .99, TLI
= 1.17, and RMSEA = .00. The results supported Hypotheses 7 to 7.a which found that
this-worldly versus other-worldly spiritual orientation was negatively related to humanist
racial identity attitudes (B = -.20, p < .05). Parents who viewed their church as this-
worldly versus other-worldly were less likely to endorse humanist racial identity
attitudes. This-worldly versus other-worldly spiritual orientation was negatively related
to individualistic-universalistic racial socialization practices (B = -.12, p < .05).
Humanist racial identity attitudes were positively related to individualistic-universalistic
socialization practices (B = .20, p < .05). Parents who perceived their church as having a
this-worldly spiritual orientation were less likely to endorse humanist racial identity
attitudes. The results suggested also that parents who endorsed humanist racial identity
attitudes were more likely to use individualistic-universalistic racial socialization
practices. The ﬁndings also found that an indirect relationship existed between this-
worldly spiritual orientation and individualistic-universalistic racial socialization
practices. This indicated that humanist racial identity attitudes mediated the relationship
between this-worldly spiritual orientation and individualistic-universalistic racial
socialization practices. Also, education was signiﬁcantly and positively related to both
this-worldly versus other-worldly spiritual orientation (B = .12, p < .05). Conversely,

education was signiﬁcantly and negatively related to humanist racial identity attitudes (B

125

= .06, p < .05). This suggests that parents with higher levels of education were less likely

to endorse humanist racial identity attitudes.

Figure 15: Individualistic-Universalistic Modiﬁed Model 3a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

. - -. 12
Covariates Thls-Worldly Individualistic-
. l2 Other-Worldly Universalistic
Education -.20
.20
Humanist

Racial Identity

 

 

 

Chi-square = .68 AGFI = .99 TLI = 1.17 RMSEA=.00
df= 3
p=.88

Faith-Based Orientation and Integrative-Assertive Model 4. The model in Figure
16 illustrates the relationships for hypotheses 8 to 8c and 9 to 9b. This model examined
whether integrative-assertive racial socialization practices, the dependent variable is
related to nationalist racial identity attitudes, oppressed minority racial identity attitudes,
and communal versus privatistic faith-based orientations. This model also included three

covariates (i.e., education, age, and interracial contact).

126

Figure 16: Faith-Based Orientation and Integrative—Assertive Model 4

8b
Covariates

 

 

 

% Nationalist

Age \ 28' Racial Identity + 8a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Education Communal- + 80 Individualistic-
Privatistic ' Universalistic
Interracial \9 + 9a
Contact ‘
Oppressed
\‘A Minority
Racial Identity
9b

*The plus or minus denotes the direction of the hypotheses and the number indicates the hypotheses.

As illustrated in Figure 17, the hypotheses (i.e., 8 to 9b) were not supported in
this model. The X2 for this model was signiﬁcant (X2: 17.72, df = 7, p < .01). The
model ﬁt indices were respectively AGFI = .90, TLI = .67, and RMSEA = .09. The
results of the ﬁt indices suggested a model that was remarkably close to ﬁtting the data
examining AGFI and RMSEA. However, the TLI indicates a poor model of ﬁt for the

sample data.

127

 

 

Figure 17: Faith-Based Orientation and Integrative—Assertive Model 5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

Covariates / Oppressed
" 12 Minority
Age Racial Identity
-. 12
Education '19 Communal- .I 3 Integrative-
' 10 Privatistic Assertive

Interracial \\

Contact J .50

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nationalist
Racial Identity

Chi-square = 17.72 AGFI = .04 TLI = .67 RMSEA=.09
df =7
p=.01

Communal versus privatistic faith-based orientation had a signiﬁcant direct effect
on integrative-assertive racial socialization practices (B = .13, p < .05). In addition, the
path coefﬁcient (B = .50, p < .05) indicated a signiﬁcant and direct relationship between
communal versus privatistic faith-based orientation and nationalist racial identity
attitudes. Faith-based orientation was not a signiﬁcant predictor of nationalist and
oppressed racial identity attitudes.

Although this model is close to having acceptable ﬁt indices, several modiﬁed
models were examined; however the modiﬁcations to the model did not improve the TLI.
Neither the addition of the covariances to the model nor the deletion of non-signiﬁcant
paths improved the model. In the ﬁnal model the TLI improved slightly from .67 to .76.
The lack of improvement in the model suggests a poor ﬁt of the sample data. Therefore,

neither the proposed model nor the modiﬁed models support the hypotheses.

128

 

 

As a covariate, education has a positive and direct effect on nationalist racial
identity attitudes (B = .10, p < .05). Education also has a positive and direct effect on
communal versus faith-based orientation (B = .19, p < .05). Interracial contact has a
direct negative effect on nationalist racial identity attitudes (B = -.17, p < .05) and
oppressed minority racial identity attitudes (B = -.12, p < .05). Parents who reported
higher levels of interracial contact were less likely to endorse nationalist racial identity
attitudes. Similar to nationalist parents, parents who reported higher levels of interracial
contact were less likely to endorse oppressed minority racial identity attitudes. Age was
signiﬁcantly and negatively related to oppressed minority attitudes (B = -.12, p < .05).

Faith-Based Orientation and Cautious-Defensive Model 5. Figure 18 depicts the

 

proposed relationships in this model (i.e., hypotheses 10-10.c). The dependent variable
in model ﬁve is cautious—defensive racial socialization practices. In this analysis, the
predictor variables are communal versus privatistic faith-based orientation and nationalist
racial identity attitudes. Similar to the other models, age, education and interracial
contact were covariates. It was hypothesized that communal versus privatistic faith-
based orientation would have a direct effect on nationalist racial identity attitudes and
cautious-defensive child-rearing strategies. The goodness-of-ﬁt criterion was signiﬁcant
(X2: 13.19, df = 6, p < .04) and indicated that the data did not support the model (refer to
Figure 19). The other ﬁt indices also suggested a poor model (i.e., AGFI = .93, TLI =

.75, RMSEA = .08).

129

Figure 18 : F aith-Based Orientation and Cautious-Defensive Model 5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Covariates 10b
Nationalist
Age Racial Identity + 10a
\\ + 10*
Education Communal- + 10c Cautious-
Privatistic ‘ Defensrve
Interracial /
Contact

 

 

*The plus or minus denotes the direction of the hypotheses and the number indicates the hypotheses.

Figure 19: Faith-Based Orientation and Cautious-Defensiv Model 5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Covariates
/! Nationalist
Age ' Racial Identity .45
.10
Education .19 // Communal- Cautious-
-. I 7 Privatistic Defensrve
Interracial /
Contact

 

 

 

Chi-square = 13.19 AGFI = .93 TLI = .75 RMSEA=.08
df = 6
p = .04
Cautious-Defensive Modiﬁed Model 5a. After modifying the proposed model,
the modiﬁed model produced the appropriate ﬁt indices to support the overall model

(refer to Figure 20). However, after examining the signiﬁcant paths in the model, only

hypothesis 10a was supported. Consistent with the previous models investigating

130

 

 

 

 

 

 

cautious-defensive racial socialization practices, parents who endorse nationalist attitudes
were more likely to utilize cautious-defensive child-rearing strategies (B = .45, p < .05).
Parental education was positively associated with communal versus privatistic faith-
based orientation (B = .19, p < .05) and education was also positively associated with
nationalist racial identity attitudes (B = .10, p < .05). The ﬁndings revealed that more
interracial contact with Whites was negatively associated with nationalist racial identity

attitudes (B = -.17, p < .05).

Figure 20: Faith-Based Orientation and Cautious-Defensive Modiﬁed Model 5a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Covariates
Nationalist
Age Racial Identity .45
Education .19 / Communal- Cautious-
-. l 7 Privatistic DefenSIVC
Interracial
Contact

 

 

Chi-square = 3.79 AGFI = .96 TLI = .94 RMSEA=.04
df = 3
p = .28

Faith-Based Orientation and Individualistic-Universalistic Model 6. Figure 21

 

presents the relationships for hypotheses 11 to 11.c and 12 to 12.b. In this analysis, the
goodness-of-ﬁt criterion was signiﬁcant (X2: 108.62, df = 7, p < .00) and therefore, the
data did not support the mediating model (i.e., AGFI = .57, TLI = -1.08, RMSEA = .26).
Speciﬁcally, the indirect effect of c ommunal and privatistic faith-based orientation on

individualistic-universalistic racial socialization practices is determined by racial identity

131

 

attitudes (i.e., assimilationist and humanist). When examining the path coefﬁcients, as

hypothesized, communal and privatistic faith-based orientation had a direct effect on

assimilationist racial identity (B = -.12, p < .05) and humanist racial identity attitudes had

a direct effect on individualistic-universalistic racial socialization practices (B = .23, p <

.05). The ﬁndings suggest that humanist racial identity attitudes explained the

relationship between communal versus faith-based orientation and individualistic-

universalistic racial socialization practices. Lastly, parents who endorsed humanist racial

identity attitudes were positively related to individualistic-universalistic racial

socialization practices. Figure 22 summarizes the results of model 6.

Figure 21: F aith-Based Orientation and Individualistic-Universalistic Model 6

Covariates

 

Age

11b

 

/ Assimilationist

 

 

 

Education

Racial Identity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

Communal-
Privatistic

+Ila

 

Individualistic-

 

 

 

 

Interracial
Contact

 

 

 

 

 

Humanist
Racial Identity

 

 

12b

Universalistic

 

 

 

+12

*The plus or minus denotes the direction of the hypotheses and the number indicates the hypotheses.

132

 

 

Figure 22: Faith-Based Orientation and Individualistic-Universalistic Model 6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Covariates
/' Assimilationist
Age Racial Identity
-.16 /
Education ' Communal- Individualistic-
Privatistic Universalistic
Interracial 23
Contact
Humanist

 

 

 

Racial Identity

 

 

 

Chi-square = 108.62 AGFI = .57 TLI = -1.08 RMSEA=.26
df = 7
p=.00

Individualistic-Universalistic Modiﬁed Model 6a. The non-signiﬁcant paths were

 

deleted from the original model and the covariances were added. As hypothesized (i.e.,
11-1 1c), parents who perceive their church as having a communal versus privatistic faith-
based orientation were less likely to endorse assimilationist attitudes (B = -.12, p < .05).
This ﬁnding supports a mediating relationship between church orientation and racial
socialization practices. Speciﬁcally, via parents assimilationist racial identity attitudes,
the relationship between communal versus faith-based orientation and individualistic-
universalistic racial socialization practices exist. In addition, parents who endorsed
assimilationist racial identity attitudes were positively associated with individualistic-
universalistic racial socialization practices exist (B = -.14, p < .05). Parental education
was positively associated with communal versus privatistic faith-based orientation (B =

.19, p < .05). Parents with a high level education were more likely to perceive their

133

church as communal versus privatistic faith-based orientation. Figure 23 summarizes the

results of model 6a.

Figure 23: Individualistic—Universalistic Modiﬁed Model 6a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Covariates
Assimilationist .14
Education / Racial Identity
. 19 _. 1 2
Communal- Individualistic-
Privatistic Universalistic
Interracial
Contact

 

 

 

Chi-square = 3.30 AGFI = .97 TLI = .97 RMSEA=.O2
df = 3
p = .34

Individualistic-Universalistic Modiﬁed Model 6b. Figure 24 presents the ﬁt

 

indices for the modiﬁed model. This model produced the appropriate criteria to support
the overall model (AGFI = .99, TLI = 1.23, RMSEA = .00). Although several paths were
signiﬁcant, only hypothesis 10b was supported. Similar to previous Humanist models,
parents who endorse those types of racial identity attitudes were more likely to use
individualistic-universalistic racial socialization practices (B = .23, p < .05). Again,
parental education was positively associated with communal versus privatistic faith-based
orientation (B = .19, p < .05). On the other hand, parental education was negatively
associated with humanist racial identity attitudes (B = -.O9, p_ < .05). Thus, parental

education was positively associated with communal faith-based orientation andnegatively

134

 

 

related to humanist racial identity attitudes. . Parents with a high level education were

less likely to endorse humanist racial identity attitudes.

Figure 24: Individualistic-Universalistic Modiﬁed Model 6b

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Covariates
-.08 Humanist .23
Education 19 Racial Identity
Communal- Individualistic-
Privatistic Universalistic
Interracial
Contact

 

 

 

Chi-square = .37 AGFI = .99 TLI = 1.23 RMSEA=.00
df = 3
p = .94

Study Two

The mean, the zero-order correlations, and standard deviations of the variables in
Study Two are presented in Table 19.

Hierarchical Regression Analyses

 

Hierarchical regression analyses were used to assess the relationships in Study
Two. The predictor variables were entered in the model as follows: 1) adolescents’
perceptions of church orientations (i.e., spiritual and faith-based); 2) parents’ perceptions
of racial socialization practices; and 3) adolescents’ perceptions of their parents’ racial
socialization practices. The outcome variable was racial/ethnic identity. An example of
the regression equation to assess these relationships is Ethnic Identity Achievement = b0

+ b1(Interracial Contact-Out of School)+ b2 (adolescents’ perceptions of this-worldly

135

t.-
a...

2 .-
me.-
Q .
No.

no.-
mo.-
2 .-
2 .-
8..

mm.

9.-
3.
mla.
“a”
NNII
2.

mo.
5.

wﬁ .-
mo.-
mm.
Wn
Wal-

we.
2.

mm.

D.-

E .
NINA
co.-
m _ .
wﬂ
8.-

min.
mm.

mo. 3 .-
8. mo.
3.- ON.
2. ﬂ
mo. 0 _ .-
Br Mm.-
vlﬂl- wﬂ
8.. co.
2 .- mINI.
S.- alvu
wor Ntvu
mm. mﬂ

3w.

N _

on.
on.—

3

cm.
Om.
50.
mm.
>0.
mm.
mm.
mm.
No.

mm.

Om

M: .N
8.3
2 :0
8N
om.—
mN.m
mod
9 .m
5N
mud
QWN
2mm
2 .m

620m .5 3.38 3855
a?

0292

SEE .eaaazé bag EB
:52 0:083 an 8E5?
BEES 98> 5an5 §a§<
saga 98> €83§8 208.5%
02593-05355 a8§8<
2003035 eaa_8<
905395003 §a_8<
Ema-3.08.5 FE
22595-033633 ES
90039;: FE

BEE-:3

 

9,3- 303% Sm 32:20:00 0020-80N was moumuﬁm 0303.889 .9 030%

136

Gummy-NV mo. V a EmoEcwﬁ 9.232%: ~on 0225?: 2C-
625.8 5. V m “smog-Mama E8292 :8“ 2:595 was Eon 2? ”Bo Z

 

E. we. m? 2. 8 2.- 323 we “so-39:5 EQSEE
mo. 8.- 8 we; ow<

E. wﬂn ﬂan an. 0352
3 ﬁ- wﬂ Em: éoegozé 3:53 25am

3 2.. EEE aawcosm Ea Suﬁ-5E2

Nb. 12:52:00 msm5> bESBLmE-r E08235-

osmSNZE m3m5> 3283-550 Eoom20u<
ocmzmmE>E35:23:239: 283—03».

ozmcﬂoﬂésosgo E08206<

o>t$mm<é>$§woé Eoomﬂon<

ozmcﬂoﬂésocsmu Entan—

osﬂﬁmBZ:D-o§:m:3>€£ 255m

o>mtomm<é>$§w35 Evan

2 S : S o w 33%;

93- %Em How mcouﬂoboo EEO-OHQN Ea moumuﬁm oZEEQmoQ .3 Boa-H .300

137

 

 

orientation) + b3 (parents’ perceptions of integrative-assertive racial socialization
practices) + b4(adolescents’ perceptions of integrative-assertive racial socialization
practices) + e.

Out-of school interracial contact was selected as a covariate because it correlated
signiﬁcantly with several of the targeted variables in this study. Furthermore, the
research has found that interracial contact was associated with racial identity among
African Americans. Out-of school interracial contact is entered as the ﬁrst step in all of
the regression models in Study Two. Table 20 presents the zero—order correlations of
interracial contact and the variables in this study.

Ethnic Identity Achievement: Model 1 This-worldly Spiritual Orientation and

 

Integrative—Assertive Racial Socialization Practices. Figure 25 summarizes the results of

 

the ethnic identity achievement model 1 (Refer to Hypotheses 13-13.b). In the ﬁrst
hierarchical regression model, the dependent variable was ethnic identity achievement
and out of school interracial contact, a covariate, was entered in the ﬁrst step (Refer to
Table 24 in Appendix R). This bivariate regression analysis produced a result
approaching signiﬁcance F(1, 129) = 3.07, p < .08. This-worldly spiritual orientation
was entered in the second step. Out of school interracial contact accounts for 2% of the
variance in ethnic identity achievement and this-worldly spiritual orientation F(1, 128) =
25.35, p < .00) accounts for an additional 16%, that is over and beyond what is accounted
for by out-of school interracial contact. The next independent variable entered in the
model was parents who reported they used integrative-assertive racial socialization
practices. The inclusion of this variable only contributed an additional 2% of the

variance and produced a ﬁnding approaching

138

90:00-8 S. V 0 800%:me 0:000:00: 08: 03:00:: 0:0 0:00 0:0 ”08 Z

 

:0-
m0.0
3.0-

8008 00 SO 83:00 0:00:25

:0
C -
2.0
00.0
3 .0-

N. -
00.0-
00.0-
:0-
2.0-
00.0
2.0-

8880 00800.80:— 20:30

3.0
mwd

m0.0
m _ .0-
00.0
N00-
20-
2.0-
3.0-
m0.0
m0.0
00.0-
00.0
m0.0-

_00~_0m 83:00 0:00:82

Bosom 00 80 88:00 300:8:—
88:00 0:00:85 :08>O
800% 88:00 0:00:85

owm 0:0000_00<

€802 585:3 302$

::080>0Eo< @053 08:5

9800— w:_w:0_0m 0:0 :000::E<
05002:: 0:: b0003-850 80820040V
00:08:80 0:: 5283-02:- $58203:
0:mzmm:o>_:D-0um=ms0_Z05 0:00m0_00<
0330009300200 ::0om_000<
0>Eomm<0>cﬁw8£ 8800—000.
0320009080000 “:80:
05:00:?83-000200305 0:80A—
0>Eomm< 0322305 0:80:

 

03H >035 E $30E0> 8 .022 0:0 83:00 00800805 80 08:06:80 80:0 0:0N .0m 0300

139

 

 

 

signiﬁcance F(1, 127) = 2.92, p < .09). In step three, this-worldly orientation remained
signiﬁcant and the regression coefﬁenct was reduced from the previous block (0 = -.4 l , p
=.00, B = -.35, p =00). The ﬁnal variable entered was adolescents’ perceptions of their
parents’ racial socialization practices. This step was signiﬁcantly different from zero (R2
= .14, F(1, 126) = 26.05, p < .00). The overall model accounts for 34% of the variance in
this model. The signiﬁcant regression coefﬁencts were in the opposite direction of the
hypotheses. The results suggested adolescents who perceive their church as having a
this-worldly orientation, whose parents reported using integrative-assertive racial
socialization practices, and who perceived their parents as using integrative-assertive
racial socialization practices were less likely to have high level levels of ethnic identity

achievement attitudes.

Figure 25: Integrative- Assertive Racial Socialization Practices

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Block 1
R2 = .02 Out of School-1C _15
Block 2 Out of School-1C 08
.07

Out Of SChOOl-IC * Ethnic Identity Achievement
Block 3
R2 = .02 This-Worldly

Integrative-Assertive (P)
Block 4 Out of School-[C

 

R2 = .14 This-Worldly

 

 

 

Integrative-Assertive (P)

 

Overall
R2 = .34 Integrative-Assertive (A)

 

 

 

 

140

Ethnic Identity Achievement: Model 2 This-worldly Spiritual Orientation and

Cautious—Defensive Racial Socialization Practices. In the second regression model,
parents’ perceptions of their cautious-defensive racial socialization practices and
adolescents’ perceptions of their parents’ cautious-defensive racial socialization were
included in the model (Refer to Hypotheses 14-14.b). The dependent variable, ethnic
identity achievement and the other independent variables (i.e., out-of—school interracial

contact and this-worldly spiritual orientation) were the same as in the ﬁrst regression

Ji<

model (Refer to Table 24.1 in Appendix R). Out of school interracial contact, the ﬁrst i
step, was not a signiﬁcant predictor of ethnic identity achievement (F 1, 130 = 2.96, p <
.09). This—worldly orientation accounted for 16% of the variance in step two and was a
signiﬁcant predictor of ethic identity achievement ([3 = -.43, p < .00, F 1, 129 = 25.41, p <
.00). The next variable included in the model was parents reporting of their cautious-
defensive racial socialization practices. The addition of this variable accounted for 4% of l
the variance and was also a signiﬁcant predictor of ethic identity achievement ([3 = -.20, p
< .02, F1,128 = 6.01, p < .02).
The fourth variable entered was adolescents’ perceptions of the degree to which
their parents utilized cautious-defensive socialization practices. In predicting ethnic
identity achievement, adolescents who perceived their parents’ as using cautious-
defensive practices resulted in an association signiﬁcantly different from zero (R2 = 3,
F(1, 127) = 5.63, p < .02). This model accounted for 25% of the variance.
In the fourth step, adolescents’ who perceived their church as this—worldly

orientation were less likely to have an achieved ethnic identity and their perceptions of

141

spiritual orientation were a signiﬁcant predictor (B = -.37, p < .00, F 1, 127 = 5.63, p <
.02). These ﬁndings also indicated that adolescents who perceive their parents using
cautious-defensive racial socialization practices were less likely to have an achieved
ethnic identity (0 = -.20, p < .02). In step four, parents’ perceptions of their cautious-
defensive racial socialization practices were no longer a signiﬁcant predictor of ethnic
identity achievement ([3 = -.l3, 9 < .13). This relationship was a signiﬁcant predictor in
step three ([3 = -.20, p < .02). These ﬁndings were in an unexpected hypothesized
direction. Overall, the results in the ﬁnal step indicated that adolescents who perceive
their church as having a this-worldly orientation, and who perceived their parents as
using cautious-defensive racial socialization practices were less likely to have high level

levels of achieved ethnic identity attitudes. Figure 26 depicts the relationships in model

2.

142

 

 

Block 1
R2 = .02

Block 2

R2=.l6

Block 3
R2 = .04

Block 4
R2 = .03

Overall
R2 = .25

Figure 26: Cautious - Defensive Racial Socialization Practices

 

Out of School-1C

 

 

Out of School-1C

 

 

 

This-Worldly

 

 

 

Out of School-1C

 

 

 

 

 

This-Worldly

 

 

Cautious -Defensive (P)

 

 

 

 

Out of School-1C

 

 

This-Worldly

 

 

Cautious -Defensive (P)

 

 

 

Cautious -Defensive (A)

 

 

-.38**

\

 

7 Ethnic Identity Achievement

 

 

p<.05*
p<.01**

Ethnic Identity Achievement: Model 3 Other-worldly Spiritual Orientation and

 

Individualistic-Universalistic Racial Socialization Practices. The third regression model

 

also examined ethnic identity achievement as an outcome variable (Refer to Hypotheses

15-15.b). The independent variables were out-of school interracial contact, other-worldly

spiritual orientation, and perceptions of individualistic-universalistic socialization

practices by parents and their adolescents (Refer to Figure 27). The variables were

entered the same as the previous models. Steps one through three were not signiﬁcantly

related to ethnic identity achievement. The fourth step, adolescents’ perceptions of their

parents’ individualistic-universalistic socialization practices, was signiﬁcantly related to

ethnic identity achievement ([3 = -.19, p < .03, F l, 127: 4.55, p < .03). This result

suggested that adolescents who perceived their parents as using individualistic-

143

 

universalistic racial socialization practices were less likely to have an achieved ethnic
identity. The other variables were not signiﬁcant predictors of ethnic achievement

identity attitudes (Refer to Table 24.2 in Appendix R).

Figure 27: Individualistic-Universalistic Racial Socialization Practices (lURS)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BIOCk 1 I Out of School-1C
R2 = .02
I Out of School-1C
Block 2
R2 = .01 I Other-Worldly
I Out of School-1C
Block 3

 

 

 

R2 = _01 I Other-Worldly

 

 

I IURS (P)

 

 

Block 4 l OUt 0f School—1C

 

 

R2 = -03 I Other-Worldly

 

 

Overall I IURS (P)
R2 = .07

 

 

 

I IURS (A)

 

Ethnic Identity Achievement: Model 4 Other-worldly Spiritual Orientation and

 

Cautious-Defensive Racial Socialization Practices. The fourth regression model also

 

examined ethnic identity achievement as an outcome variable (Refer to Hypotheses l6-
16.b). The independent variables were out-of school interracial contact, other-worldly
spiritual orientation, and perceptions of cautious-defensive racial socialization practices
by parents and their adolescents. In step one (Refer to Figure 28) interracial contact was
approaching signiﬁcance as a predictor of ethnic identity achievement (0 = .15, p < .09, F
1, l30= 2.96, p < .09). The independent variables in step two were not signiﬁcant
predictors of the dependent variable (Refer to Table 24.3 in Appendix R). In step three,

parents’ perceptions of cautious-defensive racial socialization practices were a signiﬁcant

144

and negative predictor of ethnic identity achievement ([3 = -.25, p < .00, F 1, 128: 8.32, p
< .00). The results indicated that parents who used cautious-defensive racial socialization
practices were less likely to have adolescents with an achieved identity.

Out-of school interracial contact in step four remained a non-signiﬁcant predictor
of ethnic identity achievement (0 = .08, p < .34). Contrary to the proposed hypothesis,
other-worldly spiritual orientation was not signiﬁcantly related to ethnic identity
achievement ([5 = .04, p < .63). Also, parents who reported using cautious-defensive
child-rearing strategies were not a signiﬁcant predictor of their adolescents achieved
ethnic identity ([3 = -.17, p < .06). The relationship is approaching signiﬁcance.
However, adolescents who perceived their parents as employing cautious-defensive
cautious-defensive racial socialization strategies were negatively associated with ethnic
identity achievement ([3 = -.22, p < .02, F 1, 127 = 5.96, p < .02). Adolescents who
perceive their parents as having cautious-defensive racial socializations practices will less

likely have high scores on ethnic identity achievement.

145

Figure 28: Cautious-Defensive Racial Socialization Practices

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Block 1 I Out of School-1C
R2 = .02
I Out of School-1C
Block 2
R2 = .01 I Other-Worldly
l \-
Block 3 L Out Of SChOOl'IC l 05 :I Ethnic Identity Achievement

 

R2 = .06 I Other-Worldly

 

 

I Cautious-Defensive

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Block 4 I Out of School-1C
R2 = .04

I Other-Worldly
Overall I Cautious-Defensive (P)
R2 = .13

 

 

I Cautious-Defensive (A)

 

Ethnic Identity Achievement: Model 5 Communal F aith-Based Orientation and

 

Integrative-Assertive Racial Socialization Practices. Another model regressed ethnic

 

identity achievement on out-of-school interracial contact, communal faith-based
orientation, and perceptions of integrative-assertive socialization practices by parents and
their adolescents (See Table 24.4 in Appendix R). The ﬁrst step, out of school interracial
contact, was entered and this bivariate regression analysis produced a non-signiﬁcant
result ([3 = .15, p < .08, F ( l, 129) = 3.07, p < .08). Communal faith-based orientation
was entered in the second step and accounted for 5% variance (0 = -.22, p < .01, F 1,
128: 6.42, p_ < .01).

The next independent variable entered in the model concerned parents who
reported they used integrative-assertive racial socialization practices. The inclusion of
this variable accounted for additional 6% of the variance that is over and beyond what is

accounted for by communal faith-based orientation (R2 = .13). Adolescents who viewed

146

their church as having a communal faith-based orientation were no longer a signiﬁcant
predictor of their ethnic identity achievement identity ([3 = -.17, p < .06). This
relationship is approaching signiﬁcance.

Step four, parents who reported having integrative-assertive child-rearing
strategies failed to remain a signiﬁcant predictor of their adolescents’ ethnic achievement
identity ([3 = -.02, p < .82). Also, adolescents’ perceptions of their parents’ integrative-
assertive racial socialization practices, were signiﬁcantly different from zero ([3 = -.53, p
< .00, F 1, 126) = 40.18, p < .00) and twenty-one percent of the variance was accounted
for by including this variable. Consistent with step three, the relationship between
communal faith-based orientation and ethnic achievement identity was approaching
signiﬁcance ([5 = -. 14, p < .07).

Overall, these ﬁndings were the opposite of the proposed hypotheses for model
ﬁve. In step two, the results indicated that adolescents who perceive their church as
having a communal faith-based orientation were negatively associated with ethnic
identity achievement. Both adolescents who perceive their church as having a communal
faith-based. orientation (i.e., step two) and parents’ perceptions of their integrative-
assertive racial socialization practices were also negatively associated with ethnic identity
achievement (i.e., step three). In the fourth step, the result suggested that adolescents
who perceived their parents as having integrative-assertive racial socialization practices
were a signiﬁcant predictor of their achieved ethnic identity while their parents who
utilized integrative-assertive socialization practices were not a signiﬁcant predictor of the

dependent variable. Figure 29 displays the relationships in this model.

147

Figure 29: lntegrative- Assertive Racial Socialization Practices

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Block 1
R2 = 02 I Out Of SChOOl'lC 15
Block 2 I Out of School-1C 10
R2 2 ~05 I Communal

I Out of School-1C
Block 3
R7- : .06 I Communal

    

 

 

I Integrative-Assertive (P)

 

 

Block 4 I Out of School-lC
R2 = .21

 

 

I This-Worldly

 

 

Overall I Integrative-Assertive (P)
R2 = .34

 

I lnteﬂative-Assertive (A)

 

Ethnic Identity Achievement: Model 6 Communal F aith-Based Orientation and
Cautious-Defensive Racial Socialization Practices. Consistent with the previous models,
out of school interracial contact, was entered as step one and this bivariate regression
analysis produced a non-signiﬁcant result (Refer to Hypotheses 18-18.b). Communal
faith-based orientation was negatively related to ethnic identity achievement ([3 = -.23, p
< .01, F 1, 129 = 6.79, p_ < .01) and accounted for ﬁve percent of the variance in step two.
Parents who reported they utilize cautious-defensive racial socialization practices
signiﬁcantly accounted for an additional 6% of the variance in step three ([3 = -.26, p <
.00, F 1, 128 = 9.42, p < .00). Adolescents who perceived their church as having a
communal faith-based orientation remained a negative signiﬁcant predictor of the
dependent variable (Refer to Table 24.5 in Appendix R)

The ﬁnal block, adolescents’ perceptions of their parents’ cautious-defensive

racial socialization practices, resulted in an increase of 4% of the variance related to

148

ethnic identity achievement ([3 = -.22, p < .01, F 1, 127 = 6.23, p < .01). In addition,
parents who reported using cautious-defensive child-rearing strategies ([3 = -. l 8, p < .05)
and adolescents who perceived their church as communal orientation ([3 = -.22, p < .01)
were negatively related to achieved ethnic identity.

In summary, these ﬁndings suggested that adolescents’ perceptions of their
church were less likely to assist in their identity development (i.e., reporting high levels
of ethnic identity achievement). Parents who perceived their socialization practices as
cautious-defensive were less likely to have an adolescent with an achieved identity.
These results also indicated a similar ﬁnding regarding adolescents’ perceptions of their
parent racial child-rearing strategies. Adolescents who viewed their parents as instilling
cautious-defensive racial socialization practices were less likely to have an achieved

identity. Figure 30 depicts the relationships in this model.

Figure 30: Cautious-Defensive Racial Socialization Practices

 

 

 

 

 

 

     
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BIOCk 1 I Out of School-1C
R2 = .02

I Out of School-1C
Block 2
R2 = -05 I Communal

I l .06

Out of School-lC I 0' . . .

Block 3 _ '23“ :I Ethnic Identity Achievement
R2 = .06 I Communal V

I Cautious-Defensive (P)

.03
Block 4 I Out of School-1C
2 =

R '04 I Communal
Overall I Cautious-Defensive (P)
R2 = .18

 

I Cautious-Defensive (A)

 

149

 

 

Ethnic Identity Achievement: Model 7 Privatistic Faith-Based Orientation and

 

Individualistic-Universalistic Racial Socialization Practices. The seventh model assessed

 

ethnic identity achievement regressed upon out-of—school interracial contact, adolescents’
perceptions of privatistic church orientation, and perceptions of individualistic-
universalistic socialization practices by parents and their adolescents (Refer to Figure 31).
Hypotheses 19 to l9.b are represented by model 7 (See Table 24.6 in Appendix R). Out
of school interracial contact was approaching signiﬁcance when entered as step one ([3 =
.15, p < .09, F 1, 130 = 2.96, p < .09). The independent variables entered in step two and
three were not signiﬁcant predictors of dependent variable (i.e., ethnic identity
achievement).

In this model, the ﬁnal step, adolescents’ perceptions of their parents
individualistic—universalistic racial socialization practices, was a signiﬁcant predictor and
negatively related to ethnic identity achievement (R2 = .03, B = -.17, p < .05, F 1, 127 =
3.82, p < .05). Adolescents who perceived their parents using individualistic-
universalistic racial child-rearing strategies were less likely to have an achieved identity.
The only signiﬁcant predictor of ethnic identity achievement was adolescents’

perceptions of their parents’ racial child rearing practices.

150

 

Figure 31: Individualistic-Universalistic Racial Socialization Practices (IURS)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BIOCk 1 I Out of School-1C
R2 = .02

I Out ofSchooI-IC
Block 2
R2 = .00 I Privatistic

I Out ofSchool-IC
Block 3
R2 = _()1 I Privatistic

I IURS (P)
BlOCk4 I Out ofSchooI-IC
R2 = .03

I Privatistic
Overall I IURS (P)
R2 = .07

I IURS (A)

 

 

Ethnic Identity Achievement: Model 8 Privatistic Faith-Based Orientation and

 

Cautious—Defensive Racial Socialization Practices. Similar to model 7, out of school

 

interracial contact was approaching signiﬁcance when entered as step one ([3 = .15, p <
.09, F 1, 130 = 2.96, p < .09). Hypotheses 20 to 20.b were evaluated in this model 7 (See
Table 24.7 in Appendix R). The results of the eighth regression model found that
adolescents’ perceptions of privatistic faith-based orientation were not a signiﬁcant
predictor of ethnic identity achievement (B = -.00, p < .93, F 1, 129 = .00, p < .93). The
addition of parents’ perceptions of their cautious-defensive racial socialization practices
accounted for 6% of the variance in ethnic identity achievement ([3 = -.26, p < .00, F 1,
128: 8.94, p < .00). In the ﬁnal step (Refer to Figure 32), parents who reported
imparting cautious-defensive racial socialization practices remained a negative and
signiﬁcant predictor of their adolescents’ achieved ethnic identity (B = —.18, p < .05).

Furthermore, adolescents’ perceptions of their parents’ cautious-defensive racial

151

socialization practices accounted for an additional 4 percent of the variance in ethnic
identity achievement ([3 = -.22, p < .01, F 1, 127 = 6.19, p < .01). Parents who reported
imparting cautious-defensive child-rearing strategies were less likely to have adolescents
with an achieved identity. This ﬁnding was also consistent with adolescents who
perceived their parents using cautious-defensive racial socialization practices. These

adolescents were less likely to report scoring high levels of ethnic identity achievement

Figure 32: Cautious-Defensive Racial Socialization Practices

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BIOCk 1 I Out of School-1C
R2 = .02

I Out of School-1C
Block 2
R2 = .00 I Privatistic

I Out of School-1C

Block 3
R2 = .06 I Privatistic

 

 

I Cautious-Defensive(P)

 

BlOCk 4 I Out of School-1C
R2 = .04

 

 

I Privatistic

 

 

Overall I Cautious-Defensive (P)
R2 = .13

 

 

 

I Cautious-Defensive(A)

 

Afﬁrming and Belonging Ethnic Identity: Model 9 This-worldly Spiritual
Orientation and Integrative-Assertive Racial Socialization Practices. Afﬁrming and
belonging ethnic identity is the dependent variable for models 9 thru 16 (Refer to Table
24.8 in Appendix R). Hypotheses 21-21.b examined the relationships in this model. Out
of school interracial contact, a covariate was entered in the ﬁrst step (Refer to Figure 33).
This bivariate regression analysis produced a non-signiﬁcant result (F l, 129 = .38, p <

.54). This-worldly versus communal spiritual orientation was entered in the second step.

152

The addition of this-worldly versus communal spiritual orientation spiritual orientation to
the model accounts for 6% of the variance in afﬁrming and belonging ethnic identity ([3 =
-.25, p < .01, F(1, 128) = 7.94, p < .01). In step three, parents who reported they used
integrative-assertive racial socialization practices were not a signiﬁcant predictor of
afﬁrming and belonging ethnic identity. The next variable entered was adolescents’
perceptions of their parents’ racial socialization practices and resulted in a signiﬁcant
improvement of R2 (R2 = .14, F 1, 126 = 22.88, p < .00). Adolescents who perceived
their church as this-worldly versus communal spiritual orientation did not remain a
signiﬁcant predictor of afﬁrming and belonging identity in step four. The signiﬁcant
regression coefﬁcient at this step was in the opposite direction of the hypotheses and
suggested that adolescents’ perceptions of their parents’ socialization practices were
negatively associated with afﬁrming and belonging ethnic identity. In step two and three,
adolescents who perceived their churches as having a this-worldly orientation were less
likely to afﬁrm and belong to their racial group. Adolescents who viewed their parents as
instilling values consistent with integrative-assertive racial socialization practices were
less likely to afﬁrm and belong to their racial group. Overall, parents’ perceptions of
their racial socialization practices were not a signiﬁcant predictor of afﬁrming and

belonging in the model.

153

 

Figure 33: Integrative- Assertive Racial Socialization Practices

   

 

B] k 1

R20: .00 Out of School—1C

Block 2 Out of School-1C ,

R2 = .06 This-Worldly :25"

  
   

.00
OU’ 0f SChOOHC Afﬁrming and Belonging
R2 = _()0 This—Worldl -.06
Integrative-Assertive (P)

     
       

Block 4
R3 = '14 Out of School-lC

This-Worldly Q < _05 *
3:33:11 Interative-Asseitive (P) Q < '01 H

  
   

lnterative-Assertive (A)

Afﬁrming and Belonging Ethnic Identity: Model 10 This—worldly Spiritual

Orientation and Cautious-Defensive Racial Socialization Practices. In the tenth
regression model, Figure 34 illustrates the relationships for hypotheses 22 to 22b. The
dependent variable, afﬁrming and belonging ethnic identity, and the independent
variables (i.e., out-of-school interracial contact and this-worldly spiritual orientation)
were the same as in the ﬁrst regression model (Refer to Table 24.9 in Appendix R). Out
of school interracial contact, as a covariate, was not a signiﬁcant predictor of afﬁrming
and belonging ethnic identity. This-worldly orientation accounted for 6% of the variance
in step two ([3 = -.25, p < .00, F 1, 129= 8.08, p < .01). The third variable included in the
model was parents who reported they used cautious-defensive racial socialization
practices. The results indicated that the inclusion of this variable to the model was not a
signiﬁcant predictor of afﬁrming and belonging ethnic identity ([3 = -.02, p < .84, F l,

128 = .04, p < .84). The last variable added to the model concerned adolescents who

154

perceived their parents’ as utilizing cautious-defensive socialization practices. In
predicting afﬁrming and belonging ethnic identity, adolescents who perceived their
parents using cautious-defensive practices resulted in an association signiﬁcantly
different from zero ([3 = -.20, p < .04, F 1, 127 = 4.75, p < .03). Adolescents’ perceptions
of their church faith-based orientation in the ﬁnal step remained a signiﬁcant and
negative predictor of the outcome variable ([3 = -.23, p < .01). These ﬁndings suggest
that adolescents who viewed their parents as having cautious-defensive racial
socialization practices were less likely to endorse afﬁrming and belonging ethnic identity
attitudes. Moreover, the results indicate that adolescents who perceived their church

orientation as this-worldly were less likely to afﬁrm and belong to their racial group.

Figure 34: Cautious - Defensive Racial Socialization Practices

 

 

 

 

 

 

     
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BIOCk l I Out of School-1C
R2 = .00

I Out of School-1C
Block 2
R2 = ~06 I This-Worldly

I f h I .01

O t S l-IC >
Block 3 u 0 C 00 ’ 324” _IAfﬁrming and Belonging
R2 = .00 I This-Worldly W
-.02
I Cautious -Defensive (P)

 

-.02

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3100k 4 I Out of School-1C
R2 = .03
I This-Worldly
Overall I Cautious -Defensive (P)
R2 = .lO

 

I Cautious -Defensive (A)

 

Afﬁrming and Belonging Ethnic Identity: Model 11 Other-worldly Spiritual

 

Orientation and Individualistic-Universalistic Racial Socialization Practices. The

 

eleventh regression model also examined afﬁrming and belonging ethnic identity as an

155

outcome variable (Refer to Table 24. 10 in Appendix R). Figure 35 depicts the proposed
relationships in model 11 (i.e., hypotheses 23 to 23.b). The independent variables were
out-of school interracial contact, other-worldly spiritual orientation, and perceptions of
individualistic-universalistic socialization practices by parents and their adolescents. The
variables were entered the same as the previous models. None of the variables were

related to afﬁrming and belonging identity.

Figure 35: Individualistic-Universalistic Racial Socialization Practices (lURS)

 

 

 

 

 

 

     
    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BIOCk 1 I Out of School-IC
2 = .00

rOut of School-lC
Block 2
R2 = .00 I Other-Worldly

O t S -IC y ' '
Block3 U 0 c 00 l .00 “I Afﬁrming and Belonging I
R2 = .00 I Other-Worldly I//
.05
I IURS (P)

 

 

BlOCk 4 TON of School-1C
R2 = .02

 

 

I Other-Worldly

 

 

Overall IIURS (p)
R2 = .02

 

 

I IURS (A)

 

Afﬁrming and Belonging Ethnic Identity: Model 12 Other-worldly Spiritual

 

Orientation and Cautious-Defensive Racial Socialization Practices. Contrary to the

 

proposed hypothesis (i.e., hypotheses 24 to 24b) in model four, adolescents who viewed
their church as having a other-worldly spiritual orientation and parents who reported they
employed a cautious-defensive child-rearing strategy were not signiﬁcantly related to

afﬁrming and belonging ethnic identity for step two ([3 = .01, p < .90, F 1, 129 = .02, p <

.90) and step three ([3 = -.05, p < .55, F 1, 128 = .37, p < .55). However, the ﬁnal step

156

(Refer to Figure 36), when adolescents perceived their parents as having a cautious-
defensive strategy, was also negatively associated with to afﬁrming and belonging ethnic
identity in step four (R2 = .04, B = -22, p < .02, F 1, 127 = 5.27, 9 < .02). Thus,
adolescents who viewed their parents as teaching values congruent with cautious-
defensive racial socialization practices were less likely to afﬁrm and belong to their racial

group (Refer to Table 24.11 in Appendix R).

Figure 36: Cautious—Defensive Racial Socialization Practices

 

Block 1 I Out of School-1C
R2 2 .00

 

 

I Out of School-1C

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Block 2
R2 = .00 I Other-WorldlL

I Out of School-1C
Block 3

 

R2 = .00 I Other-Worldly

 

 

I Cautious-Defensive (P)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Block 4
f h -
R2=.O4 I Outo Sc oollC
I Other-Worldly
Overall . .
- f
R2 z .05 I Cautious De ensrve (P)

 

 

I Cautious-Defensive (A )

 

Afﬁrming and Belonging Ethnic Identity: Model 13 Communal F aith-Based

 

Orientation and Integrative-Assertive Racial Socialization Practices. Another regression

 

model tested afﬁrming and belonging ethnic identity regressed on out-of-school
interracial contact, adolescents’ perceptions of communal faith-based orientation,
parents’ perceptions of their integrative-assertive socialization practices and adolescents

who report their parents imparting integrative-assertive child-rearing strategies (Refer to

157

Table 24.12 in Appendix R). Hypotheses 25 to 25.b examined the relationships in this
model. In this model, out of school interracial contact, adolescents’ perceptions of
communal faith-based orientation and parents who reported they used integrative-
assertive racial socialization practices were not signiﬁcant predictors of afﬁrming and
belonging ethnic identity (Refer to Figure 37). Conversely, adolescents’ perceptions of
their integrative-assertive racial socialization practices were negatively related to
afﬁrming and belonging ethnic identity in step four ([3 = —.49, p < .00, F 1, 126 = 28.98, p
< .00). The inclusion of this variable accounted for 18% of the variance. The ﬁnding
indicates that adolescents who perceived their parents as instilling values consistent with
integrative-assertive racial socialization practices were less likely to afﬁrm and belong to

their racial group.

Figure 37: Integrative- Assertive Racial Socialization Practices

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bl k 1
Rim I Out ofSchool-IC
Block 2 I Out of School-1C
R2 = -00 I Communal
0 rs h l [C I '0’

I ut O C 00 ' l ; IAfﬁrming and Belonging J
Block 3 -
R2 z .02 I Communal

I Integrative-Assertive (P)
Block 4

-l

R3 = .18 I Out of School C

I Communal
Overall I Integrative—Assertive (P)
R2 = .21

 

 

 

I Integrative-Assertive (A)

 

Afﬁrming and Belonging Ethnic Identity: Model 14 Communal F aith-Based

Orientation and Cautious-Defensive Racial Socialization Practices. Similar to model 13,

158

steps one through three were not signiﬁcant predictors of cautious-defensive racial
socialization practices (Refer to Table 24.13 in Appendix R). The model in Figure 38
displays the relationships for hypotheses 26 to 26b. The dependent variable was
afﬁrming and belonging identity. Out of school interracial contact was entered in step
one and the second variable in the next step is adolescents who viewed their church as
communal faith-based orientation. The variable included in step three was parents’
perceptions of their cautious-defensive child-rearing strategies. The fourth block,
adolescents’ perceptions of their parents’ cautious-defensive racial socialization
practices, resulted in an increase of 4% of the variance related to afﬁrming and belonging
ethnic identity ([3 = -.22, p < .02, F 1, 127 = 5.23, p < .02). This suggests that adolescents
who viewed their parents as having cautious-defensive racial socialization practices were
less likely to afﬁrm and belong to their racial group. This ﬁnding was in the opposite

direction.

Figure 38: Cautious-Defensive Racial Socialization Practices

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bl k 1
R20: .00 I Out of School-1C
Block 2 I Out of School—1C
R2 = -00 I Communal

I Out of School-1C
Block 3 '
R2 = .00 I Communal

I Cautious-Defensive (P)
Block 4

-IC

R2 = .04 I Out of School

I Communal
Overall . .
R2 = .05 I Cautrous-Defensrve (P)

 

 

I Cautious-Defensive (A)

 

159

Afﬁrming and Belonging Ethnic Identity: Model 15 Privatistic F aith-Based
Orientation and Individualistic-Universalistic Racial Socialization Practices. The
ﬁfteenth regression model assessed afﬁrming and belonging ethnic identity regressed
onto out-of-school interracial contact, adolescents’ perceptions of privatistic church
orientation, and perceptions of individualistic-universalistic socialization practices by
parents and their adolescents (Refer to Table 24.14 in Appendix R). In this model, none
of the variables were predictors of afﬁrming and belonging ethnic identity. Figure 39

illustrates the hypotheses (i.e., 27 to 27.b) in the model.

Figure 39: Individualistic-Universalistic Racial Socialization Practices (IURS)

 

BIOCk 1 L Out of School-1C
R2 = .00

 

 

I Out of School-1C

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Block 2
R2 = -00 I Privatistic
I .05
Block 3 i Out Of SChOOHC ’ 0| j Afﬁrming and Belonging
R2 = .00 I Privatistic I/
.05
I IURS (P)

 

 

BIOCk 4 I Out of School—1C
R2 = .02

 

 

I Privatistic

 

 

Overall I IURS (p)
R2 = .03

 

 

I IURS (A)

 

Afﬁrming and Belonging Ethnic Identity: Model 16 Privatistic Faith-Based

 

Orientation and Cautious-Defensive Racial Socialization Practices. In the ﬁnal model for

 

afﬁrming and belonging identity, hypotheses 28 to 28.b investigated these relationships
(Refer to Figure 40). The results of the ﬁnal regression model found out-of-school

interracial contact, adolescents’ perceptions of privatistic faith-based orientation, and

160

parents’ perceptions of their cautious-defensive racial socialization practices were not
predictors of afﬁrming and belonging ethnic identity (Refer to Table 24.15 in Appendix
R). In the fourth step, adolescents’ perceptions of their parents’ cautious-defensive racial
socialization practices accounted for an additional 4% of the variance in afﬁrming and
belonging ethnic identity ([3 = -.22, p < .02, F 1, 127 = 5.24, p < .02). Adolescents who
perceived their parents as having cautious-defensive racial socialization practices were

less likely to afﬁrm and belong to their racial group.

Figure 40: Cautious-Defensive Racial Socialization Practices

 

 

 

 

 

 

     
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BIOCk 1 I Out of School-1C
R2 = .00

I Out of School-1C
Block 2
R2 = -00 I Privatistic

I o f h l I '04

ut 0 Sc 00 -IC >’ . .

Block 3 I .02 _I Afﬁrming and Belonging
R3 = .00 I Privatistic PT?

I Cautious-Defensive (P)

.02

Elm?" 4 I Out of School-1C
R2 = .04

I Privatistic
Overall I Cautious-Defensive (P)
R2 = .05

 

I Cautious-Defensive (A)

 

African American Identity: Model 17 This-worldly Spiritual Orientation and

 

Integrative-Assertive Racial Socialization Practices. In this hierarchical regression model

 

(i.e., hypotheses 29 to 29.b), the dependent variable was African American identity and
out of school interracial contact, a covariate, was entered in the ﬁrst step (Refer to Table
24.16 in Appendix R). Figure 41 illustrates the relationships investigated in this study.

This bivariate regression analysis produced a signiﬁcant result F (1, 130) = 4.56, p < .03.

161

Figure 41: Integrative— Assertive Racial Socialization Practices

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bl k l
R20: .03 I Out of School-1C
Block 2 I Out of School-1C
R’ = -|0 I This-Worldly
I Out of School-1C
Block 3
2 = .00 I This-Worldly
I1 ntegrative-Assertive (P)
Block 4
R2 z .04 I Out of School-1C
I This-Worldly
Overall I Integrative-Assertive (P)
R2 = .18

 

I Integrative-Assertive (A)

 

Interracial contact outside of school was negatively related to African American Identity.
This-worldly spiritual orientation was entered in the second step and accounts for 10% of
the variance in African American identity ([3 = .32, p < .00, F l, 129 = 14.87, p < .00).
The third independent variable entered in the model was parents who reported they used
integrative-assertive racial socialization practices. The inclusion of this variable was not
a predictor of African American identity ([3 = .06, p < .54, F 1, 128 = .37, p < .54). In
step three, this-worldly orientation remained signiﬁcant and the regression coefﬁcient
was reduced from the previous block ([3 = .30, p :00). The ﬁnal variable entered was
adolescents’ perceptions of their parents’ racial socialization practices. This step was
signiﬁcantly different from zero (R2 = .04, F(1, 127) = 6.28, p < .01 ). Similar to step-
three, this-worldly orientation remained signiﬁcant ([3 = .19, 9 =05). The signiﬁcant

regression coefﬁcients were in the hypothesized direction. Therefore, the results

162

suggested adolescents who perceive their church as having a this-worldly orientation
were more likely to have an African American identity. These ﬁndings also indicated
that adolescents who viewed their parents as having integrative-assertive racial
socialization practices were more like to have an African American identity.

African American Identity: Model 18 This-worldly Spiritual Orientation and

 

Cautious-Defensive Racial Socialization Practices. In the eighteenth regression model

 

(Refer to Table 24.17 in Appendix R), the dependent variable was African American
identity. The independent variables were out-of-school interracial contact, adolescents
who perceived their church as having this-worldly spiritual orientation, parents’
perceptions of their cautious-defensive child-rearing, and adolescents who report their
parents as having cautious-defensive socialization practices (Refer to Figure 42). Out of
school interracial contact, the ﬁrst step, was a signiﬁcant and negative predictor of
African American identity ([3 = -. 19, p < .03 F 1, 131) = 4.67, p < .03). This indicates
that interracial contact out of school is negatively associated with African American
identity. Adolescents who reported a high level of interracial contact were less likely to
have an African American identity. This-worldly spiritual orientation accounted for 10%
ofthe variance in step two ([3 = .32, p < .00, F 1, 130 = 14.99, p < .00). The third
variable included in the model was parents who reported they used cautious-defensive
racial socialization practices and was not a signiﬁcant predictor of African American
identity ([3 = .09, p < .27, F l, 129 = 1.21, p < .27). Adolescents’ perceptions of this-
worldly spiritual orientation remained a signiﬁcant and positive predictor of African
American identity (I3 = .31, p < .00) in step three. In addition, adolescents who perceived

their parents’ as utilizing cautious-defensive socialization practices were the ﬁnal

163

 

 

variable added to the model. In predicting African American identity, adolescents who
perceived their parents’ as using cautious-defensive practices resulted in an association
signiﬁcantly different from zero (I3 = .17, p < .05, R2 = 3, F(1 , 128) = 3.78, p < .05).
Similar to the previous models regarding African American Identity, adolescents who
viewed their church as this-worldly continued to be a positive and signiﬁcant predictor of
African American identity ([3 = .30, p < .00). These results indicated that adolescents
who perceived their church as having a this-worldly orientation were more likely to have
high endorsement of African American racial identity attitudes. These ﬁndings also
indicated that cautious-defensive racial socialization practices are positively related to
African American identity when adolescents perceive their parents using them. Lastly,

hypotheses (i.e., 30 to 30.b) were examined in this model.

Figure 42: Cautious-Defensive Racial Socialization Practices

>I African American Identity

Block 3 31”
R2 = .01 I This-Worldly
I Cautious-Defensive (P)

 

  
 

 

 

 

 

BI k l

R20:C_03 I Out of School-1C
-1

Block 2 I Out of School C

R’ =10 I This-Worldly

 

 
 
 

 

 

I Out of School-1C

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Block 4
H
R2 = .03 (Out of Schoo C
I This-Worldly
Overall

R2 = '17 I Cautious-Defensive(P)

 

 

I Cautious-Defensive(A)

 

African American Identity: Model 19 Other-worldly Spiritual Orientation and

Individualistic-Universalistic Racial Socialization Practices. The nineteenth regression

164

model also examined African American identity as an outcome variable (i.e., hypotheses
31 to 31.b). The independent variables were out-of school interracial contact, other-
worldly spiritual orientation, parents’ perceptions of individualistic-universalistic
socialization practices by parents and adolescents perceptions of their parents’
individualistic-universalistic child-rearing practices. Out of school interracial contact

was negatively related to African American identity at each step (i.e., Refer to Figure 43).
Steps two through four were not signiﬁcantly related to African American identity (Refer
to Table 24.18 in Appendix R). None of these relationships were signiﬁcant predictors of

African American identity.

Figure 43: Individualistic-Universalistic Racial Socialization Practices (IURS)

 

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bl k 1
R20: .03 I Out of School-1C
Block 2 I Out of School-1C
R2 = -00 I Other-Worldly -,02
0 fs h 11C 1 "‘8’
l ut O C 00 - J ; I Aﬁ'ican American Identity
BlOCk 3 -0l
R2 = .00 I Other-Worldly
EURS (P)
Block 4
R2 = .00 I Out of School-1C
I Other-Worldly
Overall I IURSQ)
R2 = .04

 

 

I IURS (A)

 

African American Identity: Model 20 Other-worldly Spiritual Orientation and

Cautious-Defensive Racial Socialization Practices. Hypotheses 32 to 32.b examined the

 

relationships in model 20. Consistent with the previous model, interracial contact was

negatively related of African American identity (Refer to Table 24.19 in Appendix R).

165

Other-worldly spiritual orientation was not signiﬁcantly related to African American
identity for step two ([3 = -.O2, 9 < .85, F l, 130 = .04, p < .85), step three ([3 = -.00, p <
.99), and step four (I3 = .01, p < .91). In the third step, parents who reported they used
cautious-defensive racial socialization practices was approaching signiﬁcance ([3 = .14, p
< .11, F 1, 129 = 2.64, p < .11). However, the ﬁnal step, when adolescents perceived
their parents as having a cautious-defensive strategy, was positively associated with to
African American identity (R2 =.03, B = .20, p < .04, F l, 128 = 4.43, p < .04). These
ﬁndings were in the opposite direction of the proposed hypotheses. Adolescents who
viewed their parents as using cautious-defensive racial socialization practices were more
likely to have an African American identity. Figure 44 illustrates the incremental change

in the variance for model 20.

Figure 44: Cautious-Defensive Racial Socialization Practices (IURS)

 

 

 

 

 

81 k 1

R20: .03 I Out of School-1C
Block 2 I Out of School-1C
R2 = .00 I Other-Worldly

 

 

 

I Out of School-1C

 

 

 

 

Block 3
R2 = .02 I Other-Worldly

 

 

ICautious-Defensive (P)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Block 4
R2 z .03 I Out of School-1C

I Other-Worldly
Overall I Cautious-Defensive (P)
R2 = .09

 

 

ICautious-Defensive (A)

 

African American Identity: Model 21 Communal F aith-Based Orientation and

Integrative-Assertive Racial Socialization Practices. Hypotheses 33 to 33.b investigated

 

166

 

the relationships in model 21. The twenty-ﬁrst regression model examined African
American identity regressed on out-of-school interracial contact, communal faith-based
orientation, and perceptions of integrative-assertive socialization practices by parents and
their adolescents (Refer to Figure 45). The ﬁrst step, out of school interracial contact, was
entered and this bivariate regression analysis produced a signiﬁcant result (B = -.18, p <
.03, F( 1, 130) = 4.56, p < .03). Communal faith-based orientation was approaching
signiﬁcance in the second step (B = .16, p < .07, F l, 129 = 3.36, p < .07). The third
independent variable entered in the model was parents who reported using integrative-
assertive racial socialization practices. The inclusion of this variable was not a
signiﬁcant predictor of racial identity; it is approaching signiﬁcance. Step four,
adolescents’ perceptions of their parents’ integrative-assertive racial socialization
practices, was signiﬁcantly different from zero (B = .33, p < .00, F l, 127) = 12.73, p <
.00) and 8% of the variance was accounted for by including this variable. The results
indicated adolescents’ perceptions of their parents’ racial socialization practices were
positively associated with African American identity (Refer to Table 24.20 in Appendix
R). Therefore, adolescents who perceived their parents as using cautious-defensive racial

socialization practices were more likely to have an African American identity.

167

 

Figure 45: Integrative- Assertive Racial Socialization Practices

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 
  

 

 

 

 

 

Bl k 1
R2203 I Out ofSchool-IC
Block 2 I Out of School-1C
R2 = -02 I Communal

I Out Of SChOOHC ;I African American Identity
Block 3
R2 = .02 I Communal

I Integrative -Assertive (P)
BIOCk 4 I Out of School-1C
R2 = .08

I Communal
Overall I Integrative-Assertive (P)
R2 = .16

 

I Integrative-Assertive (A)

 

African American Identity: Model 22 Communal Faith-Based Orientation and

 

Cautious-Defensive Racial Socialization Practices. Hypotheses 34 to 34.b represented

 

the proposed relationship for model 22. In model this model, African American identity
was regressed on out-of-school interracial contact, adolescents’ perceptions of communal
faith-based orientation, and parents who report using integrative-assertive socialization
practices, and adolescents’ perceptions of their parents’ integrative-assertive child-rearing
practices. Out of school interracial contact was a signiﬁcant and negative predictor of
African American Identity only at step one three (B = -.19, p < .03). Contrary to the
hypotheses, communal faith-based orientation was not a signiﬁcant predictor of African
American identity in step two thru step four (Refer to Figure 46). The variable named
parents who imparted cautious-defensive racial socialization practices was approaching

signiﬁcance in step three (B = .14, p < .10, F l, 129 = 2.76, p < .10). This variable

168

 

 

 

remained a non-signiﬁcant predictor in step four. The ﬁnal block, adolescents’
perceptions of their parents’ cautious-defensive racial socialization practices, resulted in
an increase of 3% of the variance related to African American identity (B = .19, p < .04, F
l, 128 = 4.37, p < .02) (Refer to Table 24.21 in Appendix R). This suggested that
adolescents who perceive their parents as having cautious-defensive child-rearing

strategies were more likely to endorse African American identity attitudes.

Figure 46: Cautious-Defensive Racial Socialization Practices

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bl k 1
R20: .03 I Out of School-1C
Block 2 I Out of School-1C
R2 : '07- I Communal
IOut of School-1C
Block 3
R2 = .02 I Communal
I Cautious-Defensive (P)
BIOCk 4 I Out of School-1C
R?- = .03
I Communal
Overall . ,
R2 : .1 l I Cautious-Defenswe (P)

 

 

I Cautious-Defensive (A)

 

African American Identity: Model 23 Privatistic F aith-Based Orientation and
Individualistic-Universalistic Racial Socialization Practices. The twenty-third regression
model assessed African American identity regressed on to out-of-school interracial
contact, adolescents’ perceptions of privatistic church orientation, and perceptions of
individualistic-universalistic socialization practices by parents and their adolescents (i.e.,
hypotheses 35 to 35.b). Out of school interracial contact was negatively related to

African American identity at step one (B = -.19, p < .03, F l, 131: 4.66, p < .03). In the

169

remaining blocks, out of school interracial contact was not a signiﬁcant predictor of
African American identity (Refer to Figure 47). In step two, adolescents’ perceptions of
privatistic church orientation were negatively related to African American identity (B = -
.22, p < .01, F 1, 130: 6.82, p < .01). However, parents who used cautious-defensive
racial socialization practices and their adolescents’ perceptions of these child-rearing
strategies were not signiﬁcant predictors of African American identity (Refer to
Table24.22). The variable, adolescents’ perceptions of privatistic church orientation, was
a signiﬁcant and negative predictor of African American identity at each block.
Adolescents who perceived their church as having a privatistic church faith-based

orientation were less likely to endorse African American racial identity attitudes.

Figure 47: Individualistic-Universalistic Racial Socialization Practices (lURS)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

B] k 1
R20: _03 I Out of School-1C
Block 2 I Out of School-1C
R2 = -05 I Privatistic
I Out of School-1C
Block 3
R2 = .00 I Privatistic
IIURS (P)
Block 4

R2 z _00 I Out of School-1C

 

 

I Privatistic

 

 

Overall
R2 = .08 I IURS (P)

 

 

IIURS (A)

 

African American Identity: Model 24 Privatistic F aith-Based Orientation and

 

Cautious-Defensive Racial Socialization Practices. Hypotheses 36 to 36.b represented

 

170

the proposed relationship for model 24. The results of the ﬁnal regression model found
out of school interracial contact, was a signiﬁcant bivariate regression (R2 = .03, B = -.19,
p < .03, F(1, 131) = 4.67, p < .03). Out of school interracial contact was approaching
signiﬁcance in blocks two thru four (Refer to Table 24.23 in Appendix R). In step two,
adolescents’ perceptions of privatistic orientation were negatively related to African
American identity and accounted for 5% of the variance. The third variable entered in
this model, parents who instilled cautious-defensive racial socialization practices, was not
a predictor African American identity (B = .12, p < .15, F(l , 129) = 2.10, p < .15). The
fourth variable, adolescents’ perception of their parents’ racial socialization practice
accounted for an additional 3% ofthe variance (B = .19, p < .04, F 1, 128 = 4.31, p < .04).
In summary, the results from this model indicated that adolescents who reported high
level of interracial contact outside of school were less likely to endorse African American
racial identity attitudes. These adolescents who perceived their parents as having
cautious-defensive racial socialization practices were less likely to endorse African
American racial identity attitudes. Figure 48 depicts the relationships in this study.

Lastly Table 21 summarizes the results of Study Two.

171

 

 

 

Figure 48: Cautious-Defensive Racial Socialization Practices

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bl k l
R2203 I Out ofSchool-IC
f 1-

Block 2 I Out 0 Schoo IC
R2 = -05 I Privatistic

0 rs h 1 1c L "I2

I m 0 c 00 - 1 4 I African American Identity

Block 3 -.2]*

R2 = .01 IPrivatistic

 

 

ICautious-Defensive (P)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Block 4
h -
R2 = .03 I Out of Sc 00] IC
I Privatistic
Overall

R2 = .13 I Cautious-Defensive (P)

 

 

 

I Cautious-Defensive (A)

 

172

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

tomasm n _. *0; 038800032800 - b282, .85.
03000300038885 - 3283-22...
toaasm M2. *0; 3.802 :00_..08< =08C< 030:5» 0:06:00:—
toaqzm no. *0; 02800000308200 - 0:80.035
808083882 mo. m2 05:00.03:3030:0023—05 - 0305035
58060880 mo. *0; 03880008380 - 888800
88080880 5. .105 0>E08<0>38m8£ - 888800
toaqam no. 09m 0280000002800 - 3283-880
800589282 mo. mZ 0:2.0803:305208365 - 3283-850
88088800 3. *0; 038800-88800 - 3383 .02...
02083100038885 - 3283-02:
58080880 5. :05 w=_w:0_0m 0:0 5:88:20. 03805» 80.80909
toamsm m _. *0; 038800038800 - ozmzmzi
toqqsm no. .05 08020803:3050:08365 - 030.3035
58060880 m _. .10—m 0380000008800 - 888800
88088080 0m. :05 0>_t0mm<-0>:8m08_ - 888800
toaazm 2. .05 0380.80-88800 - 3283-850
5&5 S. *0; 08:332..2-2838365 - 3283-350
58080880 2... *0; 03880988800 - 3283 -02...
a 0>_:0mm<-0>38w08_ - .20—83-030.
88060880 0m. .105 2.0808200. 3:803 0850 03805» 0:008:00
88808800
800088802
2895 $2 5 2%
088m £0050§I 08:38 0088535 8030305 0802 882

 

 

 

 

 

 

2082 030. 88m 8 80885 ._m 030%

173

628-00 :0. v 0 0080900 1
828.00 8. v 0 0080800 *
88 Q80 H0 2082 00800580020 05 08000800 0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

58050580 M2. “.05 0280000082800 - 0505025
800088802 mo. mZ 0:20802.5050200222: - 0505025
tomasm :. “.05 0280-2000-8530 - 088800
tomasm 3. :05 02000000520882 - 0808800
08050880 mo. :06 0280000082800 - 2283-0050
800088082 0o. m2 05020000203-02802—0322202 - 2283-0050
32802 0002008< 8005400 ”030203, 80500000

 

 

20202 03-.- 208m 8 b0883m AN 030%

174

CHAPTER 4
Discussion

Through integrating research on the African American church, racial identity, and
racial socialization, the purpose of this study was to explore how African Nnerican
churches participate in teaching parents and their adolescents about the importance of
being African American. Several studies on racial socialization discuss the importance of
the church in the child-rearing process (Franklin & Franklin, 1985; Harrison, 1985;
Lincoln & Mamiya, 1990). However, an empirical investigation on the diverse racial
socialization messages promoted by African American churches remains unknown. This
study sought to answer several questions concerning how churches inﬂuence racial
socialization of parents and how their socialization practices, in turn, impact their
adolescents’ racial identity attitudes.

This investigation was divided into two studies: 1) Study One examined the
relationship between parents’ perceptions of their church and their racial socialization
practices and 2) Study Two investigated how adolescents’ perceptions of their church and
parental racial socialization practices inﬂuence their racial identity. Stereotypes and
religiosity were examined also in Study One as moderators. In Study One and Two,
parents’ perceptions and their adolescents’ perceptions of their church were explored to
assess how organized religion facilitates and instills values about race.

Major Findings of Study One

 

The results of Study One suggested that parents’ perception of their church’s
spiritual and faith-based orientations have a direct effect on parental racial socialization

practices. In addition, parents’ endorsement of particular racial identity attitudes either

175

partially or completely mediated the relationship between church orientation and racial
socialization practices. Religiosity and racial stereotypes were not found to moderate
theses relationships. These results corroborate the ﬁndings from previous research that
the church is an important socializing agent in the African American community
(Franklin & Franklin, 1985; Harrison, 1985; Lincoln & Mamiya, 1990; Loﬁon, 1991).
Spiritual Orientation and Racial Socialization Practices

When using parents’ perceptions as a proxy for the church, the results indicate
that parents who perceived their church as having a this-worldly versus other-worldly
spiritual orientation reported using integrative-assertive racial socialization practices. In
other words, a this-worldly versus other-worldly spiritual orientation had a positive direct
effect on the use of integrative-assertive racial socialization practice. This-worldly
churches emphasize an African presence in the M, African American History and
social issues relevant in the African American community while integrative-assertive
child-rearing practices instill racial values such as African American pride and stand up
for your rights. It appears the values espoused at churches with a this-worldly versus
other-worldly orientation are consistent with the integrative-assertive racial socialization
practices. Both of these socialization strategies communicate to children racial pride,
social justice and the importance of knowing the contributions of African Americans.

The results indicate that the racial identity attitudes of parents either partially or
completely mediated the relationship between a this-worldly versus other-worldly
spiritual orientation and racial socialization practices. Through understanding parents’
racial identity attitudes, the kinds of values instilled about race to their children are

explained. More speciﬁcally, the racial identity attitudes endorsed by parents are

176

consistent with their beliefs about how they should socialize their children about race.
This ﬁnding supports Thomas & Speight (1999) which found that the endorsement of
varying racial identity attitudes was related to speciﬁc types of racial socialization
practices. For example, it was hypothesized that parents having nationalist racial identity
attitudes were more likely to use a particular kind of racial socialization practices (i.e.,
integrative-assertive).

As presented in Figure 9 (See page 120), nationalist racial identity attitudes
partially explained the relationship among parents who viewed their church as this-
worldly versus other-worldly and integrative-assertive racial socialization practices.
Nationalist racial identity attitudes include an appreciation of African American culture,
social interaction with mostly African Americans, and participation in African American
organizations (Sellers et a1. 1998). Moreover, Demo and Hughes (1990) found that
African Americans reared in household using integrative-assertive socialization practices
have a close afﬁnity to African Americans. These results show parents’ perceptions of
their church, parental nationalist racial identity attitudes, and their socialization practices
bolster the values taught to their children.

Nationalist racial identity attitudes were also a mediator between this-worldly
orientation and cautious-defensive racial socialization practices (Refer to Figure 12 on
page 123). These socialization practices instill values such as “Whites are prejudiced,
Whites have the power, and Whites believe they are better.” This-worldly churches
promote racial pride and the contributions of African Americans in this society. Parents
having nationalist racial identity attitudes may explain the consistency between the values

imparted in their church as well as the ones communicated in their homes. When these

177

messages are highlighted in this-worldly versus other-worldly churches, parents may
emphasize racial socialization messages that bolster their values.

The covariates in this model suggest the following ﬁndings. Age was negatively
related to oppressed minority racial identity. This indicates that older African Ammicans
were less likely to endorse oppressed minority racial identity attitudes. In addition,
education was positively related to parents who perceived their church as this worldly
versus other-worldly as well as nationalist racial identity attitudes. It appears that highly
educated African Americans perceive their church as this-worldlly and they also
endorsed nationalist racial identity attitudes. Interracial contact was negatively related to
parents who endorsed nationalist racial identity attitudes. African Americans who have
nationalist racial identity openly display their appreciation of their culture and history.
As mentioned previously, they are individuals who are attracted to primarily African
American of entirely all African American organizations (Cross, 1991, 1995). This
relationship between interracial contact and nationalist racial identity attitudes was in the
expected direction and should not be misconstrued as anti-white sentiments.

Figure 15 (See page 126) depicts another mediating relationship found in this
study. Parents who perceive their church as this-worldly versus other-worldly were less
likely to utilized individualistic-universalistic racial socialization practices. These
parents were also less likely to endorse humanist racial identity attitudes. Through
comprehending parents’ racial identity attitudes, the kinds of values imparted about race
to their children are explicated. That is, the racial identity attitudes endorsed by parents
are similar to their beliefs about how they should socialize their children about race. This

suggests that parents with humanist racial identity attitudes negotiate their environment

178

 

.i

 

by having attitudes that underscore the commonalities of all people. These attitudes are
congruent with an other-worldly spiritual orientation that stresses the cultivation of the
spiritual development of the congregation, the ediﬁcation of God, and a Christian
lifestyle.

Other-worldly churches de-emphasize race in their theological orientation. Based
on the ﬁndings of the current study, parents who viewed their churches as having an
other-worldly spiritual orientation were more likely to endorse humanist racial identity
attitudes and use individualistic-universalistic racial socialization practices. The values
these churches use to indoctrinate are in agreement with individualistic-universalistic
child-rearing strategies. Parents using these types of socialization practices impart
messages such as hard work, excel, and honesty. These ﬁndings substantiate that church
orientations, parents’ racial identity attitudes, and their socialization practices are
compatible.

Signiﬁcant Models: Models Which Do Not Fit Data - This-Worldly versus Other-

 

Worldly Spiritual Orientation

 

Two ﬁndings did not support the spiritual orientation and racial socialization
models. Contrary to what was hypothesized in this study, this-worldly versus other-
worldly spiritual orientation was not related to oppressed minority racial identity
attitudes. Oppressed minority racial identity attitudes were not a mediator between this-
worldly versus other-worldly spiritual orientation and integrative-assertive racial
socialization practices. Second, this-worldly versus other-worldly spiritual orientation
was not related to assimilationist racial identity attitudes. Assimilationist racial identity

attitudes were not a mediator between this-worldly versus other-worldly spiritual

179

 

 

 

orientation and individualistic-universalistic racial socialization practices. Overall, the
results suggest that spiritual orientation of churches may predict some racial socialization
practices better than other socialization practices.

A plausible explanation is that parents who endorse either oppressed minority or
assimilationist racial identity attitudes may not attend predominantly African American
churches. Since assimilationists believe it is important to integrate and participate in
mainstream social institutions and oppressed minorities identify with all disenfranchised
people, race for these parents may not be a salient personal characteristic. Cross (1991)
and Sellers et al. (1998) discuss for some African Americans their sense of person-well
being is connected to their gender, social class, occupation, and sexual orientation.
Consequently, these parents may attend churches that are congruent with their beliefs
about the ways Africans Americans should integrate and interact with the larger society.
For example, parents who endorse assimilationist racial identity attitudes may attend a
predominately white church or a racially diverse church because it allows them to interact
socially with whites or other ethnic groups. Without having a sample of African
Americans who attended integrated churches, it is impossible to examine this
explanation.

Another explanation is spiritual orientation may not be an appropriate predictor of
racial socialization practices when examining assimilationalist and oppressed minority
racial identity attitudes as a mediator. Lincoln and Mamiya (1990) proposed a six
dialectic tension model to explain the diversity within the African American church. One
of the other tensions may be a better predictor for parents who endorse either

assimilationalist or oppressed minority racial identity attitudes. Such tensions are priestly

180

versus prophetic functions and resistance versus accommodation. Therefore, more
research is needed to understand whether oppressed minority or assimilationist attitudes
are signiﬁcant variables to assess the relationship spiritual orientation and racial
socialization practices.

Faith-based Orientation and Racial Socialization Practices

 

The second question assessed in this study was the relationship between faith-
based orientation and racial socialization practices. Lincoln and Mamiya (1990) suggests
the types of faith-based programs sponsored at churches teach the congregations about
their spiritual development as well as commitment to the societal challenges facing the
African American community. This study examined the extent to which parents’
perceptions of communal versus privatistic faith-based orientation was related to parents’
racial socialization practices. Parents who perceived their churches as communal versus
privatistic were not more or less likely to endorse nationalist racial identity attitudes and
to employ integrative-assertive racial socialization practices. For this model, it did not
meet the appropriate ﬁt indices criteria.

The ﬁndings also indicate that communal versus privatistic faith-based
orientations was neither a direct effect on nationalist racial identity attitudes nor cautious-
defensive racial socialization practices. This model met the appropriate ﬁt criteria for an
acceptable model. However, the only signiﬁcant ﬁnding was nationalist racial identity
attitudes as a direct effect on cautious-defense racial socialization practices. This ﬁnding
was consistent with the spiritual orientation model. This ﬁnding suggests that parents’
endorsement of nationalist racial identity attitudes were more likely to employ cautious-

defensive racial socialization practices. Therefore, parents with an appreciation of

181

 

 

 

 

 

African American culture and they participate in African American organizations used
cautious defensive socialization practices such as “Whites are prejudiced, Whites have
the power, and Whites believe they are better.”

These ﬁndings did not support the hypotheses concerning communal faith-based
programs as a racial socializing agent. Communal churches underscore the importance of
African Americans participating in faith-based initiatives that support the economical,
educational and ﬁnancial development of the African American community. The
ﬁndings suggest that parents who viewed their churches as communal versus privatistic
were not more or less likely to endorse nationalist racial identity attitudes. The results
also suggest that parents who perceived their churches as communal versus privatistic
were not more or less likely to use cautious-defensive socialization practices. These
parents in their socialization practices focus on the differences between African
Americans and Whites (i.e., Whites have the power, and Whites believe they are better.”)
Parents’ perceptions of communal versus privatistic faith-based orientation and
nationalist racial identity attitudes would seem to be congruent with cautious-defensive
racial socialization practices. This indicates that parents’ perceptions of communal
versus faith-based orientation are irrelevant to their use of cautious-defensive racial
socialization practices. More research is needed to understand these relationships
because they were contrary to the hypotheses (i.e., 10-10.c).

In examining the relationship between communal versus privatistic faith-based
orientations and parents’ racial socialization practices, parental racial identity attitudes
were hypothesized to mediate these relationships. As can be seen in Figure 23 (See page

134), assimilationist racial identity attitudes mediated the relationship between

182

 

commmunal versus privatistic faith-based orientations and individualistic-universalistic
racial socialization practices. The ﬁndings indicate these parents endorse assimilationists
attitudes such as hard work and good citizenship and they are less likely to perceive their
churches as sponsoring programs that promote Black pride and economic development in
the African American community. They are also more likely to impart socialization
messages that are consistent with their individualistic-universalistic racial child-rearing
strategies. Examples of these socialization practices are “Important to be a good citizen”
and “Get a good job.”

Based on the results of the present study, the ﬁndings support the work of Sellers
et a1. (1997; 1998). They describe racial ideology, a component of racial identity, as an
individual’s perspective on negotiating with society. The ﬁndings indicate that parents
who endorse assimilationist racial identity attitudes participate in speciﬁc behaviors such
as perceiving their churches as having a privatistic faith-based orientation and using
individualistic-universalistic racial socialization practices. Thornton (1990) asserts
parents using these kinds of socialization practices underscore the importance of being
Americans and navigate their social environment using a race-neutral philosophy. These
works corroborate the ﬁndings of the current study. Speciﬁcally, parents who perceived
their church as privatistic were more likely to have assimilationist racial identity attitudes
and to employ individualistic-universalistic racial socialization practice. In addition, the
results support racial identity attitudes as a mediator because the racial identity attitudes
of parents explain how and why African Americans navigate their environment.

Figure 24 (See page 135) displays humanist racial identity attitudes as a mediator

between communal versus privatistic faith-based orientations and individualistic-

183

universalistic socialization practices. Although the model ﬁt the data, the mediating
relationship was not substantiated. Humanist racial identity attitudes were related to
individualistic-racial racial socialization practices. Parents who endorse humanist values
do not make distinction among different groups and do not believe race is a pertinent
societal challenge (Sellers etal., 1998). These parents emphasize human values,
citizenship, and hard work in their socialization messages (Demo and Hughes, 1990).
This ﬁnding supports that parental racial identity attitudes are associated with the types of
socialization messages and these messages are consistent with racial identity. This
ﬁnding corroborates the work of Thomas and Spieght (1990) which found that some
racial identity attitudes were related to racial socialization practice among African
American parents.

Signiﬁcant Models: Models Which Do Not Fit Data - Communal versus Privatistic Faith-

 

Based Orientation

 

When examining the relationship between faith-based orientation and racial
socialization practices, several hypotheses were not supported. First, the model testing
hypotheses 8 to 9b failed to meet the appropriate X2 goodness of ﬁt index and the other
ﬁt indices (Refer to Figure 17 on page 128). Neither nationalist nor oppressed minority
attitudes explained the relationship between communal versus privatistic faith-based
orientation and integrative-assertive socialization practices. In addition, the ﬁndings
indicate that programs sponsored by churches do not assist parents in their racial child-
rearing strategies. A possible explication is each study had different samples. Lincoln

and Mamiya interviewed only clergy while this study parents and their adolescents.

184

Thus, the differences in samples may explain the signiﬁcant ﬁndings (i.e., models not
ﬁtting the data) for these models.

In summary, the results of Study One corroborate two bodies of research: 1) the
church is an important socialization in the African community (Franklin & Franklin,
1985; Harrison, 1985; Lincoln & Mamiya, 1990; Lofton, 1991) and 2) parental racial
identity attitudes are predictors of socialization practices (Harrison, 1985; Thomas &
Speight, 1999). Study One contributes to the research literature by empirically assessing
the role of the church as a socialization agent via parents’ perceptions. This is a
signiﬁcant contribution to the research because this is the ﬁrst study to examine these
variables empirically.

Study Two: The Church and Parent’s Racial Socialization Practices Shaping Values of

 

Adolescents

 

Lincoln and Mamiya (1990) assert that a major challenge confronting the African
American church is development of racial identity among African American children and
adolescents. While researchers have discussed the importance of extending the
investigation of racial socialization to include societal contexts such as the church
(Franklin & Franklin, 1985; Harrison, 1985; Lincoln & Mamiya, 1990; Paris, 1985), few
studies have systematically examined the role church has played in instilling racial
values. Much of the literature on racial socialization, to date, has focused on
retrospective studies (Demo & Hughes, 1990; Thornton, et al., 1990), adolescents”
perception of their parents’ socialization messages (Bowman & Howard, 1985;
Stevenson, 1994), and parents explaining their socialization practices GVIarshall, 1995;

Peters, 1985; Speight & Thomas, 1999). Two approaches (i.e., universal and race-

185

 

 

speciﬁc) of studying racial identity were examined. Speciﬁcally, to begin exploring the
role of the church as a socializing agent for adolescents, the present study addressed the
following questions: Do parents’ racial socialization practices and adolescents’
perceptions of their church affect their racial identity?

Major Findings

 

Results of Study Two suggest adolescents’ perceptions of their church and their
perceptions of their parents’ racial socialization practices are signiﬁcantly related to their
racial/ethnic identity attitudes. More speciﬁcally, adolescents who perceived their church
as this-worldly were more likely to have positive African American racial identity
attitudes. Similar ﬁndings were found regarding some of the other church orientations
(i.e., communal and privatistic) being positively related to African American racial
identity attitudes. In contrast, adolescents who perceived their church as privatistic were
less likely to have positive African American racial identity attitudes. Adolescents who
perceived their churches as this-worldly, other-worldly, communal, or privatistic were
less likely to endorse universal identity (i.e., both ethnic identity achievement identity
and afﬁrming and belonging identity). Furthermore, parents’ perceptions of their racial
socialization practices in some cases were related to their adolescents’ identity.

Interracial contact, a covariate, was not a signiﬁcant predictor of the ethnic
identity achievement and afﬁrming and belonging identity models. However, adolescents
having high levels of interracial contact were less likely to endorse African American
racial identity attitudes. Another interesting ﬁnding was the factor structure regarding the

church orientations was not parallel for the parent and adolescents samples. This was

186

 

surprising because it suggests that parents and adolescents perceived racial socialization
practices differently. Table 24 summarizes the ﬁndings of this study.

Universal Identity

 

Two components comprise universal identity among adolescents: l) ethnic
identity achievement and 2) afﬁrming and belonging identity. Recall that ethnic identity
achievement is deﬁned as the degree to which efforts have been put forth to discover
one’s racial/ethnic identity while afﬁrming and belonging is the extent to which an
adolescent feels a sense of belonging to one’s racial/ethnic group (Phinney, 1992).
Universal identity emphasizes a race-generic perspective in understanding various racial
and ethnic groups (Smith et al, 2001). More speciﬁcally, this approach underscores the
commonalities of identity development among different groups, with the premise that all
individuals attempt to clarify and understand the signiﬁcance of their membership to a
particular racial/ethnic group (Phinney, 1992).

In Study Two, several of the hypothesized relationships were not conﬁrmed and
some were in an unexpected direction. For example, out of school interracial contact, a
covariate, was not a signiﬁcant predictor of universal identity (i.e., both ethnic identity
achievement and afﬁrming and belonging identity). In addition, parents’ perceptions of
their socialization practices were not a signiﬁcant predictor of afﬁrming and belonging
identity.

Contrary to hypotheses (i.e., 13-13.b and 21-21.b), adolescents’ perceptions of
this-worldly churches were negatively related to universal identity (i.e., ethnic identity
achievement and afﬁrming and belonging identity). In addition, their perceptions of their

parents’ integrative-assertive socialization practices were also negatively related to

187

universal identity. These results suggest adolescents’ perceptions of their church as well
as their perceptions of their parents’ integrative-assertive socialization practices were
adversely inﬂuencing universal identity. These ﬁndings are counter-intuitive because
this-worldly churches emphasize in their religious socialization the importance of African
American history and of religious icons having African American physical features.
Parents using integrative-assertive racial socialization practices afﬁrm racial pride and
African American culture and history in their child-rearing strategies. If adolescents
subscribe to this identity, we expect them to have begun exploring this domain of their
identity and inquiring about the traditions and history of their racial/ethnic group (i.e.,
ethnic identity achievement). Similarly, a strong attachment of adolescents to their
racial/ethnic group signiﬁes afﬁrming and belonging to their racial/ethnic group.
Therefore, adolescents living in integrative—assertive households and attending this-
worldly churches are exposed to African American culture and its traditions. Given these
ﬁndings, it would seem that churches with a this-worldly orientation would be consistent
with integrative-assertive socialization practices and thus, the church and the parents’
child-rearing strategies would positively shape an adolescent’s identity.

In investigating cautious-defensive socialization practices (i.e., hypotheses 14-
14.b and 22-22.b), it was hypothesized that adolescents’ perceptions of this-worldly
churches were positively related to having universal identity (i.e., both ethnic identity
achievement and afﬁrming and belonging identity). It was also hypothesized separately
that parents’ perceptions of their cautious-defensive socialization practices, and
adolescents’ perceptions of their parents’ cautious-defensive socialization practices

would be positively related to both ethnic identity achievement and afﬁrming and

188

 

 

belonging identity. However, again, the ﬁndings from this study contradicted these
hypotheses.

Speciﬁcally, adolescents’ who attended this-worldly churches and had parents
who employed cautious-defensive socialization practices were less likely to have a
universal identity (i.e., both ethnic identity achievement and afﬁrming and belonging
identity). In addition, adolescents who perceived their parents as using cautious
defensive child-rearing strategies were less likely to have an achieved identity. Adults
reared in cautious-defensive households reported a stronger afﬁnity to African Americans
and commitment to separatist ideology (Demo & Hughes, 1990). Moreover, some of the
important theological underpinnings of this-worldly churches are to preach about the
African presence in the @313 and teach about the contributions of African Americans. It
would appear that perceptions regarding the church as well as perceptions of cautious-
defensive socialization practices would enhance ethnic identity, but the ﬁndings in this
study suggest the opposite.

Furthermore, the hypotheses (i.e., 15-15.b and 23-23.b) associated with
adolescents’ perceptions of other-worldly churches and individualistic-universalistic
racial socialization practices were also not conﬁrmed. Speciﬁcally, adolescents who
viewed their churches as other-worldly and their parents as having individualistic-
universalistic racial socialization practices were not more or less likely to have a
universal identity (i.e., ethnic identity achievement identity and afﬁrming and belonging
identity). Since the church was not a signiﬁcant predictor, the role of other-worldly
churches remains uncertain. Adolescents’ perceptions of their parents employing

individualistic-universalistic racial child-rearing strategies were not signiﬁcantly related

189

to adolescents having an afﬁrming and belonging identity. This suggests that adolescents
whose parents reported they used individualistic-universalistic socialization practices
were no more or less likely to have a universal identity. However as predicted,
adolescents who perceived their parents as having individualistic-universalistic racial
child-rearing strategies were less likely to have an ethnic identity achievement. This
ﬁnding indicates that adolescents reared in homes where parents instilled values such as
working hard and being a good citizen were less likely to have an achieved identity,
meaning they have not explored the traditions and history of African Americans. These
adolescents viewed their parents as teaching them to negotiate their social environment
by focusing on American values such as good citizenship and hard work.

Thornton (1990) asserts that these parents are highly assimilated, yet he also
contends these individuals still have an afﬁnity toward African Americans. Furthermore,
Demo and Hughes (1990) found that individuals reared in these types of households
endorsed a weak positive African American group evaluation. Although these parents
may identify with being African American, they chose to de-emphasize race in their
homes. As a result, two possible explanations exist; either their adolescents have not
completed their identity exploration or they have not successfully clariﬁed issues
regarding race and social location among African Americans.

The ﬁndings from this study provide partial support for the hypotheses
concerning other-worldly spiritual orientation, perceptions of cautious-defensive racial
socialization practices, and ethnic identity achievement (i.e., hypotheses 16-16.b and 24-
24b). Contrary to the hypothesized relationships, the degree to which adolescents’

perceived their church as having an other-worldly spiritual orientation was not a predictor

190

 

IIIIIIII.
I! U

1|

of the degree to which they have a universal identity. However, as predicted, parents’
perceptions of their cautious-defensive socialization practices were negatively related to
adolescents’ ethnic identity achievement. It was also hypothesized that adolescents who
viewed their parents as imparting cautious-defensive socialization practices would be less
likely to have a universal identity (i.e., both ethnic identity achievement and afﬁrming
and belonging identity). This indicates adolescents reared in these homes have parents
who instill values such as “Whites have the power” and ‘Whites believe they are better”.
These parents stress the power differential between African Americans and Whites as
well as highlight the social location of African Americans in this society. Thomas and
Speight (1999) assert that parents who denigrate Whites in their socialization practices
might not balance their child-rearing strategies with positive messages about African
American culture and history. The ﬁndings from this study provide partial support for
this assertion.

Since adolescents’ perceptions of other-worldly church were not a signiﬁcant
predictor of identity, the larger social environment of these adolescents might not provide
them with positive messages about African Americans. Furthermore, this suggests these
adolescents may only receive particular types of socialization messages (i.e., “Whites
have the power and Whites are prejudiced”) in their homes. Although these parents have
the best intentions of raising their children to understand the many challenges African
Americans may face due to their social location, the failure to integrate positive
socialization messages about African Americans may adversely inﬂuence their

adolescents’ identity development. Again, this suggests that these adolescents may less

191

 

likely to develop an achieved identity and may be less likely to afﬁrm and belong to their
racial group.

Researchers have shown that exposure to African American history by African
Americans across different development stages enhanced their sense of racial pride and
self-esteem (Georgoff, 1967; Andrew, 1971; Gordon, 1995; Sellers et a1. 1998; Young,
1994). These studies underscore the signiﬁcance of teaching African American children
and adolescents about their history and culture. As stated previously, it appears
adolescents reared in cautious-defensive households might not receive positive messages
about African Americans. These ﬁndings suggest that adolescents’ parents and their
church need to incorporate and emphasize the positive contributions of African
Americans. Still, these ﬁndings need to be interpreted cautiously given that adolescents’
perceptions of their church were not signiﬁcantly related to their self-reported identity.

The next series of hypotheses examined the relationship between communal faith-
based orientation and universal identity (i.e., 17-1 7b and 25-25.b). These results were in
the Opposite direction of the pr0posed hypotheses. Adolescents’ perceptions of a
communal faith-based orientation were negatively related to their ethnic identity
achievement. This ﬁnding was only for ethnic identity achievement, thus, the degree to
which adolescents viewed their church as having communal faith-based orientation was
not a signiﬁcant predictor of their afﬁrming and belonging identity. In addition, parents’
perceptions of their integrative-assertive socialization practices were not signiﬁcantly
related to adolescents’ universal identity (i.e., both ethnic identity achievement and

afﬁrming and belonging identity). Adolescents’ who perceived their parents using

192

integrative-assertive socialization practices were negatively related to universal identity
(i.e., both ethnic identity achievement and afﬁrming and belonging identity).

Parents who socialized their adolescents by employing integrative-assertive child-
rearing strategies were no more or less likely when the ﬁndings are nonsigniﬁcant to have
universal identity (i.e., both ethnic identity achievement and afﬁrming and belonging
identity). In addition, adolescents who reported that their parents’ utilized integrative-
assertive racial socialization practices were less likely to have an ethnic identity
achievement and afﬁrming and belonging identity. Again, these ﬁndings contradict the
rationale behind the hypotheses.

Recall that communal churches underscore the signiﬁcance of educational,
economical, and political development in the African American community. In the
children and youth ministries of these churches, they participate in programs which
promote African American pride such as Kwanzaa and Black History Month. As
discussed previously, parents employing integrative-assertive racial socialization
emphasize racial pride and African culture and history in their child-rearing strategies.
Individuals reared in integrative-assertive households identiﬁed more closely with
African Americans, their culture and history (Demo & Hughes, 1990). Furthermore, it
would seem that churches with a communal faith-based orientation would be congruent
with parents’ integrative-assertive socialization practices as both are instilling similar
values concerning racial pride.

Similar to the other hypotheses, the ﬁndings regarding communal faith-based
orientation, parents and their adolescents’ perceptions of cautious-defensive racial

socialization practices, and ethnic identity achievement were unexpected and in the

193

H , m; H.747 i._.a.—‘....—..__. hu—f‘. -.~- .-w~=.-“.w-_a -‘.‘ .. "'

opposite direction (18 —18.b). Only adolescents’ perceptions of their parents’ cautious-
defensive socialization practices were negatively and signiﬁcantly related to have an
afﬁrming and belonging identity (26b). This was surprising given that through
communal faith-based programs, adolescents would be socialized about the importance
of improving societal conditions for African Americans. These churches would also
instill values in adolescents through cultural programs such as Kwanzaa and Black
History Month programs. As mentioned earlier, African American children and
adolescents exposed to African History increase their self-esteem and racial pride
(Gordon, 1977, Sellers et al., 1998; Young, 1994). Because these churches develop
programs pertinent to African Americans and promote identity develop through Rites of
Passage Programs, Kwanzaa, and Black History Month, these churches assist in the racial
socialization process by imparting positive messages about African Americans that are
missing from their parents’ cautious-defensive socialization practices. These adolescents
understand the social location of African Americans without having their reference group
orientation being anchored in the perceived power differential between Whites and
Blacks. In this situation, the church plays an important role in socializing adolescents
because the church may be the only place where these adolescents receive positive
messages about African Americans. This ﬁnding does not support this contention
regarding the role of communal faith- based orientation as a socialization agent.

In the next series of hypotheses (i.e., 19-19.b and 27-27.b) regarding universal
identity, the majority of the relationships were non-signiﬁcant. These ﬁndings indicate
that adolescents who viewed their churches as privatistic and perceived their parents as

individualistic-universalistic racial socialization practices were no more or less likely

194

when the ﬁndings is nonsigniﬁcant to have an ethnic identity achievement. These
ﬁndings also suggest that adolescents who viewed their churches as privatistic and
perceived their parents as individualistic-universalistic racial socialization practices were
no more or less likely when the ﬁndings is nonsigniﬁcant to have afﬁrming and
belonging identity. Only one relationship was signiﬁcant and as predicted, adolescents
who perceived their parents as having individualistic-universalistic racial child-rearing
strategies were less likely to have an achieved identity (27.b). This ﬁnding suggests that
these adolescents reared in these homes may have not begun to explore their racial
background. This is consistent with previous research. Thornton (1997) suggests these
parents teach their children universal or human value such as working hard, academic
achievement and being a good citizen as he discussed these parents were instilling values
in their children to view themselves as American only.

Another series of hypotheses were partially supported (i.e., 20-20.b and 28-28.b).
Adolescents’ perceptions of their church were not a signiﬁcant predictor of universal
identity (i.e., both ethnic identity achievement and afﬁrming and belonging identity). On
the other hand, parents’ perceptions of their cautious-defensive socialization practices
were negatively related to ethnic identity achievement (i.e., 20a). It was hypothesized
that the adolescents of parents who perceived their racial socialization practices as
cautious-defensive would be less likely to have an achieved identity. This relationship
was also hypothesized for adolescents’ perceptions of their parents who viewed their
socialization practices as cautious-defensive. This ﬁnding was the only signiﬁcant
predictor for afﬁrming and belonging identity. This current study suggest that

adolescents reared in these homes have parents who impart values such as “fair play will

195

not be reciprocated” and ‘Whites believe they are better.” As discussed earlier, parents
who focus on negative messages regarding Whites in their socialization practices might
not balance their child-rearing strategies with positive messages about African Americans
(Thomas and Speight, 1999). Since these parents and their church do not impart any
positive socialization messages about African Americans, their adolescents are less likely
to develop an achieved identity and to afﬁrm and belong.

African American Identity

 

African American identity was examined in this study to assess the extent to
which African American adolescents identify with being African American. Smith and
Brookins (1997) report the multidimensionality of African American identity consist of
the following: 1) a positive afﬁrmation of African American physical features; 2) positive
attitudes about African Americans as a group 3) identiﬁcation with Africans throughout
the Diaspora; 4) system blame versus personal blame and 5) cooperation versus
competitiveness orientation. Sellers et al. (1997) describe these types of identity
measures as investigating the qualitative meaning of identifying with being African
American. Since adolescence is a developmental period when adolescents grapple and
explore their many identities, it is important to determine adolescents’ perceptions of the
role of the church and their family on the formation of racial attitudes.

In this study, out of school interracial contact, a covariate, was negatively related
to African American identity. The more out of school interracial contact adolescents
reported the less likely they were to endorse an African American identity. Roberts
(1996) found that adults who grew up in either predominately White or racially diverse

settings scored lower on the African self-consciousness than those who lived in

196

predominantly African American settings. This ﬁnding suggests that level of interracial
contact across different settings may inﬂuence the identity development of African
American adolescents.

In contrast to universal identity, adolescents’ perceptions of their parents’
socialization practices were positively related to African American identity with the
exception of adolescents who perceived their parents as having individualistic-
universalistic racial socialization practices. These socialization practices were not a
signiﬁcant predictor of African American identity. Another interesting ﬁnding was
parents’ perceptions of their socialization practices were not a signiﬁcant predictor of
African American identity. This suggests that factors outside the family environment
may potentially have a greater inﬂuence than the immediate family on identity
development. Cross (1996), citing Spencer, Brookins, & Allen (1985), explains that
African American adolescents live and interact within different societal contexts that
shape identity development such as the family, school, neighborhood, church, and macro
factors (e.g., federal policies).

Adolescents who perceived their churches as this-worldly were more likely to
have an African American identity (i.e., hypotheses 29-29.b). Adolescents who
perceived their parents as having integrative-assertive socialization practices were more
likely to have an African American identity. Both adolescents’ perceptions of their
church as this-worldly and their perceptions of their parents socialization practices were
positively related to African American identity. As mentioned previously, these churches
incorporate African American culture and history into their theological orientation as

they instill racial values in their congregation and keep them abreast of societal

197

challenges in the African American community. These socialization strategies of the
church are identical to integrative-assertive child-rearing practices. Parents using
integrative-assertive racial socialization practices underscore racial pride and African
American culture and history in their child-rearing strategies. Demo & Hughes (1990)
found that individuals reared in integrative-assertive households identiﬁed more closely
with African Americans, their culture and history.

The results found partial support for the hypotheses concerning this-worldly
spiritual orientation, parents’ perceptions cautious-defensive racial socialization
practices, and adolescents’ perceptions of their parents’ cautious-defensive racial
socialization practices, and African American identity (i.e., hypotheses 30-30.b).
Parents’ perceptions of their cautious-defensive racial child-rearing practices were not a
signiﬁcant predictor of African American identity. In this model, adolescents’
perceptions of their church as this-worldly as well as their perceptions of their parents’
cautious-defensive racial socialization practices were positively related to African
American identity. The results suggest that this-worldly churches may compliment the
racial socialization practices of adolescents who perceive their parents as having
cautious-defensive child-rearing practices. Recall that adults reared in cautious-defensive
households reported a stronger afﬁnity to African Americans and commitment to
separatist ideology (Demo & Hughes, 1990). These parents tend to focus on the power
differential between African Americans and Whites, devoid of socialization messages
emphasizing the contributions of African Americans. It may be that the theological
orientation of this-worldly churches equalize such cautious-defensive messages such as

‘Whites believe they are better” and “Whites have the power.” These churches provide

198

positive messages about African Americans in their worship services that may potentially
support a healthy African American identity.

Contrary to the hypothesized relationships (32-32.b), the degree to which
adolescents perceived their church as having an other-worldly spiritual orientation was
not a predictor of the degree to which they have an African American identity.

Moreover, the degree to which parents viewed their socialization practices as cautious-
defensive was not a predictor of the degree to which they have an African American
identity. Surprisingly, adolescents’ perceptions of cautious-defensive racial socialization
practices were positively related to African American identity (i.e., hypothesis 32.b).
This hypothesized relationship was conﬁrmed and was in an unexpected direction. At
ﬁrst this result appears contradictory, however, the MCAIQ examines the extent to which
adolescents want to interact or have an afﬁnity with their own racial/ethnic group (Smith
& Brookins, 1999). Given their parents highlight the power differential and minority
status experienced by African Americans, these adolescents may reject the negative
stereotypes about African Americans. Thus, they may only focus on the racial
socializations messages that are consistent with their attitudes about being African
American.

Adolescents who perceived their church as communal (i.e., hypotheses 33-33.b
and 34-34.b) were somewhat more likely to have an African American identity. While
this ﬁnding emerged only at the trend level and must be interpreted with caution, it raises
an interesting issue. This is a surprising ﬁnding because it was hypothesized that

churches promoting African American schools and ﬁnancial institutions instilled values

199

 

about race to the adolescents in these congregations. This ﬁnding suggests that
communal churches may have an indirect racial socialization inﬂuence.

As predicted (i.e., hypotheses 35-35.b and 36-36.b), privatistic churches were
negatively related to African American identity as these churches participate in only
traditional programs such as M study, clothing drives, and prayer meeting. Therefore,
adolescents’ perceptions of these churches may reﬂect their failure to instill values about
race. In addition, adolescents’ perceptions of their parents’ individualistic-universalistic
socialization practices were not signiﬁcantly related to African American identity. In
contrast, adolescents’ perceptions of their parents’ cautious-defensive socialization
practices were positively related to African American identity. This ﬁnding was
conﬁrmed and was in an unexpected direction. It was hypothesized that adolescents who
perceived their parents as having cautious-defensive racial socialization practices would
be less likely to have an African American identity. It appears that adolescents who
perceive their parents as instilling these types of child-rearing strategies may attend to
only the messages that support their positive attitudes regarding African Americans.
Through their parents emphasizing the power differential between African Americans
and Whites, these socialization practices teach their adolescents to have a system blame
approach as opposed to an individual blame concerning the social hierarchy between
African Americans and Whites (Smith & Brookins, 1997). Thus, adolescents who
perceive their parental socialization practices as cautious-defensive were more likely to

have an African American identity.

200

 

 

Universal Identity and African American Identiy: Explanations of the Disparate Findings

 

Two approaches were examined in this study to assess identity development
among African American adolescents. The universal approach is known also as the race
generic (Smith et al., 2001) and pan—ethnic (Cross, 1994). It investigates the common
elements related to identity across different racial/ethnic groups. In contrast, the race-
speciﬁc approach explores the extent to which individuals identiﬁes with their
racial/ethnic group. The contradictory ﬁndings concerning the universal approach
underscore Smith et al (2001) assertion regarding the applicability of these measures to
diverse populations. They discuss that social location and culture may play a pivotal role
in answering race-generic questions. Therefore, the applicability of race generic
questions with racial/ethnic needs to be explored (Smith et al. 2001). They provide the
following examples of race-speciﬁc versus race-generic items.

For example, a race-speciﬁc socialization item examining racial pride might read:

“It is important for Black people to give their children a sense of pride in their

race.” A race-generic item would be a similar type of item but one that does not

include references to a speciﬁc racial group. A parallel, race-generic item might
read: “It is important for parents to instill in their children a sense of pride in their

race.” (Smith, et a1. 2001 pp. 18-19)

This sample only included African Americans and a comparison racial/ethnic
group was not present. The ambiguity in the items concerning a speciﬁc racial/ethnic
group should not have been a challenge in a racially homogeneous sample. However, in
settings that should have been perceived by adolescents and their parents as supporting a
positive universal identity (i.e., both ethnic identity achievement and afﬁrming and
belonging identity), the results from this study were in an unexpected and opposite

direction. This ﬁnding supports Smith et al. (2001) concerning the use of universal

identity measures. She was inquiring about their use with diverse populations. Based on

201

* 2*-H-- .~—-_.m—. -5 _“v— , "I ._, .-

the results of this study, these items may need to be examined in samples from the same
racial/ethnic groups. This may imply that the dimensions in the universal identity are
capturing a different construct for this sample.

Furthermore, the concept of “ethnic group" encompasses African Americans;
however, it also includes people of African descent who are African Americans such as
Jamaican American, Ghanaian American, Nigerian American, and enslaved African
Americans. Few researchers have examined the vast diversity within the African
American community and researchers should not assume that everyone’s origins are from
the enslavement period. Ogbu (1990) asserts that differences exist regarding individuals
who have acquired citizenship as immigrants versus involuntary immigrants. The diverse
ethnic groups subsumed as African American may participate in various cultural
activities that promote identity development differently. Therefore, more research is
warranted to examine how immigrants versus involuntary immigrants socialize their
children about race.

Another explanation of the contradictory ﬁndings concerning universal identity
(i.e., both ethnic identity achievement and afﬁrming and belonging identity) is the
adolescents in this study have not embarked on their racial identity search. The results
indicate that they would either have a diffused (i.e., unclear about their racial identity) or
a foreclosed identity (i.e., have taken on the values of their parents). Adolescents in these
developmental stages would be less likely to have either an achieved identity or feel they
afﬁrm or belong to a racial/ethnic group. It appears from the results of this study that the
adolescents have not begun their identity search. Cross (1994) asserts that the ﬁnal stage

of ethnic identity development is the establishment of a racial/ethnic identity. He further

202

 

 

states that the transition through the identity stages are not as clear because it does not
explain people of color who make their gender, sexual orientation or religion more salient
than their race.

In summary, future research should explore whether age is a confounding variable
in this study. Similar to the development of a religious afﬁliation identity, younger
adolescents may not have conducted their identity search. Therefore, older adolescents
may have begun to understand or even challenge their previous beliefs about race. In
addition, a qualitative study may explain the divergent results regarding each scale,
especially the race-generic one, and a qualitative study will allow adolescents to describe
their identity process and to discern when race becomes salient to them.

Different Factor Structure Between AACS and AACS-A: How Surprising Adolescents

 

Are Not Clones of Their Parents

 

It was hypothesized that the factor structure of the AACS would be parallel for
parents and adolescents on the AACS-A. However, a different factor structure emerged
between parents and adolescents on the AACS. As predicted, the factor structure of the
parent sample produced the expected subscales. That is, one factor reﬂected the this-
worldly versus other-worldly spiritual orientation and the other reﬂected the communal
versus privatistic faith-based orientation. Conversely, the ﬁrst factor for the adolescent
sample comprised the this-worldly —communal spiritual orientation and 2) the second
comprised the other-worldly spiritual orientation and privatistic faith-based orientation.
The EFA results indicated that the two samples have disparate perceptions on the

dimensionality of the church.

203

One plausible explanation for the differences in the factor structures of
adolescents and adults is that developmentally some of younger adolescents (i.e., aged
12-14) in the sample may not be able to discern the subtle differences within each
orientation. The results of the EFA reﬂect the ability of the sample to observe the
extremes on each tension and collapse them according to “raceless” theology (i.e., other-
worldly and privatistic faith—based) and a black theology (i.e., this-worldly and communal
faith-based). Developmentally, African American adolescents as well as other
adolescents at this age have not fully completed their identity search. This search
encompasses racial, religious, and gender identities (Phinney, 1989). Using the identity
literature to explain this ﬁnding, these adolescents may have not gone through their
religious identity search. Therefore, these adolescents would either have a diffused (i.e.,
unclear about their religious afﬁliation) or a foreclosed identity (i.e., have taken on the
values of their parents). Parents usually decide religious afﬁliation of their adolescents.
It is reasonable to suggest that adolescents have not critically examined their religious
upbringing. Thus, their exposure to different theological orientations is probably limited.
This may result in these adolescents having less of a frame of reference to evaluate their
church. Older adolescents (i.e., aged 16-19) might have begun this search because of
their increasing number of social networks (i.e., peer groups, work, and school) which
may potentially expose them to alternative perspectives than their parents.

Given the potential difference in the way adolescents at different developmental
stages view their church differently, future research is needed to assess whether age

explain the different factor structures. A simultaneous factor analysis allows researchers

204

 

 

to examine the factor structure of different samples. In this case, three samples could be
identiﬁed: 1) parent sample, 2) late adolescence and 3) preadolescence.

Implications of Study One and Two

 

This study extends the racial socialization and racial identity research to include
the church as an important socialization agent in the African American community. The
practical implications of this study are twofold. First, this study assists in advancing the
theory on racial socialization, racial identity, and African American families. Thus, this
study contributes to the literature by integrating the research areas on racial identity and.
racial socialization with the African American church.

The second set of implications of this investigation is the practical applications of
the ﬁndings. These preliminary results suggest that both church and family may teach
racial values that help to shape the racial identity of adolescents. In addition, the results
highlight the diversity in the church as well as in families with regard to the signiﬁcance
African Americans place on imparting values of race to their children. The study
suggests the church is an institution that can assist parents in the socialization process.

Furthermore, the ﬁndings imply that churches may inﬂuence identity differently
depending upon their spiritual and faith-based orientations. Therefore, some churches
may need to incorporate African American culture and history into the worship service,
Sunday school materials, and youth ministries. For example, during the worship service,
an adolescent member of the church could read about a famous African American or
other historical facts. In addition, historical information could also be placed on the
weekly church program. During Black History Month, churches could possibly sponsor

Quiz Bowls on various topics concerning African American culture. Introducing these

205

types of programs for adolescents may assist them through their transitions from
adolescence to adulthood.

Also, a healthy racial identity among African American adolescents has been
associated with academic achievement (Harris & Ford, 1997), lower levels of problem
behavior (McC'reay, Slavin, & Lesley, 1996), and resiliency (Miller, 1999). Although
these relationships were not examined in this study, they do underscore the importance of
racial socialization practices that teach their children about African American culture and
history. Thus, the church and family can bolster each other by providing children with a
representation of African Americans that reinforces the racial identity attitudes of African
American adolescents.

Future Studies

 

The ﬁndings from this study warrant more research in the areas of racial
socialization, racial identity, and the church. The psychometric properties of the church
scales (i.e., AACS and AACS-A) as well as the racial socialization (i.e., PVRS and
AVRS) measures need further development. Using a qualitative approach, parents and
their adolescents could explain how the church instills values about race. In addition, a
qualitative study allows for further exploration and understanding of how parents transfer
cultural practices to their children. Moreover, the emergent themes from these studies
can be used to develop more items for each scale. Lastly, after several iterations of
modifying the scales, construct and discriminant validity approaches should be used to
examine each of the measures.

Furthermore, each sub-category of religiosity and stereotypes should be explored

as moderators in study one. For instance, nonorganizational (i.e., praying, listening

206

 

religious service on the radio, or watching religious service on the television, and reading
the ible) and organizational activities (i.e., attending church, and participating in church
activities) as well as gender speciﬁc stereotypes should be assessed separately in the
model. Therefore, examining them individually might explain these relationships better
than investigating the globally observed variable.

Moreover, level of interracial contact in childhood and as an adult should be
explored also. Interracial contact was examined as the amount of interaction with whites
across different settings. However, it does not ascertain the quality of the relationships,
whether the interaction was a positive or negative experience for African Americans.
Future research must attend to the nature of the interracial contact and how this may
affect racial identity.

For Study Two, a longitudinal study would be more appropriate to assess the
developmental progression of adolescent identity development. This would also allow
for a better understanding of the role of the church over time. In addition, it is important
to access the racial identity of the parents over time too because they are the primary
socialization agent for the child. Several researchers have discussed the recycling of
racial identity attitudes among African American adults during different periods of
adulthood (Cross, 1991, 1994, Cross, Parham, & Helms 1991, Parham, 1989). Thus, a
longitudinal study may capture these transitions as well as explore whether they shift
during the socialization of their children.

Limitations of Study One and Two

 

Four limitations of the study are apparent. First, the cross sectional design of the

study does not explain adequately the possible selection bias among the participants. In

207

 

addition, the cross sectional nature of this study makes any causal conclusion suspect,
and therefore, causal assumptions cannot be supported by the data.

The second limitation of the study is the relationship between parents’ perceptions
of the church and their racial socialization practices may be a nonrecursive relationship.
That is, the church may be inﬂuencing parental racial socialization practices while
parents’ racial socialization practices may be also inﬂuencing the theological orientations
of the church (i.e., spiritual and faith-based orientations). More speciﬁcally, the church
may impact the congregation as well as the church members may affect the church. The
causality of these relationships remains unknown and more research is warranted in this
area.

The third limitation of this study is that the average income of the families is
$42,000. This suggests a moderate income and thus, the ﬁndings cannot be generalized
to other social economic status such as lower, upper middle class, and wealthy. Plummer
(1995) found that adolescents from middle class backgrounds were more likely to
endorse positive attitudes about African Americans. Since these adolescents have been
exposed to African American culture and have successful African American role models,
she asserts that they have pride in race and do not struggle as much with the identity
development stages (Plummer, 1995). Thus, social class is an important variable to
examine.

The different factor structure on the AACS is the fourth limitation. Thus, more
research is warranted to assess the extent to which parents and their adolescents perceive
their church differently. In addition, age is a potential confound affecting adolescents’

perceptions and needs to be explored developmentally. Therefore, a qualitative study

208

may capture the age distinctions and items can possibly be constructed from the themes
to construct a more valid measure.

Summary of Study One and Study Two

 

The findings of Study One provide evidence that the church is a racial
socialization institution in the African American community. The socialization practices
instilled by the church reﬂect the diversity in the African American community.
Moreover, parental racial identity attitudes were also an important factor in this study.
The ﬁndings from this study support Sellers et al. (1997) that racial identity attitudes
explicate behaviors among African Americans. This study found that parents who
endorsed different racial identity attitudes also reported distinct racial socialization
practices. To illustrate, parents who endorsed nationalist racial identity attitudes reported
using integrative-assertive and cautious-defensive racial socialization practices while
parents who endorsed humanist racial identity attitudes used individualistic-universalistic
racial socialization practices.

Study Two, consistent with Study One, supports the theory that the church is a
setting that instills racial values to adolescents about their racial/ethnic group. The
ﬁndings indicated that adolescents who viewed their churches as either this-worldly,
other-worldly, communal, or privatistic were less likely to endorse universal identity (i.e.,
ethnic identity achievement and afﬁrming and belonging). In contrast, adolescents’
perceptions of certain spiritual and faith-based orientations were more likely to have an
African American identity. Various kinds of parental racial socialization, as perceived by

their adolescents, were related positively to African American identity; however these

209

 

 

 

 

practices were adversely related to universal identity (i.e., ethnic identity achievement

and afﬁrming and belonging).

210

 

 

Appendix A
Consent F orm- Key Informant

Formal Section of the guide

Before we can begin, I need to review a regulation from Michigan State University
(MSU) requiring consent from each participant. I will read from a standard form.

Purpose of the Study

This study will explore attitudes regarding the role of the church in supporting parents or
primary caregivers concerning topics related to race and child-rearing practices.
Speciﬁcally, the purpose of this research is to gain a better understanding of the ways the
church teaches children about race. Therefore, purpose of this interview is to locate
churches in the Lansing and Detroit area which represent each of the aforementioned
characteristics (i.e., this-worldly versus other-worldly and communal versus privatistic).

Rights of the Participant in this Study

Participation in this study is voluntary. You will be asked a series of questions and I
hope you will answer these questions as thoroughly and honestly as possible. There are
no right or wrong answers. The interview will last approximately one hour and if you
choose no penalties are imposed to participate. You may request that I turn off the tape
recorder at anytime during the interview and talk “off the record.” In addition,
participants may decide not to continue in the study or answers any of the questions at
any time during the study. For example, you may choose not to answer an interview
question if you feel uncomfortable.

The information will be held strictly conﬁdential and any information obtained from the
participant will not be shared with anyone other than myself, the primary investigator
from Michigan State University. If you agree to participate, you will be audio taped and
the tape will be transcribed later. The transcribing entails typing out our conversation
and names will not be associated with any of the audiotapes. In addition pseudonyms
will be used to ensure the conﬁdentially of all participants, and all information will be
stored in a secure location.

If you have any concerns or questions regarding participation in this study, please contact

Pamela Martin at the Department of Psychology (555) 355- 5555, Michigan State
University.

211

 

 

Consent to Participate in the Interviews

By providing my name, address, telephone number, and signature below, I indicate (a)
my complete understanding of the information in this consent form, and (b) I choose to
participate in this study.

Print your name:

 

Print your address:

 

 

Your phone number

 

 

Your Signature
If the participant is giving consent please have him/her sign the consent form. In

addition, ask the participant ifhe/she wants to receive additional information by mail
about this study after the data collection phase of this study is completed

212

 

 

 

Informant Interview

1. Let’s begin the interview. Can you please describe churches in your area, which only
emphasize salvation, heaven, and eternal life?

Probes: Remember, these churches only discuss these religious values (e. g., salvation,
heaven, and eternal life)? Can you describe why you placed this church under the other-
worldly theological orientation?

2. What are the names of these churches?

Remember everything discussed here is conﬁdential. If you feel uncomfortable
answering these questions I can turn oﬂ the recorder.

3. To what extent can you describe churches in your area which emphasize salvation,
heaven, and eternal life and also include in their orientation the involvement of
political, educational, and social issues relevant to the African American community?

Probes: Can you describe, why you placed this church under the this-worldly theological
orientation? Can you provide another example of why these churches ﬁt this category?

4. What are the names of these churches?

Remember everything discussed here is conﬁdential. If you feel uncomfortable
answering these questions I can turn oﬂ the recorder.

The second characteristic is the communal versus privatistic orientation. The communal
end of the tension represents involvement of churches in the economic, political, and
social aspects of their congregation and community. This theological orientation views
the church as being the center of activities in the African American community. In
contrast, the other end of this tension, the privatistic theological orientation underscores
the spiritual needs of the congregation and churches that ascribe to the privatistic
orientation do not participate in activities outside of the congregation.

5. To what extent can you describe churches which participate in traditional church
programs such as Bible Study, Choir, and men and women’s auxiliaries?

Probes: Can you describe, why you placed this church under the this-worldly theological
orientation? Can you provide another example of why these churches ﬁt this category?

6. What are the manes of these churches?

Remember everything discussed here is conﬁdential. If you feel uncomfortable
answering these questions I can turn off the recorder.

7. To what extent are these the same churches listed under the other-worldly tension?

213

 

Probes: What distinguishes churches that are not listed on both the other-worldly and
privatistic lists? Why was the church excluded from the other-worldly list?
Why was the church excluded from the privatistic list? Why are these
churches on the other-worldly and privatistic lists?

8. To what extent can you describe churches that participate in traditional church
programs (e. g., Bible Study, Choir, and men and women’s auxiliaries and other
programs such as rites of passage, drug and alcohol programs, voter registration, and
HIV /AIDS programs?

Probes: Can you describe, why you placed this church under the this-worldly theological
orientation? Can you provide another example of why these churches ﬁt this category?

9. To what extent are these the same churches listed on both tensions?

Probes: What distinguishes churches which are not listed on the list? What distinguish
churches that are not on the privatistic list?

214

 

Appendix B
Minister/Pastor Recruitment Letter

Date

Pastor’s name

Church Address
City, State Zip Code

Dear ,

 

I am honored you are reading this letter. My name is Pamela
Martin and I am a graduate student in Ecological/Community Psychology
and Urban Affairs. As a person who was raised in the church, the church
has been a signiﬁcant factor in my spiritual, moral, and academic
development. Along with the support of my parents and extended family,
the church has been instrumental in teaching me values to succeed in life.

I am writing you concerning a research project I am conducting
involving churches and families. Part of my calling is the teaching
ministry and ministry of help. I would like to do some work for your
congregation through my dissertation research. My study investigates
what Christians teach adolescents girls and boys about their Black History.
I choose church’s name because I have noticed your approach in reaching
out to that segment of society which many congregations consider beyond
salvation, the “hip hop” generation.

Therefore, I am asking for your permission to visit and tell you
more about my study. I would like to make an appointment to discuss the
details of the study with either you or the appropriate ministerial staff. I
will be in touch to follow up and offer needed clariﬁcation. If you have
any questions prior to my follow up, please do not hesitate to call me at
the phone numbers and e-mail printed in the left margin. Thank you for
any help you are able to give.

 

Sincerely,

Pamela P. Martin
Doctoral Candidate
Michigan State University
(517) 555-1234

(517) 555-1234
xxxxxxx@pilot.msu.edu

215

Appendix C
Recruitment Flyer

THE AFRICAN AMERICAN CHURCH PROJECT
Understanding How The Church Maintains and Supports Families

Train up a child in the way he should go,
and when he is old he will not depart from it (Proverbs 22: 6).

The African American Church Project at Michigan State University is recruiting
parent/legal guardian and their adolescents to participate in a study examining how the
church supports parents in raising their children. The requirements are the following: 1)
must be African American or Black; 2) must be attendee of the church, and 3) must have
an adolescent between the ages of 12-19. Each parent and adolescent pair will
individually receive $10.00 for participating in the study. For more information contact
Pamela Martin at (517) 555- 5555 or 1 (800) 555-5555.

216

Appendix C
Recruitment F lyer

THE AFRICAN AMERICAN CHURCH PROJECT
Understanding How The Church Maintains and Supports Families

Train up a child in the way he should go,
and when he is old he will not depart from it (Proverbs 22: 6).

The African American Church Project at Michigan State University is recruiting
parent/legal guardian and their adolescents to participate in a study examining how the
church supports parents in raising their children. The requirements are the following: 1)
must be African American or Black; 2) must be attendee of the church, and 3) must have
an adolescent between the ages of 12-19. Each parent and adolescent pair will
individually receive $10.00 for participating in the study. For more information contact
Pamela Martin at (517) 555- 5555 or 1 (800)555-5555.

216

Appendix D
Recruitment Statement
(Church Announcement)

My name is Pamela Martin and I am a graduate student in Ecological/Community
Psychology and Urban Affairs Programs at Michigan State University. As a person who
was raised in the church, the church has been a signiﬁcant factor in my moral, spiritual,
and academic development. I have noticed church’s name approach in reaching out to
the segment of society which many congregations consider beyond salvation, the “hip
hop” generation. The African American Church Project is recruiting parents and their
adolescents to participant in a study examining how the church supports parents in raising
their adolescents. The study involves a parent and his/her adolescents completing a
survey. The parent survey will take approximately forty-ﬁve minutes while the
adolescent survey averages twenty minutes. The requirements are the following: 1) must
be African American or Black; 2) must be attendee of the church, and 3) must have an
adolescent between the ages of 12-19. Each parent/legal guardian and adolescent pair
will individually receive $10.00 for participating in the study. For more information
contact Pamela Martin at 1 (555) 555-5555 or (555) 555-5555.

 

217

Appendix E
Parent Consent Form

Purpose of the Study

This study intends to explore attitudes regarding the role of the church in supporting and
maintaining families. Speciﬁcally, the purpose of this research is to gain a better
understanding of the ways the church instills values into parents and their children.

Rights of the Participant in this Study

Participation in this study is voluntary. You will be asked to complete several
questionnaires, and hope you will answer these questions as thoroughly and honestly as
possible. The entire interview is expected to last approximately one hour. You may
refuse to answer any question or any part of a question, and you may elect to withdraw
from the interview at any time. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent
allowable by law.

All information will be held strictly conﬁdential and any information obtained from the
participant will not be shared with anyone other than the primary investigator from
Michigan State University. All information will be stored in a secure location.

Your name will not be given to anyone. If you choose to allow written notes to be taken,
your name will not be recorded on the form.

If you have any concerns or questions regarding participation in this study either now or
at any other point of time in the future, please contact Pamela Martin, MA,(517) 353—
9145, the responsible study investigator [Harriette McAdoo, Ph.D., (517) 432-3321],
[Pennie F oster—Fishman, Ph.D., (517) 353-5015], or MSU’s Institutional Review Board
Chairperson [David Wright, Ph.D., (517) 355 — 2180].

Consent to Participate in the Interviews

By providing my name, address, telephone number, and signature below, you
acknowledge (a) you have read and understood these points, (b) a researcher staff
member has explained the purpose and any potential risks in participating in this study,
and (c) you freely consent to participate in the study.

Print your name:

 

Print your address:

 

 

Your phone number

 

Your Signature

 

218

By participating in this study, you are giving me consent to contact your son or daughter.
Can I contact your son or daughter to participate in this study?

Yes

No

Print your child’s name:

 

Please check the appropriate option if you wish to receive additional information in the
mail about this study after the data collection phase of this investigation is completed.

No, I would not like any additional information of this

 

study.

Yes, I would like any additional information of this study
and please send the information to the aforementioned address above. (If you request the
information to be sent to another address, then indicate below.)

 

Thank you very much for your cooperation.

219

Adolescent Consent Form

Purpose of the Study

This study intends to explore attitudes regarding the role of the church in supporting and
maintaining families. Speciﬁcally, the purpose of this research is to gain a better
understanding of the ways the church instills values into parents and their children.

Rights of the Participant in this Study

Participation in this study is voluntary. You will be asked to complete several
questionnaires, and hope you will answer these questions as thoroughly and honestly as
possible. The entire interview is expected to last approximately one hour. You may
refuse to answer any question or any part of a question, and you may elect to withdraw
from the interview at any time. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent
allowable by law.

All information will be held strictly conﬁdential and any information obtained from the
participant will not be shared with anyone other than the primary investigator from
Michigan State University. All information will be stored in a secure location.

Your name will not be given to anyone. If you choose to allow written notes to be taken,
your name will not be recorded on the form.

If you have any concerns or questions regarding participation in this study either now or
at any other point of time in the future, please contact Pamela Martin, MA, (517) 353-
9145, the responsible study investigator [Harriette McAdoo, PhD., (517) 432-3321],
[Pennie Foster-Fishman, Ph.D., (517) 353-5015 or MSU’s Institutional Review Board
Chairperson [David Wright, Ph.D., (517) 355 — 2180].

Consent to Participate in the Interviews

By providing my name, address, telephone number, and signature below, you
acknowledge (a) you have read and understood these points, (b) a researcher staff
member has explained the purpose and any potential risks in participating in this study,
and (c) you freely consent to participate in the study.

Print your name:

 

Parent’s name:

 

Print your address:

 

 

Your phone number

 

Your Signature

 

220

Please check the appropriate option if you wish to receive additional information in the
mail about this study after the data collection phase of this investigation is completed.

No, I would not like any additional information of this

 

study.

Yes, I would like any additional information of this study
and please send the information to the aforementioned address above. If you request the
information to be sent to another address then indicate below.

 

Thank you very much for your cooperation.

221

Appendix F

Parent-Demographic Questionnaire

Directions: Today, I would like to ask you some questions regarding your family’s
background. To begin with, I will ask you some questions about yourself.

 

 

1 . Gender
(1) Female
(2) Male

 

 

 

 

2. What is your relationship to the adolescent?

) M
F

5)

re

8 Foster parent
oster parent

10) ease

 

3. What is your age?

2 to
3 to
to

to 9
7 ve

 

4. What is your current marital status?

) or marrlage ann
Marrl

ever

 

222

5. What is the highest grade (year of education) completed?

01‘

Please Specify

 

Please Specify

 

Please Specify

 

 

6. What is your current occupation? (If now retired, disabled, unemployed, or on leave,
what was your previous occupation?)

 

Please

7. What is your family income?

 

223

8. How many children do you have?

01' more

 

9. When you think about the places where you lived, gone to school or worked, were
these places mostly Black or mostly White?

 

| | I | | I
All Mostly About Mostly Almost Does
Black Black Half White All Not Apply
Black White
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (9)

 

9a. How about the elementary school you (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (9)
went to?

Was it all Black, mostly Black, about half
Black, mostly White, or almost all White?

 

9b. How about thejunior high or middle (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (9)
school you went to?

Was it all Black, mostly Black, about half
Black, mostly White, or almost all White?
9c. The high school you went to? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (9)

 

Was it all Black, mostly Black, about half
Black, mostly White, or almost all White?
9d. The neighborhood(s) where you grew (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (9)
up?

 

Were there all Blacks, mostly Blacks,
about half Blacks, mostly Whites, or all
most all Whites?

 

 

 

 

224

| | I
All Mostly About

I |
l 1
Mostly Almost

 

 

 

 

Does
Black Black Half White All Not Apply
Black White

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (9)
9e. Your present neighborhood? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (9)
Is it all Black, mostly Black, about half
Black, mostly White, or almost all White?
9f. The church or place of worship? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (9)
Is it all Black, mostly Black, about half
Black, mostly White, or almost all White?
9g. Your present work place, If (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (9)
employed?
Is it all Black, mostly Black, about half
Black, mostly White, or almost all White?

 

 

 

225

Adolescent-Demographic Questionnaire

Directions: Today, I would like to ask you some questions regarding your family

and church experiences. To begin with, I will ask you some questions about
yourself.

 

 

1. Gender:
(1) Female
(2) Male

 

 

 

 

2. How old are you?

 

1
1
1
1

3. What is the highest year of education completed?

co ege

Please Specify

 

or vocat1
un1ty ege
ege

 

226

 

4. What type of school do you attend?

 

 

 

 

 

(1) Public
(2) Private
(3) Charter
Please Specify
(4) Other
Please Specify

 

 

 

5. When you think about the places where you lived, gone to school or worked, were
these places mostly Black or mostly White?

I | | | I
All Mostly About Mostly Almost Does

Black Black Half White All Not Apply
Black White
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (9)

 

5a. How about the elementary school you (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (9)
went to?

Was the school all Black, mostly Black,
about half Black, mostly White, or almost
all White?

 

5b. How about the junior high or middle (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (9)
school you went to?

Was the school all Black, mostly Black,
about half Black, mostly White, or almost
all White?

 

 

5c. Ifapplicable, the high school you went (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (9)
to?

Was the school all Black, mostly Black,
about half Black, mostly White, or almost
all White?

 

 

 

227

I I |
l

I |
All Mostly About
Black Black Half
Black

(1) (2) (3)

|
Mostly
White

(4)

I
Almost

All

White

(5)

Does

Not Apply

(9)

 

5d. What about your friends at your
present school?

Are they all Black, mostly Black, about
half Black, mostly White, or almost all
White?

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(9)

 

5e. What about your friends outside of
school?

Are they all Black, mostly Black, about
half Black, mostly White, or almost all
White?

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(9)

 

5 f. What about your extracurricular
activities (for example, sports teams, Boy
or Girl Scouts, and student council)? Are
these groups?

Are they all Black, mostly Black, about
half Black, mostly White, or almost all
White?

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(9)

 

5g. The church or place of worship?

Is it all Black, mostly Black, about half
Black, mostly White, or almost all White?

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(9)

 

 

5h. Your present work place, if
employed?

Is it all Black, mostly Black, about half
Black, mostly White, or almost all White?

(1)

 

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(9)

 

228

 

Appendix G
African American Church Scale

Directions: The following statements reﬂect some beliefs, opinions, and attitudes
regarding the church. Read each statement careﬁilly and give your honest feelings about
the beliefs and attitudes expressed. Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree
with each statement.

 

Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly
Disagree Disagree or Agree Agree
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

1. My church is a place where problems associated with (1 ) (2 ) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5)

racism are not addressed.

 

2. In my church, my skin color is of no great signiﬁcance in (1 ) (2) ( 3) (4) ( 5)
relating to the message of Jesus.

 

3. In my church, the race of Jesus (God) is not an issue. (1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5)

 

4. The sermons of the pastor/minister of my church tend to (1 ) (2 ) ( 3) ( 4 ) ( 5)
focus on the after life.

 

5. My church develops strategies to educate its (1 ) (2 ) (3) (4) (5)
congregation about the liberation of Black people.

 

6. In my church, my culture/ethnicity are represented in the (1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3) (4 ) (5)
religious icons such as stained glass windows, images of
Jesus, church programs, and Sunday School materials.

 

7. My church explains to children the differences between (1 ) (2) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5)
the White church and the Black church.

 

8. My church has an obligation to teach children about the (1 ) (2) (~ 3) (4 ) ( 5)
contributions of their race.

 

9. My church discusses the importance of the church to (1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5)
develop schools, businesses, credit unions, and banks in
the Black community.

 

10. My church has outreach programs that teach people about (1 ) (2 ) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5)
HIV/AIDS.

 

11. The minister or pastor in my church discusses the (1 ) (2) ( 3) ( 4 ) ( 5)
importance of Blacks participating in activities which
promote economic development of the black community.

 

 

12. My church participates in activities which promote Black (1 ) (2 ) ( 3) (4) ( 5)
Pride and Black History month such as Kwanzaa and
Martin L. King Day.

 

 

 

229

 

 

I
I

 

Strongly Disagree Neither Agree
Disagree Disagree or Agree
(1) (2) (3) (4)

Strongly
Agree
(5)

 

13. My church sponsors only traditional programs such as
Bible Study, Sunday School, Prayer meeting and food

(clothing) drives.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

 

14. The programs in my church focus only on the preparation
to enter heaven.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

 

15. My church ministries do not discuss issues such as Black

 

on Black crime, underemployment among Blacks, and
important health issues among Blacks.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

 

230

 

Appendix H
Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity

Directions: 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. Indicate the extent to which you agree by using the
following scale.

I l | | I I
Very Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Very Strongly Do not
Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Know

( 1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

 

1. Overall, being Black has very little to do (1) (2) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5) (6) (7)
with how I feel about myself.

 

2. In general, being Black isanimportant part (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
of my self-image.

 

3. My destiny is tied to the destiny of other (1) (2) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5) (6) (7)
Black people.

 

4. Being Black is unimportant to my sense of (1) (2) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5) (6) (7)
what kind of person I am.

 

5. Ihaveastrong sense of belonging to Black (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6. I have a strong attachment to other Black (1) (2) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5) (6) (7)
people.

7. Being Black is an important reﬂection of (1) (2) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5) (6) (7)
who I am.

8. Being Black is not a major factor in my (1) (2) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5) (6) (7)
social relationships.

9. I feel good about Black people. (1) (2) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5) (6) (7)

10. I am happy that I am Black. (1) (2) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5) (6) (7)

11. I feel that Blacks have made major (1) (2) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5) (6) (7)
accomplishments and advancements.

12. I often regret that I am Black. (1) (2) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5) (6) (7)

13. I am proud to be Black. (1) (2) ( 3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

 

14. I feel that the Black community has made (1) (2) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5) (6) (7)
valuable contributions to this society.

 

 

15. Overall, Blacks are considered good by (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
others.

 

 

 

231

l I | I
Very Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

| |
Strongly Very

I
I
Strongly Do not

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Know
( 1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

1. In general, others respect Black people. (1) ( 2) (3) (4 ) ( 5) (6) (7)

2. Most people consider Blacks, on average, to (1) (2) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5) (6) (7)
be more ineffective than other racial groups.

3. Blacks are not respected by the broader (l) (2) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5) (6) (7)
society.

4. In general, other groups view Blacks in a (1) (2) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5) (6) (7)
positive manner.

5. Society views Black people as an asset. (1) ( 2) 3) (4 ) ( 5) (6) (7)

6. Blacks who espouse (believe in) separatism (1) (2) (4 ) ( 5) (6) (7)
are as racist as White people who espouse
(believe in) separatism.

22. A sign ofprogress is that Blacks are in the (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
mainstream of America more than ever
before.

23. Because America is predominantly White, (1) ( 2) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5) (6) (7)
it important that Blacks go to White
schools so that they can gain experience
interacting with Whites.

24. Blacks should strive to be full members (1) (2) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5) (6) (7)
of the American political system.

25. Blacks should try to work within the (1) (2) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5) (6) (7)
system to achieve their political and
economic goals.

26. Blacks should strive to integrate all (1) (2) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5) (6) (7)
institutions which are segregated.

27. Blacks should feel free to interact socially (1) (2) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5) (6) (7)
with White people.

28. Blacks should View themselves as being (1) (2) ( 3) ( 4 ) ( 5) (6) (7)
Americans ﬁrst and foremost.

29. The plight of Blacks in America will (1) (2) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5) (6) (7)
improve only when Blacks are in
important positions within the system.

30. Black values should not be inconsistent (1) (2) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5) (6) (7)
with human values.

31. Blacks should have the choice to marry (1) (2) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5) (6) (7)
interracially.

32. Blacks and Whites have more (1) (2) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5) (6) (7)
commonalties than differences.

33. Black people should not consider race (1) (2) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5) (6) (7)
when buying art or selecting a book to

read.

 

 

 

232

------- \“-~ I I I
Very Sh"Ongly Strongly Disagree Agree

I | I
Strongly Very Strongly Do not

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Know
(I) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

34. Blacks would be better offif they were (1) (2) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5) (6) (7)
concerned with the problems facing all
people than just focusing on Black issues.

35. Being an individual is more important than (1) (2) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5) (6) (7)
identifying oneself as Black.

36. We are children ofa higher being, (1) (2) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5) (6) (7)
therefore, we should love people of all
races.

37. Blacks should judge Whites as individuals (1) (2) (3) (4 ) ( 5) (6) (7)
and not as members of the White race.

38. People, regardless of their race, have (1) (2) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5) (6) (7)
strengths and limitations.

39. The same forces which have led to the (1) (2) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5) (6) (7)
oppression of Blacks have also led to the
oppression of other groups.

40. The struggle of Black liberation in (1) (2) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5) (6) (7)
American should be closely related to the
struggle of other oppressed groups.

41. Blacks should learn about the oppression (1) (2) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5) (6) (7)
of other groups.

42. Black people should treat other oppressed (1) (2) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5) (6) (7)
people as allies.

43. The racism Blacks have experienced is (1) (2) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5) (6) (7)
similar to that of other minority groups.

44. There are other people who experience (1) (2) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5) (6) (7)
racial injustice and indignities similar to
Black Americans.

45. Blacks will be more successful in (1) (2) (3) (4 ) ( 5) (6) (7)
achieving their goals if they form
coalitions with other oppressed groups.

46. Blacks should try to become friends with (1) (2) ( 3) ( 4 ) ( 5) (6) (7)
people from other oppressed groups.

47. The dominant society devalues anything (1) (2) ( 3) ( 4 ) ( 5) (6) (7)
not White male oriented.

48. It is important for Black people to (1) (2) ( 3) ( 4 ) ( 5) (6) (7)
surround their children with Black
art, music, and literature.

49. Black people should not marry (l) (2) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5) (6) (7)
interracially.

 

 

 

 

233

 

I I | I | | |

I I | I I | |
Very Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Very Strongly Do not

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Know
( 1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

50. Blacks would be better off if they adopted (1) (2) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5) (6) (7)
Afrocentric values.

51. Black students are better off going to (1) (2) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5) (6) (7)
schools that are controlled and organized
by Blacks.

52. Black people must organize themselves (1) (2) ( 3) ( 4 ) ( 5) (6) (7)
into a separate Black political force.

53. Whenever possible, Blacks should buy (1) (2) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5) (6) (7)
from other Black businesses.

54. A thorough knowledge of Black history (1) (2) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5) (6) (7)
is very important for Blacks today.

55. Blacks and Whites can never live in true (1) ( 2) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5) (6) (7)
harmony because of racial differences.

56. White people can never be trusted where (1) (2) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5) (6) (7)
where Blacks are concerned.

 

 

 

234

Appendix I
Stereotypes

Directions: 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.

Strongly Disagree Neither agree Agree Strongly
Disagree nor disagree Agree
(1 ) (2) (3) (4) (5)

1. Most Black people

are ashamed of themselves
are lazy

neglect their families (do not take of them)
are lying or triﬂing

are hard working

do for others

give up easily

are weak

are proud of themselves

are selﬁsh

are community oriented

are intelligent

are hypersexual (over sexed)
are competent (capable)

2. Most Black men

are ashamed of themselves

are lazy

neglect their families (do not take of them)
are lying or triﬂing

are hard working

do for others

give up easily

are weak

are proud of themselves

are selﬁsh

are community oriented

are intelligent

are hypersexual (over sexed)

are competent (capable)

are chauvinistic

are charismatic (full of personality)
are dominating towards women

are respectful towards women

are faithful to their partners

235

Strongly Disagree Neither agree Agree Strongly

Disagree nor disagree Agree
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
3. Most Black women

 

are ashamed of themselves

are lazy

neglect their families (do not take of them)
are lying or triﬂing

are hard working

do for others

give up easily

are weak

are proud of themselves

are selﬁsh

are community oriented

are intelligent

are hypersexual (over sexed)

are competent (capable)

are emasculating (castrating, make men feel less manly)
are competitive

are dominating towards men

are respectful to men

are feminine

 

236

Appendix J
Parent Version of Racial Socialization Scale

Directions: This questionnaire will ask you some questions about statements parent(s)
say to their children. Circle only one number depending on how often you have said or
modeled any of these messages: 1. Never, 2. Rarely, 3. Often, and 4. All the time. Please
circle only one number per questions. Thank you.

 

Never Rarely Often All the time
(1) (2) (3) (4)
l. I teach (or model to) my child that being a (1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3) ( 4 )

good citizen is important for African
Americans or Blacks.

 

2. I teach (or model to) my child education is the (l ) ( 2 ) ( 3) ( 4 )
only way African Americans or Blacks can
succeed in this society.

 

3. I teach (or model to) my child all individuals (1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3) ( 4 )
are equal in this society.

 

4. I teach (or model to) my child that you should (1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3) ( 4 )
try to get along with all people.

 

5. I teach (or model to) my child be careful in the (1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3) ( 4 )
way you speak to some White people.

 

6. I teach (or model to) my child hard work will (1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3) ( 4 )
allow you to secure a nice job.

 

7. I teach (or model to) my child that he/she is as (l ) ( 2 ) ( 3) ( 4 )
good as anyone else.

 

8. I teach (or model to) my child skin color is not (1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3) ( 4 )
a factor in his/her worth in American society.

 

 

9. I teach (or model to) my child that some (1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3) ( 4 )
Whites believe they are better.
10. I teach (or model to) my child to not give (1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3) ( 4 )

White people or others special treatment.

 

11. I teach (or model to) my child the importance (1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3) ( 4 )
of celebrating African American holidays such
as Martin L. King Day or Kwanza.

 

12. I teach (or model to) my child the importance (1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3) ( 4 )
of playing with African American or Black
toys.

 

p.—
U)

. I teach (or model to) my child to stand up for (l ) ( 2 ) ( 3) ( 4 )
his/her rights.

 

 

14. I teach (or model to) my child Black History (1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3) ( 4 )
month is every month.

 

 

 

237

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Never Rarely Often All the time
(1) (2) (3) (4)

15. I teach (or model to) my child never to forget (1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3) ( 4 )
his/her past (for example slavery and
segregation).

16. I teach (or model to) my child that he/she (1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3) ( 4 )
should learn about people from the continent
of Africa.

17. I teach (or model to) my child some White (1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3) ( 4 )
people are prejudice against African
Americans or Blacks.

18. I teach (or model to) my child some White (1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3) ( 4 )
children will not want to play with him/her
once he/she gets older.

19. I teach (or model to) my child to never be (1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3) ( 4 )
ashamed to be African American or Black.

20. I teach (or model to) my child Whites have all (1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3) ( 4 )
the power.

21. I teach (or model to) my child to never put (1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3) ( 4 )
his/her trust in Whites.

22. I teach (or model to) my child if you love (1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3) ( 4 )
someone, it does not matter what race they are.

23. I teach (or model to) my child that some White (1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3) ( 4 )
people can make it hard for him/her.

24. I teach (or model to) my child some White (1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3) ( 4 )
people place barriers in front of minorities.

 

 

238

 

Appendix K
African American Church Scale-Adolescent

Directions: The following statements reﬂect some beliefs, opinions, and attitudes
regarding the church. Read each statement careﬁllly and give your honest feelings about
the beliefs and attitudes expressed. Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree
with each statement.

 

Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly
Disagree Disagree or Agree Agree
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
1. In my church racism is not talked about to the (1 ) (2 ) (3) (4 ) ( 5)
congregation.

 

2. In my church, my skin color is not important in relating (1 ) (2) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5)
to the message of Jesus.

 

3. In my church, the race of Jesus (God) is not an issue. (1 ) (2 ) (3) (4 ) ( 5)

 

4. The sermons of the pastor/minister of my church tend to (1 ) (2 ) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5)
focus on the after life (i.e., getting into heaven).

 

5. My church develops strategies to teach the congregation (1 ) (2) (3) (4) (5)
about ways Black people can help their community.

 

6. In my church, the religious icons such as stained glass (1 ) (2 ) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5)
windows, images of Jesus, church programs, and Sunday
School materials look like me.

 

7. My church explains to me the differences between the (1 ) (2 ) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5)
White church and the Black church.

 

8. My church has an obligation to teach children about the (1 ) (2) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5)
important things Black people have done.

 

9. My church discusses the importance of the church to (1 ) (2 ) ( 3) (4) ( 5)
develop schools, businesses, credit unions, and banks in
the Black community.

 

._.
O

. My church has outreach programs that teach people about (1 ) (2) (3) (4) ( 5)
HIV/AIDS. -

 

11. My minister or pastor preaches it is important for Blacks (1 ) (2 ) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5)
to spend money in the Black community.

 

 

y—a
N

. My church participates in activities which promote Black (1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5)
Pride and Black History month such as Kwanzaa and
Martin L. King Day.

 

 

 

239

 

Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly

 

Disagree Disagree or Agree Agree
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
13. My church has only traditional programs such as (1 ) (2 ) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5)
Bible Study, Sunday School, Prayer meeting and food
(clothing) drives.

 

14. The programs in my church focus only on the preparation (1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5)
to enter heaven.

 

 

15. My church ministries do not discuss problems in the (1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3) (4 ) ( 5)
Black community such as Black on Black crime,

employment issues, and important health issues among
Blacks.

 

 

240

 

Appendix L
Adolescent Version of Racial Socialization

Directions: This questionnaire will ask you some questions about what your parents may
have taught to you. Circle only one number depending on how often your parent(s) have
said or modeled any of these messages: 1. Never, 2. Rarely,

3. Often, and 4. All the time. Please circle only one number per questions. Thank you.

 

Never Rarely Often All the time
(1) (2) (3) (4)
1. My parents teach me that being a good citizen (1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3) ( 4 )

is important for African Americans or Blacks.

 

2. My parents teach me education is the (1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3) (4 )
only way African Americans or Blacks can
succeed in this society.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. My parents teach me that all individuals are (l ) ( 2 ) ( 3) ( 4 )
equal in this society.

4. My parents teach me that I should try to get (1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3) ( 4 )
along with all people.

5. My parents teach me to be careful in the way I (1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3) (4 )
speak to some White people.

6. My parents teach me that hard work will allow (1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3) ( 4 )
me to secure a nice job.

7. My parents teach me that I am as good as (l ) (2 ) ( 3) (4 )
anyone else.

8. My parents teach me that my skin color is not (1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3) ( 4 )
a factor in American society.

9. My parents teach me that some Whites believe (1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3) ( 4 )
they are better.

10. My parents teach me not to give White people (1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3) ( 4 )

or others special treatment.

 

 

 

241

Never Rarely Often
(1) (2) (3)

All the time

(4)

 

. My parents teach me the importance of

celebrating African American holidays such as
Martin L. King Day or Kwanzaa.

(1) (2) (3) (4)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12. My parents buy (or have bought) me African (1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3) ( 4 )
American or Black toys.

13. My parents teach me to stand up for my rights. (1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3) (4 )

14. My parents teach me Black History month is (1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3) ( 4 )
every month.

15. My parents teach me to never forget my past (1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3) ( 4 )
(for example slavery and segregation).

16. My parents teach me that it is important to (1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3) ( 4 )
learn about people from the continent of
Africa.

17. My parents teach me that some White people (1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3) ( 4 )
are prejudice against African Americans or
Blacks.

18. My parents teach me that some White children (1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3) ( 4 )
will not want to play with me once he/she gets
older.

19. My parents teach me that I should never be (1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3) ( 4 )
ashamed of being African American or Black.

20. My parents teach me Whites have all the (1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3) ( 4 )
power.

21. My parents teach me not to ever put my trust (1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3) ( 4 )

in Whites.

 

 

242

 

Never Rarely Often All the time
(1) (2) (3) (4)

 

22. My parents teach me if you love someone, it (1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3) ( 4 )
does not matter what race he/ she is.

 

23. My parents teach me that some White people (1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3) ( 4 )
can make it hard for me.

 

 

24. My parents teach me that some White people (1 ) ( 2 ) ( 3) ( 4 )
place barriers in front of minorities.

 

 

243

 

 

Appendix M
Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure

In this country, people come from a lot of different cultures and there are many different
words to describe the different backgrounds or ethnic groups that people come from.
Some examples of the names of ethnic groups are Mexican-Americans, Hispanic, Black,
Asian-American, American Indian, Anglo-American, and White. Every person is born
into an ethnic group, or sometimes two groups, but people differ on how important their
ethnicity is to them, how they feel about it, and how much their behavior is affected by it.
These questions are about your ethnicity or your ethnic group and how you feel about it
or react to it.

Please ﬁll in:
In terms of ethnic group, I consider myself to be

Use the numbers given below to indicate how much you agree or disagree with
each statement.

 

Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly
agree agree disagree disagree
(1) (2) (3) (4)
l. I have spent time trying to ﬁnd out (1) (2) (3) (4)

more about my own ethnic group, such
as its history, traditions, and customs.

 

2. I am active in organizations or social (1) (2) (3) (4)
groups that include mostly members of
my own ethnic group.

 

3. I have a clear sense of my ethnic (l) (2) (3) (4)
background and what it means for me.

 

4. I like meeting and getting to know (1) (2) (3) (4)
people from ethnic groups other than
my own.

 

5. I think a lot about how my life will be (1) (2) (3) (4)
affected by my ethnic group
membership.

 

 

6. I am happy that I am member of the (l) (2) (3) (4)
group I belong to.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

people from other ethnic groups.

 

Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly
agree agree disagree disagree
(1) (2) (3) (4)

7. I sometimes feel it would be better if (1) (2) (3) (4)
different ethnic groups didn’t try to mix
together.

8. I am not very clear about the role of my (1) (2) (3) (4)
ethnicity in my life.

9. I often spend time with people from (1) (2) (3) (4)
ethnic groups other than my own.

10. I really have not spent much time trying (1) (2) (3) (4)
to learn more about the culture and
history of my ethnic group.

11. I have a strong sense of belonging to (1) (2) (3) (4)
my own ethnic group.

12. I understand pretty well what my ethnic (l) (2) (3) (4)
membership means to me, in terms of
how to relate to my own group and
other groups.

13. In order to learn more about my ethnic (1) (2) (3) (4)
background, I have often talked to other
people about my ethnic group.

14. I have a lot of pride in my ethnic group (1) (2) (3) (4)
and its accomplishments.

15. I don’t try to become friends with (1) (2) (3) (4)

 

245

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly
agree agree disagree disagree
(1) (2) (3) (4)
16. I participate in cultural practices of my (1) (2) (3) (4)
own group, such as special food, music,
or customs.
17. I am involved in activities with people (1) (2) (3) (4)
from other ethnic groups.
18. I feel a strong attachment towards my (1) (2) (3) (4)
own ethnic group.
19. I enjoy being around people from (1) (2) (3) (4)
ethnic groups other than my own.
20. I feel good about my cultural or ethnic (1) (2) (3) (4)

background.

 

 

Write in the number that gives the best answer to each question.

21. My ethnicity is

1) Asian, Asian American, or Oriental

2) Black or African American
3) Hispanic or Latino

4) White, Caucasian, European, not Hispanic

5) American Indian

6) Mixed, parents are from two different groups

7) Other (write in)

22. My father’s ethnicity is (use the number above )
23. My mother’s ethnicity is (use the number above )

246

 

Appendix N
Ethnic Identity Measure for African American Youth

This questionnaire looks at your feelings speciﬁcally toward Black people or African

Americans. There are no right or wrong answers. Please respond to them as if you were
talking to someone about what you think. Please be honest because your answers will be

kept conﬁdential.

Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree
(1 ) (2) (3) (4) (5)

to
can

are not

cannot

 

 

 

248

Appendix 0
Parent—Religiosity

Directions: Next, I’d like to ask some more questions concerning religion.

1. As a child, were you raised in the church?

2. As a child, what was your church afﬁliation?

Please

 

3. Has your church afﬁliation changed as an adult?

 

 

 

 

Yes (1)
Please speciﬁy
No (2)

 

 

 

4. How often do you usually attend religious services?

once a
a
a to

10
01‘ more

 

5. Are you an ofﬁcial member of a church or other place of worship?

249

6. How many church clubs or organizations do you belong to or participate in?

 

 

 

 

None (1)
1-3 (2)
4 or more (3)

 

 

 

7. Besides regular service, how often do you take part in other activities at your place of
worship?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Never (1 )
A few times a year (2)
A few times a month (1 to 3 times) (3)
At least once a week (1 to 3 times) (4)
Nearly everyday (4 or more times a week) (5)

 

8. Do you hold any positions in your church or place of worship?

 

Yes (1)

 

 

 

 

No (2)

 

9. How often do you read religious books or other religious materials?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Less than once a year (1)
A few times a year (2)
A few times a month (1 to 3 times) (3)
At least once a week (1 to 3 times) (4)
Nearly everyday (4 or more times a (5)
week)

 

10. How often do you watch or listen to religious programs on TV or radio?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Less than once a year (1)
A few times a year (2)
A few times a month (1 to 3 times) (3)
At least once a week (1 to 3 times) (4)
Nearly everyday (4 or more times a (5)
week)

 

 

 

250

 

11. How often do you pray?

once a
a
a to

to
01' more

 

12. How often do you ask someone to pray for you?

once a
a
a to
to
01‘ more

 

13. How religious would you say you are?

at

 

14. How important was religion in your home when you were growing up?

 

15. How important is it for Black parents to send or take their children to religious
services?

 

251

16. How spiritual would you say you are:

 

 

 

 

Not spiritual at all (1)
Somewhat spiritual (2)
Very spiritual (3)

 

 

 

17. How important is your spirituality to you:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not important (1)
Somewhat important (2)
Very important (3)

 

18. Looking back at your spiritual beliefs since your child was six years old, are these
beliefs the same, less, or more.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Less than they were (1)
About the same (2)
More committed than they were (3)

 

19. How much help is your church/religious community to you? Would you say:

 

252

 

Adolescent-Religiosity

Directions: Next, I’d like to ask some more questions concerning religion.
1. How often do you usually attend religious services?
once a

a
a

to
01‘ more

 

2. Are you an ofﬁcial member of a church or other place of worship?

3. How many church clubs or organizations do you belong to or participate in?

 

 

 

None (1)
1-3 (2)
4 or more (3)

 

 

 

 

4. Besides regular service, how often do you take part in other activities at your place of
worship?

to

to
or more a

 

5. Do you hold any positions in your church or place of worship?

6. How often do you read religious books or other religious materials?

 

 

 

 

 

Less than once a year (1)
A few times a year (2)
A few times a month (1 to 3 times) (3)

 

 

253

 

At least once a week (1 to 3 times) (4)

 

 

Nearly everyday (4 or more times a (5)
week)

 

 

 

7. How often do you watch or listen to religious programs on TV or radio?

once a
a
a to

to
01' more

 

8. How often do you pray?

once a
a
a to
to
01' more

 

9. How often do you ask someone to pray for you?

01108 a
a
a to
to
01‘ more

 

week
10. How religious would you say you are?

at

 

11. How important is religion in your home?

 

254

 

12. How important is it for Black parents to send or take their children to religious
services?

 

13. How much help is your church/religious community to you? Would you say:

 

255

 

 

.u + Agmoﬁzom‘. 6:28:80 mama»; osmcgcmvﬁ + Abﬁawzomven + CESEEoU
mac? ozmzaziv ms + Swab 3 +9833”;va + Q0835 mzoﬁzom 135333 + 008200 30852:; + on n 9552 83230 .w

.o + Abﬁowwzom... 3:58:50 msmcu> ocmcmzemvﬁ + AbmmoE—omvon
+ 9235.50 SE3 osms§cmv E + Tomaso E +€oswoswmvﬂ + 00055 SEE—om Ecoummvﬁ + 02880 3035399 + on H usuaoumz .5

.o + Abioﬁzomi. 1258500 msms> otmugtmvﬁ + Abuoﬁmzomvcn
+ 9238500 msmuo> 059“ch mg + Aow<v S inozmoémvmn + @535 2.230% 55553 + 08:80 35225: + on u “258:: .c

.o + Abaodwzom... 355580 mama? ocmﬁmzivﬁ + Agmowmuumven + 9.258800
3%? osmzmzcnc E + $w<v wd. +30%?mean + 3.5me 3230M Esocmmvﬁ + 00850 86858ch + on H uwwoswzgmm/w .m

@3233 E; 555520 Baméam

a + 35293.. 3253:: 32? 3283-550} + Ensure} + $253.25
mama? bntoaioﬁov B + Auw<v 5 2538363 + CCSmE msoﬁzom 558563 + 90850 EomtuECE+ on $852 commuummo .v

a + Sagas? baccasé was; 3253-550} + $323063 + 2283
-mEH 3%? 3283-559 mm— + Aow<v 5 2858.633 + CASES mzoﬁzom EEQEBS + 00880 Eomtoﬁcﬁ + on H Hmzmqocmz

("I

a + Sagan? 3253-25 See, 32535595 + Eaemzévﬁ + 2253
-ﬂﬁ mama? 3253-55.va mg + ﬂow/xv 5 1538333 + CASES msoﬁzom 553$an + 30850 EomtoECE + on n “258:: .N

.u + Smeasf 2253-25 2:? 2253-559; + Susana} + 2253
at: 32? bwtoktoﬁov 3 + Aow<v E #838353 + 00035 msommzom 135553 + Comucou REESE—v.3 + on u EcocszEm/x 4

eggs”. Ea Ensues aatam

 

0:0 33m c8 mcoumscm commmocmom .mm 2an

0:0 beam 8.“ mcoumscm 2238qu
m xmvcomm/x

256

 

 

.0 + $095020“? 0000085305 + 900300000900 + 600008020 3 + A0w<v
E 200300.663 + CASE: msoww=0m 30000003 + 0000000 000000000305 + as M 805005 02005—068 300m 0>E0mm<0>uﬁw85 .0

.0 + AmoaboEBmu." HmEmEsmvE + Am00300000mvon + 60:58:20 3 + a0w<v .0 20200000003
+ Q0805 m=0_w:0m 300000002 + 0000000 1030:2503 + on n 0000005 cocmNzﬂoom 300m 00m20.000303052002303 .m

.0 + $090028?“ 00.00852th + 900500000909 + Gmmcmﬁsmv B + A0w<v
3 #0038000va + $009.: m:0_m:0m 300833 + 305000 antsccﬁ + on M 800005 coumNzﬁoom 660m 0>_m:0m0Q-m:0:=00 .v
3005::

.0 + 300500005».n 005000255205 + 909300005000 + CmEocszmmwaﬁ E + A0w<v
3 20030000003 + CASES mzomwz0m 50000003 + 008:00 302000505 + on N 0003005 Suﬁ—£00m 360m 0>E0mm<0>cSwBE .m

.0 + $093088? 00002002800035 + 009000000900 + CmEocszGw<V E + A0m<v 3 10030000003
+ $.5me m:0_w:0m EEEEVB + 308000 3600000505 + on H 0000005 cocci—£00m ESQ 05$_020>ED-0E_3:03:05 .N

.0 + 909000000? HmEocngmm<V£ + 309000000300 + GmEoumzémm<v E + A0w<v
3 1005002033 + Q9805 m:0_w=0m 500533 + 008000 3800000505 + on M 303005 00002068 500% 03200000032500 ._

um_:0:0_E_mm<
009500.55 0:0 35:03 :35—

 

0:O zvaw 000 maoumsvm 005000900 ”mm 030k .0000

257

 

.o + $090023? 3:052 commoamovﬁ + Amomboeemvwn + 3:852 commoumaOv B + Aom<v E isocmoscmvﬁ
+ 3.8me ESE—om Ecohmmvmn + Godunov Eowhﬂﬁvﬁ + on n 80:85 seawNzﬂoom 38m BEEﬂgEDéumzmsEZvE .Q

.o + 9089865“, 3:052 3.32395 + 33383993 + 00:an nommoamov B + Ema; 5 1538353
+ 3535 m=o_w=om 135333 + 08:80 3238ch + on n 80:35 cocaNzﬂoom 38m osmzmﬁo>ED¢um£3365 .:

.o + $090023? €552 wommoamovi + 309308893 + 0 $852 @385qu on + $93 3 +9538:va
+ 00823 95%:va EESSCE + $08.80 322.5255 + on H 80:35 cocﬁzﬂoom 30mm cum=35>ED¢5=§2>€5 .0—
onEE commounnc

.o + $090088?” 5222355 + Amomboohﬁmvon + szmcoumzv .5 + Aowﬁ
3 1538353 + 3.555 msewzom EEENACS + 30850 EEmbBEVE + on M 80335 Esau—«Sow 38M o>tomm<$>ﬂ8w8£ .m

.o + Awoqbogﬂmuw 3232355 + Amoaboobumvoa + 3222370 3 + $93 3 25:82.83
+ $5me ngwzom 235353 + 00880 EGmhoEdﬁ + on u 838$ cocwﬂﬁﬁom 30mm ”Em_.383cDéEﬁSSEE .w

.o + Amomboeoumuw $125chth + Amomboobgmvon + szmaoumzv E + Aow<v
3 isotmosumvﬁ + 3835 maewzum 320833 + 00850 _a_omt8£v_n + on H 805an sotwuzﬂoom 36mm ozmsﬂoqmsocsau .h

«£2232
8959955 98 5353 Evan

 

0:0 33m Sm maotmscm cowmwewom .mm 2an .280

258

Appendix Q
Results of the Regressions Examining the Moderators

Table 23. Hierarchical Regression Spiritual Orientation and Racial Identity

 

Regression Equation
Assimilationist = b0 + bl(lnterracial Contact) + b2(Parental Religious History) + b3(Education Level)+
b4 (Age) + b5 (Other-worldly versus This-Worldly) + b6(Religiosity) + b7(Other-Worldly versus This-
Worldly *Religiosity)

 

Variables Unstandardized Std. Standardized t Sig.

Coefﬁcients B Error Coefﬁcients

Beta

Covariates-Step One
(Constant) 4.05 0.29 13.84 0.00
Interracial Contact 0.13 0.07 0.12 1.75 0.08
Parental Religious History 0.07 0.10 0.05 0.68 0.50
Educational Level -0.06 0.03 -O. 13 -l.80 0.07
Age 0.02 0.08 0.02 0.26 0.79
Step Two
(Constant) 4.51 0.33 13.48 0.00
Interracial Contact 0.1 1 0.07 0.10 1.47 0.14
Parent Religious History 0.1 1 0.10 0.07 1.06 0.29
Educational Level -0.04 0.04 -0.08 -l .05 0.30
Age 0.02 0.08 0.01 0.21 0.83
Other-Worldly versus This-Worldy
Orientation -0. 18 0.07 -0. 19 -2.70 0.01
Step Three
(Constant) 4.55 0.34 13.48 0.00
Interracial Contact 0.11 0.07 0.10 1.47 0.14
Parent Religious History 0.12 0.10 0.09 1.21 0.23
Educational Level -0.04 0.04 -0.07 -1.02 0.31
Age 0.02 0.08 0.02 0.24 0.81
Other-Worldly versus This-Worldy
Orientation -0.18 0.07 -0.20 -2.74 0.01
Religiosity -0.11 0.12 -0.06 -0.90 0.37
Step Four
(Constant) 4.56 0.40 l 1.46 0.00
Interracial Contact 0.11 0.07 0.10 1.46 0.15
Parent Religious History 0.12 0.10 0.09 1.20 0.23
Educational Level -0.04 0.04 -0.07 —l .01 0.31
Age 0.02 0.08 0.02 0.24 0.81
Other-Worldly versus This-Worldy
Orientation -O. 18 0.10 —0.20 -1.88 0.06
Religiosity —0.13 0.48 -0.08 -0.27 0.78
Interaction Other-Worldly versus
This-worldly * Religiosity “ 0.0] 0.16 0.01 0.05 0.96

Dependent Variable: Assimalationist

 

“ Represents the moderating relationship

259

 

Cont. Table 23.1. Hierarchical Regression Spiritual Orientation and Racial Identity

 

Regression Equation
Humanist = bo + b1(Interracial Contact) + b2(Parental Religious History) + b3(Education Level)+ b4 (Age) +
b5 (Other-worldly versus This-Worldly) + b6(Religiosity) + b7(Other-Worldly versus This-Worldly
*Religiosity)

 

Variables Unstandardized Std. Error Standardized t Sig.

Coefﬁcients B Coefﬁcients

Beta

Covariates-Step One
(Constant) 4.73 0.28 16.82 0.00
Interracial Contact -0.03 0.07 -0.03 -0.46 0.64
Parental Religious History -0.09 0.10 -0.06 —0.91 0.37
Educational Level -0.09 0.03 -0. 19 -2.73 0.01
Age 0.05 0.08 0.04 0.64 0.53
Step Two
(Constant) 5.37 0.32 16.92 0.00
Interracial Contact -0.06 0.07 -0.06 -0.89 0.37
Parent Religious History -0.04 0.09 -0.03 -0.43 0.67
Educational Level -0.06 0.03 -0. 12 - l .72 0.09
Age 0.04 0.08 0.04 0.56 0.57
Other-Worldly versus This—Worldy
Orientation -0.24 0.06 -0.27 -3.89 0.00
Step Three
(Constant) 5.36 0.32 16.72 0.00
Interracial Contact -0.06 0.07 -0.06 -0.89 0.38
Parent Religious History 004 0.10 -0.03 -0.45 0.65
Educational Level -0.06 0.03 -O.12 -l.72 0.09
Age 0.04 0.08 0.04 0.56 0.58
Other-Worldly versus This-Worldy
Orientation -0.24 0.06 -0.27 -3.88 0.00
Religiosity 0.02 0.12 0.01 0.15 0.88
Step Four
(Constant) 5,29 0.38 13.98 0.00
Interracial Contact -0.06 0.07 -0.06 -0.88 0.38
Parent Religious History —0.04 0.10 -0.03 -0.46 0.65
Educational Level -0.06 0.03 -0.12 -1.73 0.09
Age 0.04 0.08 0.04 0.56 0.58
Other-Worldly versus This-Worldy
Orientation -0.22 0.09 -0.24 -2.36 0.02
Religiosity 0.17 0.46 0.10 0.37 0.71
Interaction Other-Worldly versus
This-worldly * Religiosityn -0.05 0.15 -0.10 -0.34 0.73

Dependent Variable: Humanist

 

“ Represents the moderating relationship

260

Cont. Table 23.2. Hierarchical Regression Spiritual Orientation and Racial Identity

 

Regression Equation
Nationalist = bo + b](1nterracia1 Contact) + b2(Parenta1 Religious History) + b3(Education Level)+ b4 (Age)
+ b5 (Other-worldly versus This-Worldly) + b6(Religiosity) + b7(Other-Wor1dly versus This-Worldly
*Religiosity)

 

Variables Unstandardized Std. Error Standardized t Sig.
Coefﬁcients B Coefﬁcients
Beta

Covariates-Step One

(Constant) 3.86 0.25 15.15 0.00
Interracial Contact -0.15 0.07 -0. 16 -2.37 0.02
Parental Religious History -0.01 0.09 -0.01 —0. 16 0.87
Educational Level 0.10 0.03 0.24 3.43 0.00
Age —0.06 0.07 -0.06 -0.90 0.37
Step Two

(Constant) 3.05 0.28 1 1.07 0.00
Interracial Contact -0.12 0.06 -0. 12 -1.91 0.06
Parent Religious History -0.07 0.08 -0.06 —0.90 0.37
Educational Level 006 0.03 0.14 2.08 0.04
Age -0.06 0.07 -0.05 -0.85 0.40
Other-Worldly versus This-Worldy

Orientation 0.31 0.05 0.38 5.74 0.00
Step Three

(Constant) 3.09 0.28 1 1.14 0.00
Interracial Contact -0. 12 0.06 -0. 12 -1.92 0.06
Parent Religious History -0.06 0.08 -0.04 -0.68 0.50
Educational Level 0.06 0.03 0.14 2.12 0.04
Age -0.05 0.07 -0.05 -0.81 0.42
Other-Worldly versus This—Worldy

Orientation 0.31 0.05 0.38 5.70 0.00
Religiosity -0.12 0.10 -0.07 -1. 15 0.25
Step Four

(Constant) 3.26 0.33 10.00 0.00
Interracial Contact -0. 12 0.06 -0.12 -l.93 0.06
Parent Religious History -0.05 0.08 -0.04 -0.63 0.53
Educational Level 0.06 0.03 0.14 2.15 0.03
Age 005 0.07 -0.05 -0.81 0.42
Other-Worldly versus This-Worldy

Orientation 0.25 0.08 0.30 3.10 0.00
Religiosity -0.50 0.39 -0.32 -1.27 0.21
Interaction Other-Worldly versus

This-worldly * Religiosity " 0.13 0.13 0.26 1.01 0.31

Dependent Variable: Nationalist

 

’ Represents the moderating relationship

261

Cont. Table 23.3. Hierarchical Regression Spiritual Orientation and Racial Identity

 

Regression Equation
Oppressed Minority = bo + b1(Interracial Contact) + b2(Parental Religious History) + b3(Education Level)+
b4 (Age) + b5 (Other-worldly versus This-Worldly) + b6(Re1igiosity) + b7(Other-Worldly versus This-
Worldly *Religiosity)

 

Variables Unstandardized Std. Error S_tandardized t Sig.

Coefﬁcients B Coefﬁcients

Beta

Covariates-Step One
(Constant) 4.35 0.24 18.40 0.00
Interracial Contact -0. 12 0.06 -0. 14 -1.97 0.05
Parental Religious History 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.64 0.52
Educational Level 0.04 0.03 0.09 1.29 0.20
Age -0.14 0.07 -0.15 -2.11 0.04
Step Two
(Constant) 4.50 0.27 16.53 0.00
Interracial Contact -0. 13 0.06 -0. 15 -2.07 0.04
Parental Religious History 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.78 0.44
Educational Level 0.04 0.03 0.11 1.54 0.12
Age -0.14 0.07 -0.15 -2. 14 0.03
Other-Worldly versus This- -0.06 0.05 -0.08 -1.13 0.26
Worldly
Step Three
(Constant) 4.51 0.27 16.41 0.00
Interracial Contact -0.13 0.06 —0. 15 -2.07 0.04
Parental Religious History 0.07 0.08 0.06 0.80 0.43
Educational Level 0.04 0.03 0.12 1.55 0.12
Age -0.14 0.07 -0.15 -2. 12 0.03
Other-Worldly versus This- -0.06 0.05 -0.08 -l .14 0.26
Worldly
Religiosity -0.02 0.10 -0.02 -0.21 0.83
Step Four
(Constant) 4.64 0.32 14.39 0.00
Interracial Contact -0.13 0.06 -0. 15 —2.08 0.04
Parental Religious History 0.07 0.08 0.06 0.83 0.41
Educational Level 0.05 0.03 0.12 1.57 0.12
Age —0. 14 0.07 -0.15 -2.12 0.04
Other—Worldly versus This- -0.10 0.08 -0. 15 -1.33 0.18
Worldly
Religiosity -0.31 0.39 -0.22 -0.80 0.43
Interaction Other-Worldly 0.10 0.13 0.22 0.77 0.44

versus This-Worldly*Re1igiosity “
Dependent Variable:Oppressed Minority

 

‘ Represents the moderating relationship

262

Cont. Table 23.4. Hierarchical Regression Faith-Based Orientation and Racial Identity

 

Regression Equation
Assimilationist: b0 + bl(lnte1racial Contact) + b2(Parenta1 Religious History) + b3(Education Level)+ b4
(Age) + b5 (Privatistic versus Communal) + b6(Religiosity) + b7(Privatistic versus Communal *Religiosity)

 

Variables Unstandardized Std. Error Standardized t Sig.

Coefﬁcients B Coefﬁcients

Beta

Covariates-Step One
(Constant) 4.05 0.29 13.76 0.00
Interracial Contact 0.13 0.07 0.12 1.75 0.08
Parental Religious History 0.07 0.10 0.05 0.68 0.50
Educational Level -0.06 0.04 -0. 13 -1.76 0.08
Age 0.02 0.08 0.02 0.26 0.80
Step Two
(Constant) 4.39 0.40 10.93 0.00
Interracial Contact 0.11 0.08 0.11 1.48 0.14
Parental Religious History 0.08 0.10 0.06 0.80 0.42
Educational Level -0.05 0.04 -0.10 -1.37 0.17
Age 0.02 0.08 0.01 0.19 0.85
Privatistic versus Communal -0.09 0.07 -0.09 -1.25 0.21
Step Three
(Constant) 4.43 0.40 10.95 0.00
interracial Contact 0.11 0.08 0.1 l 1.47 0.14
Parental Religious History 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.94 0.35
Educational Level -0.05 0.04 -0.10 -1.34 0.18
Age 0.02 0.08 0.01 0.21 0.83
Privatistic versus Communal -0.09 0.07 —0.09 -l .29 0.20
Religiosity -0.10 0.12 -0.06 -0.83 0.41
Step Four
(Constant) 4.23 0.46 9.29 0.00
Interracial Contact 0.10 0.08 0.10 1.36 0.17
Parental Religious History 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.93 0.35
Educational Level -0.05 0.04 -0.10 -1.37 0.17
Age 0.02 0.08 0.02 0.28 0.78
Privatistic versus Communal -0.04 0.09 -0.04 -0.39 0.70
Religiosity 0.44 0.58 0.25 0.75 0.46
Privatistic versus -0.15 0.15 —0.32 -0.94 0.35

Communa1*Religiosity ‘
Dependent Variable:
Assimilationist

 

' Represents the moderating relationship

263

 

Cont. Table 23.5. Hierarchical Regression Faith-Based Orientation and Racial Identity

 

Regression Equation
Humanist= bo + b1(Interracial Contact) + b2(Parental Religious History) + b3(Education Level)+ b4 (Age)
+ b5 (Privatistic versus Communal) + b6(Re1igiosity) + b7(Privatistic versus Communal *Religiosity)

 

Variables Unstandardized Std. Error Standardized t Sig.

Coefﬁcients B Coefﬁcients

Beta

Covariates-Step One
(Constant) 4.75 0.28 16.85 0.00
Interracial Contact 003 0.07 -0.03 -0.48 0.63
Parental Religious History -0.09 0.10 -0.06 -0.89 0.37
Educational Level -0. 10 0.03 -0.20 -2.81 0.01
Age 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.65 0.52
Step Two
(Constant) 5.04 0.38 13.09 0.00
Interracial Contact -0.05 0.07 —0.05 -0.68 0.50
Parental Religious History -0.07 0.10 -0.05 -O.77 0.44
Educational Level -0.08 0.04 -0. 18 -2.41 0.02
Age 0.05 0.08 0.04 0.59 0.56
Privatistic versus Communal —0.08 0.07 -0.08 -1.09 0.28
Step Three
(Constant) 5.02 0.39 12.93 0.00
Interracial Contact -0.05 0.07 -0.05 -0.67 0.50
Parental Religious History —0.08 0.10 -0.06 -0.80 0.43
Educational Level -0.09 0.04 -0.18 —2.41 0.02
Age 0.05 0.08 0.04 0.59 0.56
Privatistic versus Communal -0.08 0.07 -0.08 -1.07 0.28
Religiosity 0.03 0.12 0.02 0.25 0.81
Step Four
(Constant) 4.76 0.44 10.87 0.00
Interracial Contact -0.06 0.07 —0.06 -0.80 0.43
Parental Religious History —0.08 0.10 -0.06 -0.81 0.42
Educational Level -0.09 0.04 -0.18 -2.47 0.01
Age 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.68 0.50
Privatistic versus Communal 0.00 0.09 0.00 -0.01 0.99
Religiosity 0.74 0.57 0.43 1.30 0.20
Privatistic versus -0.19 0.15 -0.43 -1.28 0.20

Communal*Religiosity ‘"
Dependent Variable: Humanist

 

" Represents the moderating relationship

264

Cont. Table 23.6. Hierarchical Regression Faith-Based Orientation and Racial Identity

 

Regression Equation
Nationalist: bD + b,(Interracial Contact) + b2(Parenta1 Religious History) + b3(Education Level)+
b4 (Age) + b5 (Privatistic versus Communal) + b6(Re1igiosity) + b7(Privatistic versus Communal
*Religiosity)

 

Variables Unstandardized Std. Error Standardized t Sig.

Coefﬁcients B Coefﬁcients

Beta

Covariates-Step One
(Constant) 3.86 0.26 15.05 0.00
Interracial Contact -0.15 0.07 -O.16 -2.35 0.02
Parental Religious History -0.01 0.09 —0.01 -0. 17 0.87
Educational Level 0.1 1 0.03 0.24 3.45 0.00
Age -0.06 0.07 -0.06 —0.91 0.37
Step Two
(Constant) 3.66 0.35 10.45 0.00
Interracial Contact -0. 14 0.07 -0.15 —2. 16 0.03
Parental Religious History -0.02 0.09 -0.02 -O.26 0.79
Educational Level 0.10 0.03 0.22 3.10 0.00
Age -0.06 0.07 -0.06 -0.86 0.39
Privatistic versus Communal 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.84 0.40
Step Three
(Constant) 3.71 0.35 10.54 0.00
Interracial Contact -0.14 0.07 —0. 1 5 -2.17 0.03
Parental Religious History 0.00 0.09 0.00 -0.03 0.97
Educational Level 0.10 0.03 0.23 3.15 0.00
Age -0.06 0.07 -0.06 -0.82 0.42
Privatistic versus Communal 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.78 0.44
Religiosity -0.14 0.11 -0.09 -1.25 0.21
Step Four
(Constant) 3.80 0.40 9.59 0.00
Interracial Contact -0. 14 0.07 -0.15 -2.10 0.04
Parental Religious History 0.00 0.09 0.00 -0.03 0.97
Educational Level 0.10 0.03 0.23 3.17 0.00
Age -0.06 0.07 -0.06 —0.85 0.40
Privatistic versus Communal 0.02 0.08 0.02 0.26 0.79
Religiosity -0.40 0.52 -0.25 -0.77 0.44
Privatistic versus 0.07 0.14 0.17 0.52 0.60

Communal*Religiosity "
Dependent Variable: Nationalist

 

" Represents the moderating relationship

265

Cont. Table 23.7. Hierarchical Regression Faith-Based Orientation and Racial Identity

 

Regression Equation
Oppressed Minority = b0 + b,(Interracial Contact) + b2(Parental Religious History) + b3(Education Level)+
b4 (Age) + b5 (Privatistic versus Communal) + b6(Re1igiosity) + b7(Privatistic versus Communal
*Religiosity)

 

Variables Unstandardized Std. Error Standardized t Sig.

Coefﬁcients B Coefﬁcients

Beta

Covariates-Step One
(Constant) 4.36 0.24 18.38 0.00
Interracial Contact -0. 12 0.06 -0. 14 -1.98 0.05
Parental Religious History 0.05 0.08 0.05 0.65 0.52
Educational Level 0.03 0.03 0.09 1.21 0.23
Age -0.14 0.07 -0. 15 -2. 10 0.04
Step Two
(Constant) 4.73 0.32 14.68 0.00
Interracial Contact -0. 14 0.06 -0. 17 -2.27 0.02
Parental Religious History 0.07 0.08 0.06 0.85 0.40
Educational Level 0.05 0.03 0.12 1.66 0.10
Age 015 0.07 —0. 16 —2.23 0.03
Privatistic versus Communal -0.10 0.06 -0.13 -1.68 0.09
Step Three
(Constant) 4.74 0.33 14.57 0.00
Interracial Contact -0.14 0.06 -0.17 -2.27 0.02
Parental Religious History 0.07 0.08 0.06 0.88 0.38
Educational Level 0.05 0.03 0.12 1.67 0.10
Age -0. 15 0.07 -0. 16 -2.21 0.03
Privatistic versus Communal -0. 10 0.06 -0.13 -1.69 0.09
Religiosity -0.03 0.10 -0.02 -0.25 0.80
Step Four
(Constant) 4.69 0.36 12.96 0.00
Interracial Contact -0. 14 0.06 -0. 17 -2.29 0.02
Parental Religious History 0.07 0.08 0.06 0.88 0.38
Educational Level 0.05 0.03 0.12 1.65 0.10
Age -0. 14 0.07 -0.16 -2.18 0.03
Privatistic versus Communal -0.08 0.07 -0.1 l -l.14 0.26
Religiosity 0.12 0.47 0.08 0.25 0.81
Privatistic versus —0.04 0.12 -0.1 1 -0.31 0.76

Communal*Religiosity “
Dependent Variable: Oppressed Minority

 

* Represents the moderating relationship

266

Cont. Table 23.8. Hierarchical Regression Cautious—Defensive and Stereotypes

 

Regression Equation
Cautious-Defensive Racial Socialization Practices = bo + b,(1nterracial Contact) + b2(Parenta1 Religious
History) + b3(Education)+ b4 (Age) + b5 (Assimilationist) + b6(Stereotypes) + b7(Assimi1ationist
*Stereotypes) + e.

 

Variables Unstandardized Std. Standardized t Sig.

Coefﬁcients B Error Coefﬁcients

Beta

Covariates-Step One
(Constant) 2.34 0.29 8.19 0.00
Interracial Contact -0.08 0.07 -0.08 -1 . 16 0.25
Parental Religious History 0.05 0.10 0.03 0.46 0.64
Educational Level 0.10 0.03 0.20 2.81 0.01
Age 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.06 0.96
Step Two
(Constant) 2.28 0.40 5.71 0.00
Interracial Contact -0.09 0.07 -0.08 -1 . 18 0.24
Parental Religious History 0.04 0.10 0.03 0.45 0.65
Educational Level 0.10 0.03 0.20 2.81 0.01
Age 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.05 0.96
Assimilationist 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.21 0.84
Step Three
(Constant) 2.34 0.51 4.58 0.00
Interracial Contact -0.09 0.07 -0.08 - 1 . 14 0.26
Parental Religious History 0.05 0.10 0.03 0.46 0.65
Educational Level 0.10 0.04 0.20 2.76 0.01
Age 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.06 0.95
Assimilationist 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.22 0.82
Stereotypes -0.02 0.10 -0.01 -0.17 0.87
Step Four
(Constant) -1.37 2.27 -0.60 0.55
Interracial Contact -0.10 0.07 -0.09 -1.29 0.20
Parental Religious History 0.07 0.10 0.05 0.68 0.50
Educational Level 0.10 0.04 0.20 2.78 0.01
Age 0.00 0.08 0.00 -0.03 0.98
Assimilationist 0.89 0.52 0.90 1.69 0.09
Stereotypes 0.92 0.57 0.66 1.62 0.1 1
Interaction -0.22 0.13 -l.l7 -l.67 0.10

Assimilationist*Stereotypes "
Dependent Variable: Cautious-
Defensive

 

“ Represents the moderating relationship

267

Cont. Table 23.9. Hierarchical Regression Individualistic-Universalistic and Stereotypes

 

Regression Equation
Individualistic-Universalistic Racial Socialization Practices = b0 + b1(Interracial Contact) + b2(Parental
Religious History) + b3(Education)+ b4 (Age) + b5 (Assimilationist) + b6(Stereotypes) + b7(Assimilationist
*Stereotypes) + e.

 

Variables Unstandardized Std. Error Standardized t Sig.

Coefﬁcients B Coefficients

Beta

Covariates-Step One
(Constant) 3.64 0.26 14.1 1 0.00
Interracial Contact 0.00 0.07 0.00 -0.01 0.99
Parental Religious History -0.05 0.09 -0.04 -0.52 0.60
Educational Level -0.02 0.03 -0.05 -0.67 0.50
Age -0.08 0.07 -0.08 -1 . 14 0.26
Step Two
(Constant) 3.1 1 0.36 8.73 0.00
Interracial Contact -0.02 0.07 -0.02 -0.29 0.77
Parental Religious History -0.06 0.09 -0.05 -0.63 0.53
Educational Level -0.01 0.03 -0.03 -0.44 0.66
Age -0.08 0.07 -0.09 -1.20 0.23
Assimilationist 0.14 0.06 0.16 2.18 0.03
Step Three
(Constant) 2.93 0.45 6.49 0.00
Interracial Contact -0.03 0.07 -0.03 -0.38 0.71
Parental Religious History 006 0.09 -0.05 -0.68 0.49
Educational Level -0.02 0.03 -0.04 -0.58 0.56
Age -0.09 0.07 -0.09 -1.23 0.22
Assimilationist 0.13 0.06 0.15 2.07 0.04
Stereotypes 0.06 0.09 0.05 0.65 0.52
Step Four
(Constant) 5.58 2.02 2.76 0.01
Interracial Contact -0.02 0.07 -0.02 -0.26 0.79
Parental Religious History -0.08 0.09 -0.06 -0.85 0.40
Educational Level -0.02 0.03 -0.04 -O.60 0.55
Age -0.08 0.07 -0.08 -1.16 0.25
Assimilationist -0.49 0.47 -0.56 -1.05 0.29
Stereotypes -0.61 0.51 -0.49 -1.20 0.23
Interaction 0.15 0.12 0.95 1.34 0.18

Assimilationist* Stereotypes "
Dependent Variable: Individualistic-Universalistic

 

a Represents the moderating relationship

268

Cont. Table 23.10. Hierarchical Regression Integrative-Assertive and Stereotypes

 

Regression Equation
Integrative-Assertive Racial Socialization Practices = bo + b1(Interracial Contact) + b2(Parental Religious
History) + b3(Education)+ b4 (Age) + b5 (Assimilationist) + b6(Stereotypes) + b7(Assimilationist
*Stereotypes) + e.

 

Variables Unstandardized Std. Error Standardized t Sig.

Coefﬁcients B Coefﬁcients

Beta

Covariates-Step One
(Constant) 2.84 0.27 10.38 0.00
Interracial Contact -0. 12 0.07 -0. 12 -1.73 0.08
Parental Religious History 0.13 0.10 0.09 1.32 0.19
Educational Level 0.15 0.03 0.32 4.60 0.00
Age 001 0.07 -0.01 -0.09 0.93
Step Two
(Constant) 3.03 0.38 7.96 0.00
Interracial Contact -0.1 1 0.07 -0.1 1 -1.62 0.1 1
Parental Religious History 0.13 0.10 0.09 1.36 0.18
Educational Level 0. 15 0.03 0.31 4.49 0.00
Age -0.01 0.07 -0.01 -0.07 0.94
Assimilationist -0.05 0.07 ~0.05 -0.72 0.47
Step Three
(Constant) 2.86 0.48 5.91 0.00
Interracial Contact -0.12 0.07 -0. 12 -1.69 0.09
Parental Religious History 0.12 0.10 0.09 1.30 0.20
Educational Level 0.14 0.03 0.30 4.22 0.00
Age -0.01 0.08 -0.01 -0.10 0.92
Assimilationist -0.05 0.07 -0.05 -0.79 0.43
Stereotypes 0.06 0.10 0.04 0.59 0.56
Step Four
(Constant) 1.57 2.17 0.72 0.47
Interracial Contact -0. 12 0.07 -0. 12 -1.73 0.09
Parental Religious History 0.13 0.10 0.09 1.36 0.17
Educational Level 0.14 0.03 0.30 4.23 0.00
Age -0.01 0.08 -0.01 -0. 13 0.89
Assimilationist 0.25 0.50 0.25 0.49 0.62
Stereotypes 0.38 0.55 0.28 0.70 0.48
Interaction -0.08 0.12 -0.41 -0.61 0.55

Assimilationist*Stereotypes a
Dependent Variable: Integrative-Assertive

 

“ Represents the moderating relationship

269

Cont. Table 23.11. Hierarchical Regression Cautious-Defensive and Stereotypes

 

Regression Equation
Cautious-Defensive Racial Socialization Practices = bo + b1(Interracial Contact) + b2(Parental Religious
History) + b3(Education)+ b4 (Age) + b5 (Humanist) + b6(Stereotypes) + b7(Humanist *Stereotypes) + e.

 

Variables Unstandardized Std. Error Standardized t Sig.
Coefﬁcients B Coefﬁcients
Beta

Covariates-Step One

(Constant) 2.37 0.29 8.28 0.00
Interracial Contact -0. 10 0.07 -0.09 -1.33 0. 1. 9
Parental Religious History 0.08 0.10 0.06 0.80 0.42
Educational Level 0.10 0.03 0.20 2.81 0.01
Age 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.07 0.94
Step Two

(Constant) 2.41 0.29 8.41 0.00
Interracial Contact -0.10 0.07 -0. 10 -1.37 0.17
Parental Religious History 0.07 0.10 0.05 0.71 0.48
Educational Level 0.09 0.03 0.18 2.45 0.02
Age 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.14 0.89
Humanist -O.11 0.07 -0.11 -1.54 0.12
Step Three

(Constant) 2.44 0.29 8.39 0.00
Interracial Contact -0.10 0.07 -0.10 -1.41 0.16
Parental Religious History 0.06 0.10 0.05 0.65 0.52
Educational Level 0.08 0.04 0.17 2.24 0.03
Age 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.13 0.90
Humanist -0.12 0.07 -0.12 -l.62 0.1 1
Stereotypes 0.06 0.09 0.05 0.64 0.52
Step Four

(Constant) 2.46 0.29 8.45 0.00
Interracial Contact -0. 10 0.07 -0.09 -1.32 0.19
Parental Religious History 0.05 0.10 0.04 0.55 0.58
Educational Level 0.08 0.04 0.16 2.19 0.03
Age 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.04 0.97
Humanist —0. 10 0.07 -0. 10 -1.42 0.16
Stereotypes 0.05 0.09 0.04 0.54 0.59
Humanist * Stereotypes a -0. 18 0.13 -0.10 -1 .41 0.16

Dependent Variable: Cautious-Defensive

 

’ Represents the moderating relationship

270

Cont. Table 23.12. Hierarchical Regression lndividualistic-Universalistic and Stereotypes

 

Regression Equation
Individualistic-Universalistic Racial Socialization Practices = b0 + b,(1nterracia1 Contact) + b2(Parenta1
Religious History) + b3(Education)+ b4 (Age) + b5 (Humanist) + b6(Stereotypes) + b7(Humanist
*Stereotypes) + e.

 

4

Variables Unstandardized Std. Error Standardized t Sig.

Coefﬁcients B Coefﬁcients

Beta

Covariates-Step One
(Constant) 3.65 0.26 14.27 0.00
Interracial Contact -0.01 0.07 -0.01 -0.1 l 0.92
Parental Religious History -0.03 0.09 -0.03 -0.37 0.71
Educational Level -0.02 0.03 -0.04 -0.62 0.54
Age -0.08 0.07 -0.08 -1.08 0.28
Step Two
(Constant) 2.54 0.38 6.66 0.00
Interracial Contact 0.00 0.06 0.00 -0.01 1.00
Parental Religious History -0.01 0.09 0.00 -0.07 0.94
Educational Level 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.13 0.90
Age -0.09 0.07 -0.09 —1.30 0.19
Humannist 0.23 0.06 0.27 3.83 0.00
Step Three
(Constant) 2.39 0.46 5.17 0.00
Interracial Contact -0.01 0.06 -0.01 -0.10 0.92
Parental Religious History -0.01 0.09 -0.01 -0.13 0.89
Educational Level 0.00 0.03 0.00 -0.01 0.99
Age -0.09 0.07 -0.09 -l.33 0.19
Humannist 0.23 0.06 0.26 3.73 0.00
Stereotypes 0.05 0.09 0.04 0.56 0.58
Step Four
(Constant) 3.62 2.26 1.60 0.1 1
Interracial Contact -0.01 0.06 -0.01 -0.11 0.91
Parental Religious History -0.01 0.09 -0.01 -0.13 0.90
Educational Level 0.00 0.03 0.00 -0.01 0.99
Age -0.09 0.07 -0.09 -1.30 0.19
Humannist -0.05 0.51 -0.06 -0.10 0.92
Stereotypes -0.25 0.55 -0.20 -0.46 0.65
Interaction 0.07 0.12 0.42 0.56 0.58

Humanist*Stereotypes "
Dependent Variable: Individualistic—Universalistic

 

“ Represents the moderating relationship

271

I... V x c: :v. .....

 

Cont. Table 23.13. Hierarchical Regression Integrative-Assertive and Stereotypes

 

Regression Equation
Integrative-Assertive Racial Socialization Practices = bo + bl(1nterracia1 Contact) + b2(Parenta1 Religious
History) + b3(Education)+ b4 (Age) + b5 (Humanist) + b6(Stereotypes) + b7(Humanist *Stereotypes) + e.

 

Variables Unstandardized Std. Error Standardized t Sig.

Coefﬁcients B Coefﬁcients

Beta

Covariates-Step One
(Constant) 2.83 0.27 10.36 0.00
Interracial Contact -0. 13 0.07 -0.13 -1.87 0.06
Parental Religious History 0.16 0.09 0.11 1.65 0.10
Educational Level 0.16 0.03 0.32 4.75 0.00
Age 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.03 0.97
Step Two
(Constant) 3.67 0.41 8.86 0.00
Interracial Contact -0.14 0.07 -0.13 -1.97 0.05
Parental Religious History 0.14 0.09 0.10 1.46 0.15
Educational Level 0.14 0.03 0.29 4.20 0.00
Age 0.00 0.07 0.01 0.16 0.87
Humannist -0.18 0.07 -0.18 -2.67 0.01
Step Three
(Constant) 3.39 0.50 6.74 0.00
Interracial Contact -0.15 0.07 -0.14 -2.1 1 0.04
Parental Religious History 0.13 0.09 0.09 1.34 0.18
Educational Level 0.13 0.03 0.27 3.82 0.00
Age 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.11 0.91
Humannist -0.19 0.07 -0.19 -2.78 0.01
Stereotypes 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.98 0.33
Step Four
(Constant) -0.12 2.44 -0.05 0.96
Interracial Contact -0.14 0.07 —0. 14 -2.07 0.04
Parental Religious History 0.12 0.09 0.09 1.32 0.19
Educational Level 0.13 0.03 0.27 3.82 0.00
Age 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.05 0.96
Humannist 0.61 0.55 0.62 1.12 0.26
Stereotypes 0.96 0.59 0.68 1.61 0.1 1
Interaction -0.20 0.13 -l.05 -l.47 0.14

Humanist*Stereotypes "
Dependent Variable: Integrative-Assertive

 

" Represents the moderating relationship

272

Cont. Table 23.14. Hierarchical Regression Cautious-Defensive and Stereotypes

 

Regression Equation
Cautious-Defensive Racial Socialization Practices = bo + b1(Interracial Contact) + b2(Parenta1 Religious

 

 

1

History) + b3(Education)+ b4 (Age) + b5 (Nationalist) + b6(Stereotypes) + b7(Nationalist *Stereotypes) + e.

Variables Unstandardized Std. Error Standardized t Sig.

Coefﬁcients B Coefﬁcients

Beta

Covariates-Step One
(Constant) 2.37 0.29 8.25 0.00
Interracial Contact -0.09 0.07 -0.09 -l .29 0.20
Parental Religious History 0.09 0.10 0.06 0.87 0.39
Educational Level 0.09 0.03 0.20 2.78 0.01
Age 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.07 0.95
Step Two
(Constant) 0.85 0.39 2.17 0.03
Interracial Contact -0.03 0.07 -0.03 —0.49 0.62
Parental Religious History 0.10 0.09 0.07 1.04 0.30
Educational Level 0.05 0.03 0.1 1 1.64 0.10
Age 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.42 0.67
Nationalist 0.39 0.07 0.36 5.31 0.00
Step Three
(Constant) 0.98 0.50 1.96 0.05
Interracial Contact -0.03 0.07 -0.03 -0.42 0.68
Parental Religious History 0.10 0.09 0.07 1.08 0.28
Educational Level 0.06 0.03 0.12 1.68 0.09
Age 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.45 0.66
Nationalist 0.39 0.07 0.36 5.32 0.00
Stereotypes -0.04 0.10 -0.03 -0.41 0.68
Step Four
(Constant) 0.02 2.59 0.01 0.99
Interracial Contact —0.03 0.07 -0.03 -0.45 0.65
Parental Religious History 0.10 0.09 0.07 1.08 0.28
Educational Level 0.06 0.03 0.12 1.69 0.09
Age 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.40 0.69
Nationalist 0.65 0.68 0.60 0.95 0.34
Stereotypes 0.20 0.64 0.14 0.31 0.76
Interaction -0.06 0.17 -0.30 -0.38 0.71

Nationalist*Stereotypes “
Dependent Variable: Cautious-Defensive

 

" Represents the moderating relationship

273

Cont. Table 23.15. Hierarchical Regression Individualistic-Universalistic and Stereotypes

 

Regression Equation
Individualistic-Universalistic Racial Socialization Practices = bo + bl(1nterracial Contact) + b2(Parental
Religious History) + b3(Education)+ b4 (Age) + b5 (Nationalist) + b6(Stereotypes) + b7(Nationalist
*Stereotypes) + e.

 

Variables Unstandardized Std. Error Standardized t Sig.

Coefﬁcients B Coefﬁcients

Beta

Covariates-Step One
(Constant) 3.65 0.26 14.17 0.00
Interracial Contact 0.00 0.07 0.00 -0.07 0.95
Parental Religious History -0.02 0.09 -0.02 -0.28 0.78
Educational Level -0.02 0.03 -0.05 -0.67 0.50
Age -0.08 0.07 -0.08 -1.11 0.27
Step Two
(Constant) 4.22 0.37 1 1.39 0.00
Interracial Contact -0.03 0.07 -0.03 -0.40 0.69
Parental Religious History -0.03 0.09 -0.02 -0.29 0.77
Educational Level 0.00 0.03 -0.01 -0.16 0.88
Age 009 0.07 -0.09 -1.26 0.21
Nationalist -0.15 0.07 —0.16 -2.13 0.03
Step Three
(Constant) 3 .91 0.47 8.36 0.00
Interracial Contact -0.04 0.07 -0.04 -0.58 0.56
Parental Religious History -0.04 0.09 —0.03 -0.41 0.68
Educational Level -0.01 0.03 -0.03 -0.37 0.71
Age -0.09 0.07 -0.10 -l.32 0.19
Nationalist -0.15 0.07 -0.16 -2.20 0.03
Stereotypes 0.10 0.09 0.08 1.09 0.28
Step Four
(Constant) 3.76 2.46 1.53 0.13
Interracial Contact -0.04 0.07 -0.04 -0.58 0.56
Parental Religious History -0.04 0.09 —0.03 -0.41 0.68
Educational Level -0.01 0.03 -0.03 -0.37 0.71
Age -0.09 0.07 -0.10 -l .32 0.19
Nationalist -0.1 1 0.64 -0. 12 -0. 18 0.86
Stereotypes 0.14 0.61 0.1 1 0.23 0.82
Interaction -0.01 0.16 -0.05 -0.06 0.95

Nationalist*Stereotypes “
Dependent Variable: Individualistic-Universalistic

 

“ Represents the moderating relationship

274

Cont. Table 23.16. Hierarchical Regression Individualistic-Universalistic and Stereotypes

 

Regression Equation
Integrative- -Assertive Racial Socialization Practices— — b + b1(Interracial Contact) + b2(Parental Religious
History) + b3(Education)+ b4 (Age) + b5 (Nationalist) + b6(Stereotypes) + b7(Nationalist *Stereotypes) + e.

 

Variables Unstandardized Std. Error Standardized t Sig.

Coefﬁcients B Coefﬁcients

Beta

Covariates-Step One
(Constant) 2.82 0.28 10.26 0.00
Interracial Contact -0.13 0.07 -0.13 -1.83 0.07
Parental Religious History 0.16 0.10 0.12 1.72 0.09
Educational Level 0.15 0.03 0.32 4.68 0.00
Age 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.03 0.98
Step Two
(Constant) 1.29 0.37 3.47 0.00
Interracial Contact -0.07 0.07 -0.07 -1.06 0.29
Parental Religious History 0.17 0.09 0.12 1.88 0.06
Educational Level 0.1 1 0.03 0.23 3.55 0.00
Age 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.41 0.68
Nationalist 0.40 0.07 0.37 5.70 0.00
Step Three
(Constant) 1.23 0.47 2.62 0.01
Interracial Contact -0.07 0.07 -0.07 -1.08 0.28
Parental Religious History 0.16 0.09 0.12 1.84 0.07
Educational Level 0.1 l 0.03 0.23 3.43 0.00
Age 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.39 0.69
Nationalist 0.40 0.07 0.37 5.66 0.00
Stereotypes 0.02 0.09 0.01 0.20 0.84
Step Four
(Constant) 1.66 2.47 0.68 0.50
Interracial Contact -0.07 0.07 -0.07 -1.05 0.29
Parental Religious History 0.16 0.09 0.12 1.83 0.07
Educational Level 0.1 1 0.03 0.23 3.41 0.00
Age 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.41 0.68
Nationalist 0.28 0.65 0.26 0.44 0.66
Stereotypes -0.09 0.61 -0.06 -0.15 0.88
Interaction 0.03 0.16 0.14 0.18 0.86

Nationalist*Stereotypes "
Dependent Variable: Integrative-Assertive

 

a Represents the moderating relationship

275

 

Cont. Table 23.17. Hierarchical Regression Cautious-Defensive and Stereotypes

 

Regression Equation
Cautious-Defensive Racial Socialization Practices = bo + b,(lnterracial Contact) + bz(Parental Religious
History) + b3(Education)+ b4 (Age) + b5 (Oppressed Minority) + b6(Stereotypes) + b7(Oppressed Minority
*Stereotypes) + e.

 

Variables Unstandardized Std. Error Standardized t Sig.

Coefﬁcients B Coefﬁcients

Beta

Covariates-Step One
(Constant) 2.43 0.30 8.23 0.00
Interracial Contact -0.11 0.08 -0.1 l -l .46 0.15
Parental Religious History 0.06 0.10 0.05 0.63 0.53
Educational Level 0.10 0.03 0.20 2.81 0.01
Age -0.01 0.08 -0.01 -0.13 0.90
Step Two
(Constant) 2.51 0.49 5.13 0.00
Interracial Contact -0.11 0.08 -0.1 1 ~1.47 0.14
Parental Religious History 0.06 0.10 0.05 0.63 0.53
Educational Level 0.10 0.03 0.20 2.80 0.01
Age -0.01 0.08 -0.01 -0.15 0.88
Oppressed Minority -0.02 0.09 —0.01 -0.19 0.85
Step Three
(Constant) 2.53 0.59 4.30 0.00
Interracial Contact -0.1 1 0.08 -0.1 1 -1.44 0.15
Parental Religious History 0.06 0.10 0.05 0.64 0.52
Educational Level 0.10 0.04 0.20 2.75 0.01
Age -0.01 0.08 -0.01 -0. 15 0.88
Oppressed Minority -0.02 0.09 -0.01 -0.18 0.86
Stereotypes -0.01 0.1 1 -0.01 —0.07 0.94
Step Four
(Constant) -0.89 2.92 -0.30 0.76
Interracial Contact -0.1 1 0.08 -0.10 -l.39 0.17
Parental Religious History 0.07 0.10 0.05 0.74 0.46
Educational Level 0.09 0.04 0.19 2.58 0.01
Age -0.02 0.08 —0.02 -0.21 0.83
Oppressed Minority 0.84 0.72 0.69 1.17 0.25
Stereotypes 0.83 0.71 0.58 1.17 0.24
Interaction Oppressed -0.21 0.17 -0.95 -1.20 0.23

Minority*Stereotypes 3'
Dependent Variable: Cautious-Defensive

 

” Represents the moderating relationship

276

Cont. Table 23.18. Hierarchical Regression Individualistic-Universalistic and Stereotypes

 

Regression Equation
Individualistc-Universalistic Racial Socialization Practices = b0 + b1(Interracial Contact) + b2(Parental
Religious History) + b3(Education)+ b4 (Age) + b5 (Oppressed Minority) + b6(Stereotypes) + b7(Oppressed
Minority *Stereotypes) + e.

 

Variables Unstandardized S_td. Error Standardized t S_ig.

Coefﬁcients B Coefﬁcients

Beta

Covariates-Step One
(Constant) 3.62 0.27 13.63 0.00
Interracial Contact 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 1.00
Parental Religious History 003 0.09 -0.03 -0.36 0.72
Educational Level -0.02 0.03 -0.06 —0.79 0.43
Age -0.06 0.07 -0.06 -0.81 0.42
Step Two
(Constant) 2.87 0.44 6.57 0.00
Interracial Contact 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.32 0.75
Parental Religious History -0.04 0.09 -0.03 -0.41 0.68
Educational Level -0.03 0.03 -0.07 -0.98 0.33
Age -0.04 0.07 -0.04 —0.50 0.61
Oppressed Minority 0.17 0.08 0.16 2.15 0.03
Step Three
(Constant) 2.64 0.52 5.04 0.00
Interracial Contact 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.18 0.86
Parental Religious History —0.04 0.09 -0.04 -0.48 0.63
Educational Level -0.04 0.03 -0.08 -1.13 0.26
Age -0.04 0.07 -0.04 -0.55 0.58
Oppressed Minority 0.17 0.08 0.15 2.08 0.04
Stereotypes 0.07 0.09 0.06 0.80 0.43
Step Four
(Constant) 1.17 2.59 0.45 0.65
Interracial Contact 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.19 0.85
Parental Religious History -0.04 0.09 -0.03 -0.44 0.66
Educational Level -0.04 0.03 -0.09 -1.19 0.23
Age 0.04 0.07 -0.04 -0.58 0.56
Oppressed Minority 0.54 0.64 0.49 0.84 0.40
Stereotypes 0.44 0.63 0.35 0.69 0.49
Interaction Oppressed -0.09 0.16 -0.46 -0.58 0.56

Minority*Stereotypes “
Dependent Variable: Individualistic-Universalistic

 

" Represents the moderating relationship

277

 

 

 

Cont. Table 23.19. Hierarchical Regression Integrative-Assertive and Stereotypes

 

Regression Equation
Integrative-Assertive Racial Socialization Practices = bo + b1(lnterracial Contact) + b2(Parent‘al Religious
History) + b3(Education)+ b4 (Age) + b5 (Oppressed Minority) + b6(Stereotypes) + b7(Oppressed Minority
*Stereotypes) + e.

 

Variables Unstandardized Std. Error Standardized t Sig.

Coefﬁcients B Coefﬁcients

Beta

Covariates-Step One
(Constant) 2.87 0.29 10.06 0.00
Interracial Contact -0. 12 0.07 -0.1 1 -1.60 0.1 1
Parental Religious History 0.17 0.10 0.13 1.81 0.07
Educational Level 0.15 0.03 0.31 4.42 0.00
Age -0.02 0.08 -0.02 -0.23 0.82
Step Two
(Constant) 2.71 0.47 5.71 0.00
Interracial Contact -0.11 0.07 —0. 11 -1.52 0.13
Parental Religious History 0.17 0.10 0.12 1.79 0.07
Educational Level 0.15 0.03 0.31 4.36 0.00
Age -0.01 0.08 -0.01 -0.17 0.87
Oppressed Minority 0.04 0.09 0.03 0.41 0.68
Step Three
(Constant) 2.51 0.57 4.41 0.00
Interracial Contact -0. 12 0.07 -0.12 -1.61 0.1 1
Parental Religious History 0.17 0.10 0.12 1.73 0.09
Educational Level 0.14 0.03 0.30 4.12 0.00
Age -0.02 0.08 -0.01 -0.20 0.84
Oppressed Minority 0.03 0.09 0.03 0.36 0.72
Stereotypes 0.07 0.10 0.05 0.64 0.53
Step Four
(Constant) -0.66 2.80 -0.24 0.81
Interracial Contact -0.12 0.07 -0.1 1 —l.57 0.12
Parental Religious History 0.18 0.10 0.13 1.81 0.07
Educational Level 0.14 0.03 0.28 3.92 0.00
Age -0.02 0.08 -0.02 —0.27 0.79
Oppressed Minority 0.83 0.70 0.67 1.19 0.23
Stereotypes 0.85 0.68 0.60 1.24 0.22
Interaction Oppressed -0.20 0.17 —0.88 —1.16 0.25

Minority*Stereotypes “
Dependent Variable: Integrative-Assertive

 

” Represents the moderating relationship

278

APPENDIX R
Study Two Regression Models

Table 24. Ethnic Identity Achievement and Integrative-Assertive Racial Socialization Practices

 

Variables Unstandardized Std. Error Standardized t Sig.

Coefﬁcients B Coefﬁcients

Beta

Covariates - Step One
(Constant) 1.75 0.14 12.31 0.00
Out of School Interracial 0.11 0.06 0.15 1.75 0.08
Contact
Step Two
(Constant) 2.74 0.24 l 1.59 0.00
Out of School Interracial 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.93 0.36
Contact
Adolescent This—Worldly —0.26 0.05 -0.41 -5.04 0.00
Step Three
(Constant) 2.93 0.26 11.31 0.00
Out of School Interracial 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.82 0.41
Contact
Adolescent This-Worldly -0.22 0.06 -0.35 -3.92 0.00
Parent Integrative-Assertive -0.10 0.06 -0. 15 —1.71 0.09
Step Four
(Constant) 3.09 0.24 12.96 0.00
Out of School Interracial 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.57 0.57
Contact
Adolescent This-Worldly -0.10 0.06 -0. 16 -1.75 0.08
Parent Integrative—Assertive -0.01 0.06 -0.01 -0. 15 0.88
Adolescent Integrative- -0.30 0.06 -O.47 -5.10 0.00
Assertive

Dependent Variable: Ethnic
Identity Achievement

Model
Summary
R Square Change Statistics
R Square F Change dfl df2
Change
1 0.02 0.02 3.07 1 129
2 0.18 0.16 25.35 1 128
3 0.20 0.02 2.92 I 127
4 0.34 0.14 26.05 1 126

 

279

Table 24.1 Ethnic Identity Achievement and Cautious-Defensive Racial Socialization Practices

 

Variables Unstandardized Std. Error Standardized t Sig.

Coefﬁcients B Coefﬁcients

Beta

Covariates - Step One
(Constant) 1.75 0.14 12.36 0.00
Out of School Interracial 0.11 0.06 0.15 1.72 0.09
Contact
Step Two
(Constant) 2.74 0.24 11.62 0.00
Out of School Interracial 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.89 0.38
Contact
Adolescent This-Worldly -0.26 0.05 -0.41 -5.04 0.00
Step Three
(Constant) 3.04 0.26 1 1.63 0.00
Out of School Interracial 0.03 0.06 0.05 0.58 0.56
Contact
Adolescent This-Worldly —0.24 0.05 -0.38 -4.69 0.00
Parent Cautious-Defensive -0.13 0.05 -0.20 -2.45 0.02
Step Four
(Constant) 3.29 0.28 1 1.84 0.00
Out of School Interracial 0.02 0.06 0.03 0.32 0.75
Contact
Adolescent This-Worldly -0.23 0.05 -0.37 -4.62 0.00
Parent Cautious-Defensive -0.08 0.06 -0.13 -1.51 0.13
Adolescent Cautious-Defensive -0.14 0.06 -0.20 -2.37 0.02

Dependent Variable: Ethnic Identity
Achievement

Model
Summary
R Square Change
Statistics
R Square F Change dfl df2
Change
1 0.02 0.02 2.96 1 130
2 0.18 0.16 25.41 1 129
3 0.22 0.04 6.01 1 128
4 0.25 0.03 5.63 1 127

 

280

 

Table 24.2 Ethnic Identity Achievement and Individualistic-Universalistic Racial Socialization Practices

 

Variables Unstandardized Std. Error Standardized t Sig.
Coefﬁcients B Coefﬁcients
Beta
Covariates - Step One
(Constant) 1.75 0.14 12.36 0.00
Out of School Interracial 0.1 1 0.06 0.15 1.72 0.09
Contact
Step Two
(Constant) 1.57 0.23 6.72 0.00
Out of School Interracial 0.10 0.06 0.14 1.64 0.10
Contact
Adolescent Other-Worldly 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.94 0.35
Step Three
(Constant) 1.35 0.30 4.43 0.00
Out of School Interracial 0.10 0.06 0.14 1.66 0.10
Contact
Adolescent Other-Worldly 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.57 0.57
Parent Individualistic- 0.09 0.07 0.10 1.16 0.25
Universalistic
Step Four
(Constant) 1.76 0.36 4.93 0.00
Out of School Interracial 0.1 1 0.06 0.15 1.73 0.09
Contact
Adolescent Other-Worldly 0.05 0.05 0.09 1.01 0.32
Parent Individualistic- 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.84 0.40
Universalistic
Adolescent Individualistic- -0.14 0.07 -0.19 -2.14 0.03
Universalistic
Dependent Variable: Ethnic
Identity Achievement
Model Summary
R Square Change Statistics
R Square F Change dfl df2
Change
1 0.02 0.02 2.96 1 130
2 0.03 0.01 .887 1 129
3 0.04 0.01 1.34 1 128
4 0.07 0.03 4.55 1 127

 

281

Table 24.3 Ethnic Identity Achievement and Cautious-Defensive Racial Socialization Practices

 

Variables Unstandardized Sttﬁlrror Standardized t Sig.
Coefﬁcients B Coefﬁcients
Beta

Covariates - Step One

(Constant) 1.75 0.14 12.36 0.00
Out of School 0.11 0.06 0.15 1.72 0.09
Interracial Contact

Step Two

(Constant) 1.57 0.23 6.72 0.00
Out of School 0.10 0.06 0.14 1.64 0.10
Interracial Contact

Adolescent Other- 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.94 0.35
Worldly

Step Three

(Constant) 2.1 1 0.29 7.19 0.00
Out of School 0.08 0.06 0.11 1.24 0.22
Interracial Contact

Adolescent Other- 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.63 0.53
Worldly

Parent Cautious- -0.17 0.06 -0.25 -2.89 0.00
Defensive

Step Four

(Constant) 2.45 0.32 7.65 0.00
Out of School 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.96 0.34
Interracial Contact

Adolescent Other- 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.48 0.63
Worldly

Parent Cautious- -0.1 1 0.06 -0.17 -1.89 0.06
Defensive

Adolescent -0.16 0.06 -0.22 -2.44 0.02

Cautious-Defensive
Dependent Variable: Ethnic

Identity Achievement
Model
Summary
R Square Change Statistics
R Square F Change dfl de
Change
1 0.02 0.02 2.96 1 130
2 0.03 0.01 .87 1 129
3 0.09 0.06 8.32 1 128
4 0.13 0.04 5.96 1 127

 

282

 

 

Table 24.4 Ethnic Identity Achievement and Integrative-Assertive Racial Socialization

 

Variables Unstandardized Std. Error Standardized t Sig.

Coefﬁcients B Coefﬁcients

Beta

Covariates - Step One
(Constant) 1.75 0.14 12.31 0.00
Out of School Interracial 0.1 1 0.06 0.15 1.75 0.08
Contact
Step Two
(Constant) 2.24 0.24 9.33 0.00
Out of School Interracial 0.07 0.06 0.10 1.14 0.25
Contact
Adolescent Communal -0. 14 0.05 -0.22 -2.54 0.01
Step Three
(Constant) 2.69 0.28 9.71 0.00
Out of School Interracial 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.92 0.36
Contact
Adolescent Communal -0. 10 0.05 -0.17 -1.89 0.05
Parent Integrative-Assertive -0. 17 0.06 -0.26 -2.99 0.00
Step Four
(Constant) 3.16 0.25 12.47 0.00
Out of School Interracial 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.37 0.72
Contact
Adolescent Communal -0.09 0.05 -0. 14 -1.84 0.07
Parent Integrative-Assertive -0.01 0.06 -0.02 -0.22 0.82
Adolescent Integrative- -0.34 0.05 0.53 ~6.34 0.00
Assertive

Dependent Variable: Ethnic
Identity Achievement

Model Summary R Square Change Statistics
R Square F Change (If 1 df2
Change
1 0.02 0.02 3.07 1 129
2 0.07 0.05 6.42 1 128
3 0.13 0.06 8.92 1 127
4 0.34 0.21 40.18 1 126

 

283

 

Table 24.5 Ethnic Identity Achievement and Cautious-Defensive Racial Socialization Practices

 

 

Variables Unstandardized Std. Error Standardized t Sig.

Coefﬁcients B Coefﬁcients

Beta

Covariates - Step One
(Constant) 1.75 0.14 12.36 0.00
Out of School 0.11 0.06 0.15 1.72 0.09
Interracial Contact
Step Two
(Constant) 2.25 0.24 9.47 0.00
Out of School 0.07 0.06 0.10 1.12 0.26
Interracial Contact
Adolescent Communal -0.14 0.05 -0.23 -2.61 0.01
Step Three
(Constant) 2.74 0.28 9.79 0.00
Out of School 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.67 0.50
Interracial Contact
Adolescent Communal -0.14 0.05 -O.23 -2.70 0.01
Parent Cautious- -0.17 0.06 -0.26 —3.07 0.00
Defensive
Step Four
(Constant) 3.04 0.30 10.15 0.00
Out of School 0.02 0.06 0.03 0.38 0.70
Interracial Contact
Adolescent Communal -0. 14 0.05 -0.22 -2.71 0.01
Parent Cautious- -0. 12 0.06 -0.18 -2.02 0.05
Defensive
Adolescent Cautious- -0. 16 0.06 -0.22 -2.50 0.01
Defensive

Dependent Variable: Ethnic
Identity Achievement

R Square Change Statistics
Model Summary R Square F Change dfl df2
Change
1 0.02 0.02 2.96 1 130
2 0.07 0.05 6.79 1 129
3 0.13 0.06 9.42 l 128
4 0.18 0.04 6.23 1 127

 

284

Table 24.6 Ethnic Identity Achievement and Individualistic-Universalistic Racial Socialization Practices

 

Variables Unstandardized Std. Error Standardized t Sig.
Coefﬁcients B Coefﬁcients
Beta

Covariates - Step
One
(Constant) 1.75 0.14 12.36 0.00
Out of School
Interracial Contact 0.1 '1 0.06 0.15 1.72 0.09
Step Two
(Constant) 1.76 0.18 9.61 0.00
Out of School
Interracial Contact 0.11 0.06 0.15 1.70 0.09
Adolescent Privatistic

0.00 0.05 -0.01 -0.08 0.94
Step Three
(Constant) 1.44 0.29 4.98 0.00
Out of School
Interracial Contact 0.11 0.06 0.15 1.73 0.09
Adolescent Privatistic

-0.02 0.05 -0.03 -0.29 0.77
Parent Individualistic-
Universalistic

0.10 0.07 0.12 1.41 0.16
Step Four
(Constant) 1.84 0.35 5.24 0.00
Out of School
Interracial Contact 0.11 0.06 0.15 1.72 0.09
Adolescent Privatistic

0.01 0.05 0.02 0.24 0.81
Parent Individualistic-
Universalistic

0.08 0.07 0.10 1.14 0.26
Adolecent
Individualistic-
Umversal'suc -013 0.07 -0. 17 -1 .95 0.05
Dependent Variable:
Ethnic Identity
Achievement
Model Summary

R Square Change Statistics
R Square Change F Change df 1 df2

0.02 0.02 2.96 1 130

0.02 0.00 0.01 1 129

0.04 0.01 1.98 l 128

0.07 0.03 3.82 1 127

285

 

Table 24.7 Hypothesis 8 Ethnic Identity Achievement and Cautious-Defensive Racial Socialization

 

Practices
Variables Unstandardized Std. Error Standardized t Sig.
Coefﬁcients B Coefﬁcients Beta
Covariates - Step One
(Constant) 1.75 0.14 12.36 0.00
Out of School Interracial 0.1 1 0.06 0.15 1.72 0.09
Contact
Step Two
(Constant) 1.76 0.18 9.61 0.00
Out of School Interracial 0.1 1 0.06 0.15 1.70 0.09
Contact
Adolescent Privatistic 0.00 0.05 -0.01 -0.08 0.94
Step Three
(Constant) 2.27 0.25 9.20 0.00
Out of School Interracial 0.08 0.06 0.1 1 1.31 0.19
Contact
Adolescent Privatistic -0.02 0.05 -0.03 -0.31 0.76
Parent Cautious-Defensive -0.17 0.06 -0.26 -2.99 0.00
Step Four
(Constant) 2.59 0.27 9.44 0.00
Out of School Interracial 0.06 0.06 0.09 1.03 0.31
Contact
Adolescent Privatistic -0.02 0.05 -0.03 -0.37 0.71
Parent Cautious-Defensive -0.12 0.06 -0.18 -1.96 0.05
Adolescent Cautious-Defensive -0.16 0.06 -O.22 -2.49 0.0 1
Dependent Variable: Ethnic
Identity Achievement
Model
Summary
R Square Change Statistics
R Square F Change dfl de
Change
1 0.02 0.02 2.96 1 130
2 0.02 0.00 .01 1 129
3 0.09 0.06 8.94 1 128
4 0.13 0.04 6.19 1 127

 

286

 

Table 24.8 Afﬁrming and Belonging Identity and Integrative-Assertive Racial Socialization Practices

 

Variables Unstandardized Std. Error Standardized t Sig.
Coefﬁcients B Coefﬁcients Beta

Covariates - Step One

(Constant) 1.40 0.15 9.58 0.00
Out of School Interracial Contact 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.62 0.54
Step Two
(Constant) 2.00 0.26 7.78 0.00
Out of School Interracial Contact 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.09 0.93
Adolescent This-Worldly -0. 16 0.06 -0.25 -2.82 0.01
Step Three
(Constant) 2.08 0.28 7.32 0.00
Out of School Interracial Contact 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.05 0.96
Adolescent This-Worldly -0.14 0.06 -0.22 -2.30 0.02
Parent Integrative-Assertive -0.04 0.06 -0.06 -0.66 0.51
Step Four
(Constant) 2.25 0.27 8.50 0.00
Out of School Interracial Contact 002 0.06 -0.02 -O.26 0.79
Adolescent This-Worldly -0.02 0.06 -0.02 -0.25 0.80
Parent Integrative-Assertive 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.84 0.40
Adolescent Integrative-Assertive -0.31 0.06 -0.48 -4.78 0.00
Dependent Variable: Afﬁrming
and Belonging
Model Summary
R Square Change Statistics
R Square F Change df 1 df2
Change

1 0.00 0.00 0.38 1 129

2 0.06 0.06 7.94 I 128

3 0.06 0.00 0.44 1 127

4 0.21 0.14 22.88 1 126

 

287

 

 

Table 24.9 Afﬁrming and Belonging Identity and Cautious-Defensive Racial Socialization Practices

 

Variables Unstandardized Std. Error Standardize t Sig.
Coefﬁcients B d
Coefﬁcients
Beta
Covariates - Step One
(Constant) 1.39 0.14 9.62 0.00
Out of School Interracial 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.63 0.53
Contact
Step Two
(Constant) 2.00 0.26 7.80 0.00
Out of School Interracial 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.10 0.92
Contact
Adolescent This-Worldly -0. 16 0.06 -0.25 -2.84 0.00
Step Three
(Constant) 2.03 0.29 6.98 0.00
Out of School Interracial 0.00 0.06 0.01 0.07 0.94
Contact
Adolescent This-Worldly -0.16 0.06 -0.24 -2.76 0.01
Parent Cautious-Defensive -0.01 0.06 -0.02 -0.20 0.84
Step Four
(Constant) 2.29 0.31 7.37 0.00
Out of School Interracial -0.01 0.06 -0.02 -0.17 0.86
Contact
Adolescent This-Worldly -0. 15 0.06 -0.23 -2.65 0.01
Parent Cautious-Defensive 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.57 0.57
Adolescent Cautious- -0.14 0.07 -0.20 -2.18 0.03
Defensive
Dependent Variable: Affirming
and Belonging
Model Summary R Square Change
Statistics
R Square F Change dfl df2
Change
1 0.00 0.00 0.39 1 130
2 0.06 0.06 8.04 1 129
3 0.06 0.00 0.04 1 128
4 0.10 0.03 4.75 1 127

 

288

Table 24.10 Afﬁrming and Belonging Identity and Individualistic-Universalistic Racial Socialization
Practices

 

 

Variables Unstandardized Std. Error Standardized t Sig.

Coefﬁcients B Coefﬁcients

Beta

Covariates - Step One
(Constant) 1.39 0.14 9.62 0.00
Out of School Interracial 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.63 0.53
Contact
Step Two
(Constant) 1.37 0.24 5.70 0.00
Out of School Interracial 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.62 0.54
Contact
Adolescent Other-Worldly 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.12 0.90
Step Three
(Constant) 1.26 0.31 4.00 0.00
Out of School Interracial 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.62 0.53
Contact
Adolescent Other-Worldly 0.00 0.06 0.00 -0.05 0.96
Parent Individualistic- 0.04 0.08 0.05 0.57 0.57
Universalistic
Step Four
(Constant) 1.58 0.37 4.24 0.00
Out of School Interracial 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.66 0.51
Contact
Adolescent Other-Worldly 0.02 0.06 0.03 0.28 0.7 8
Parent Individualistic- 0.02 0.08 0.03 0.33 0.74
Universalistic
Adolescent Individualistic- -0.1 1 0.07 -0.14 -1.58 0.12
Universalistic

Dependent Variable: Afﬁrming
and Belonging

Model Summary

R Square Change Statistics
R Square F dfl df2
Change Change
1 0.00 0.00 .39 1 130
2 0.00 0.00 .02 1 129
3 0.01 0.00 .32 1 128
4 0.02 0.02 2.48 1 127

 

289

Table 24.11 Afﬁrming and Belonging Identity and Cautious-Defensive Racial Socialization Practices

 

 

Variables Unstandardized Std. Error Standardized t Sig.
Coefﬁcients B Coefﬁcients Beta

Covariates - Step One

(Constant) 1.39 0.14 9.62 0.00

Out of School 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.63 0.53

Interracial Contact

Step Two

(Constant) 1.37 0.24 5.70 0.00

Out of School 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.62 0.54

Interracial Contact

Adolescent Other- 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.12 0.90

Worldly

Step Three

(Constant) 1.49 0.31 4.80 0.00

Out of School 0.03 0.06 0.05 0.52 0.60

Interracial Contact

Adolescent Other- 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.96

Worldly

Parent Cautious- -0.04 0.06 -0.05 -0.60 0.55

Defensive

Step Four

(Constant) 1.83 0.34 5.39 0.00

Out of School 0.02 0.06 0.02 0.24 0.81

Interracial Contact

Adolescent Other— -0.01 0.05 -0.01 -0.10 0.92

Worldly

Parent Cautious- 0.02 0.06 0.02 0.24 0.81

Defensive

Adolescent Cautious- -0. 16 0.07 -0.22 -2.30 0.02

Defensive

Dependent Variable: Afﬁrming and Belonging

R Square Change Statistics
Model Summary R Square F dfl df2
Change Change
1 0.00 0.00 .39 1 130
2 0.00 0.00 .02 1 129
3 0.01 0.00 .37 ’l 128
4 0.05 0.04 5.27 1 127

 

290

 

 

Table 24.12 Afﬁrming and Belonging Identity and Integrative-Assertive Racial Socialization Practices

 

Variables Unstandardized Std. Error Standardizet Sig.
Coefﬁcients B d

Coefﬁcients

Beta
Covariates - Step One
(Constant) 1.40 0.15 9.58 0.00
Out of School Interracial 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.62 0.54
Contact
Step Two
(Constant) 1.50 0.25 5.94 0.00
Out of School Interracial 0.03 0.07 0.04 0.48 0.63
Contact
Adolescent Communal -0.03 0.06 -0.05 -0.51 0.61
Step Three
(Constant) 1.77 0.30 5.93 0.00
Out of School Interracial 0.02 0.07 0.03 0.34 0.74
Contact
Adolescent Communal -0.01 0.06 -0.01 -0.14 0.89
Parent Integrative-Assertive -0.10 0.06 -0. 15 -1.66 0.10
Step Four
(Constant) 2.21 0.28 7.83 0.00
Out of School Interracial -0.01 0.06 -0.02 -0.21 0.84
Contact
Adolescent Communal 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.12 0.90
Parent Integrative-Assertive 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.77 0.44
Adolescent Integrative- -0.32 0.06 -0.49 -5.38 0.00
Assertive
Dependent Variable: Afﬁrming
and Belonging
Model Summary R Square Change

Statistics

RSquare RSquare dfl df2
Change Change

1 0.00 0.00 0.38 1 129
2 0.00 0.00 0.26 1 128
3 0.03 0.02 2.74 1 127
4 0.21 0.18 28.98 1 126

 

291

 
 

Table 24.13 Hypothesis 14 Afﬁrming and Belonging Identity and Cautious-Defensive Racial Socialization
Practices

 

Variables Unstandardized Std. Error Standardized t Sig.
Coefﬁcients B Coefﬁcients
Beta

Covariates - Step One

(Constant) 1.39 0.14 9.62 0.00
Out of School 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.63 0.53
Interracial Contact
Step Two
(Constant) 1.49 0.25 5.98 0.00
Out of School 0.03 0.06 0.05 0.50 0.62
Interracial Contact
Adolescent -0.03 0.06 -0.04 -0.48 0.63
Communal
Step Three
(Constant) 1.60 0.30 5.26 0.00
Out of School 0.03 0.07 0.04 0.40 0.69
Interracial Contact
Adolescent -0.03 0.06 -0.04 -0.49 0.63
Communal
Parent Cautious- -0.04 0.06 -0.06 -0.62 0.54
Defensive
Step Four
(Constant) 1 .90 0.33 5.81 0.00
Out of School 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.13 0.89
Interracial Contact
Adolescent -0.03 0.06 -0.04 -0.45 0.65
Communal
Parent Cautious- 0.02 0.06 0.02 0.24 0.81
Defensive
Adolescent Cautious- -0. 15 0.07 -0.22 -2.29 0.02
Defensive
Dependent Variable: Afﬁrming
and Belonging
R Square Change
Statistics
Model Summary R Square F Change dfl df2
Change
1 0.00 0.00 0.39 1 130
2 0.00 0.00 0.24 1 129
3 0.01 0.00 0.38 1 128
4 0.05 0.04 5.23 1 127

 

292

 

 

Table 24.14 Afﬁrming and Belonging Identity and Individualistic-Universalistic Racial Socialization
Practices

 

Variables Unstandardize Std. Standardized t Sig.
d Coefﬁcients Error Coefﬁcients
B Beta
Covariates — Step One
(Constant) 1.39 0.14 9.62 0.00
Out of School Interracial Contact 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.63 0.53
Step Two
(Constant) 1.37 0.19 7.29 0.00
Out of School Interracial Contact 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.57 0.57
Adolescent Privatistic 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.24 0.81
Step Three
(Constant) 1.24 0.30 4.15 0.00
Out of School Interracial Contact 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.58 0.56
Adolescent Privatistic 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.15 0.88
Parent Individualistic-Universalistic 0.04 0.07 0.05 0.55 0.58
Step Four
(Constant) 1.59 0.36 4.37 0.00
Out of School Interracial Contact 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.56 0.58
Adolescent Privatistic 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.59 0.56
Parent Individualistic-Universalistic 0.02 0.07 0.03 0.32 0.75
Adolescent Individualistic- —0.1 1 0.07 -0. 15 —1.65 0.10

Universalistic
Dependent Variable: Afﬁrming
and Belonging

R Square Change Statistics
Model Summary R Square F Change dfl df2
Change
1 0.00 0.00 .39 1 130
2 0.00 0.00 .05 1 129
3 0.01 0.00 .30 1 128
4 0.03 0.02 2.72 1 127

 

293

 

 

Table 24.15 Affirming and Belonging Identity and Cautious Defensive Racial Socialization Practices

 

Variables Unstandardize S_td. Error Standardized t S_ig.
d Coefﬁcients Coefﬁcients
B Beta
Covariates — Step One
(Constant) 1.39 0.14 9.62 0.00
Out of School Interracial Contact 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.63 0.53
Step Two
(Constant) 1.37 0.19 7.29 0.00
Out of School Interracial Contact 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.57 0.57
Adolescent Privatistic 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.24 0.81
Step Three
(Constant) 1.48 0.26 5.65 0.00
Out of School Interracial Contact 0.03 0.07 0.04 0.48 0.63
Adolescent Privatistic 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.19 0.85
Parent Cautious-Defensive -0.04 0.06 -0.05 -0.60 0.55
Step Four
(Constant) 1.79 0.29 6.14 0.00
Out of School Interracial Contact 0.01 0.06 0.02 0.21 0.83
Adolescent Privatistic 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.15 0.88
Parent Cautious-Defensive 0.02 0.06 0.02 0.25 0.80
Adolescent Cautious-Defensive -0.16 0.07 -0.22 -2.29 0.02
Dependent Variable: Afﬁrming
and Belonging
R Square Change
Statistics
Model Summary R Square F Change dfl df2
Change
1 0.00 0.00 .39 1 130
2 0.00 0.00 .05 1 129
3 0.01 0.00 .35 1 128
4 0.05 0.04 5.24 1 127

 

294

 

Table 24.16 African American Identity and Integrative Assertive Racial Socialization Practices

 

 

Variables Unstandardized Std. Error Standardized t Sig.

Coefﬁcients B Coefﬁcients

Beta

Covairiates - Step One
(Constant) 4.36 0.13 34.54 0.00
Out of School Interracial
Contact -0. 12 0.06 -0.18 -2. 14 0.03
Step Two
(Constant) 3.65 0.22 16.67 0.00
Out of School Interracial
Contact -0.08 0.05 -O.12 -1.45 0.15
Adolescent This-Worldly 0.18 0.05 0.32 3.86 0.00
Step Threee
(Constant) 3.59 0.24 14.83 0.00
Out of School Interracial
Contact -0.08 0.05 -0.12 -1.40 0.16
Adolescent This-Worldly 0.17 0.05 0.30 3.25 0.00
Parent Integrative-Assertive 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.61 0.54
Step Four
(Constant) 3.51 0.24 14.67 0.00
Out of School Interracial
Contact -0.07 0.05 -0.10 -1.25 0.21
Adolescent This-Worldly 0.1 1 0.06 0.19 1.95 0.05
Parent Integrative-Assertive -0.01 0.06 -0.02 -0.22 0.83
Adolescent Integrative-
Assertive 0.15 0.06 0.26 2.51 0.01

Dependent Variable: African
American Identity

Model Summary
R Square Change Statistics
R Square Change F Change dfl df2
1 0.03 0.03 4.56 1.00 130
2 0.13 0.10 14.87 1.00 129
3 0.14 0.00 0.37 1.00 128
4 0.18 0.04 6.28 1.00 127

 

295

 

Table 24.17 Aﬁican American Identity and Cautious-Defensive Racial Socialization Practices

 

 

Variables Unstandardized Std. Error Standardized t Sig.

Coefﬁcients B Coefﬁcients

Beta

Covariates - Step One
(Constant) 4.36 0.13 34.69 0.00
Out of School Interracial -0.12 0.05 -0.19 -2.16 0.03
Contact
Step Two
(Constant) 3.66 0.22 16.73 0.00
Out of School Interracial -0.08 0.05 -0. 12 -l.47 0.14
Contact
Adolescent This-Worldly 0.18 0.05 0.32 3.87 0.00
Step Three
(Constant) 3.53 0.25 14.35 0.00
Out of School Interracial -0.07 0.05 -0.1 1 -1.31 0.19
Contact
Adolescent This-Worldly 0.17 0.05 0.31 3.64 0.00
Parent Cautious-Defensive 0.05 0.05 0.09 1.10 0.27
Step Four
(Constant) 3.34 0.26 12.69 0.00
Out of School Interracial -0.06 0.05 -0.09 -1.08 0.28
Contact
Adolescent This-Worldly 0.17 0.05 0.30 3.53 0.00
Parent Cautious-Defensive 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.34 0.74
Adolescent Cautious- 0.11 0.06 0.17 1.94 0.05
Defensive

Dependent Variable: African
American Identity

Model Summary
R Square Change
Statistics
R Square F Change dfl df2
Change
1 0.03 0.03 4.67 1 131
2 0.13 0.10 14.99 1 I30
3 0.14 0.01 1.21 1 129
4 0.17 0.03 3.78 1 128

 

296

 

Table 24.18 African American Identity and Individualistic-Universalistic Racial Socialization Practices

 

 

Variables Unstandardized Std. Standardize t Sig.
Coefﬁcients B Error (1
Coefﬁcients
Beta
Covariates - Step One
(Constant) 4.36 0.13 34.69 0.0
0
Out of School Interracial Contact -0. 12 0.05 -0.19 -2.16 0.0
3
Step Two
(Constant) 4.40 0.21 20.96 0.0
0
Out of School Interracial Contact -0.12 0.06 -0. 18 -2. 13 0.0
3
Adolescent Other-Worldly -0.01 0.05 -0.02 —0.20 0.8
5
Step Three
(Constant) 4.45 0.27 16.47 0.0
0
Out of School Interracial Contact -0. 12 0.06 -0.18 -2. 12 0.0
4
Adolescent Other-Worldly 0.00 0.05 -0.01 -0.10 0.9
2
Parent Individualistic-Universalistic -0.02 0.06 -0.03 -0.31 0.7
5
Step Four
(Constant) 4.50 0.32 14.10 0.0
0
Out of School Interracial Contact -0. 12 0.06 -0.18 -2.10 0.0
4
Adolescent Other-Worldly 0.00 0.05 0.00 -0.04 0.9
6
Parent Individualistic-Universalistic -0.02 0.07 -0.03 -0.34 0.7
3
Adolescent Individualistic- -0.02 0.06 -0.03 -0.29 0.7
Universalistic 7

Dependent Variable: African
American Identity

Model Summary

R Square Change Statistics
R Square F Change df 1 df2
Change
1 0.03 0.03 4.67 1 131
2 0.03 0.00 0.04 1 130
3 0.04 0.00 0.10 1 129
4 0.04 0.00 0.08 1 128

 

297

 

 

 

 

Table 24.19 African American Identity and Cautious-Defensive Racial Socialization Practices

Variables Unstandardize Std. Error Standardized t Sig.
d Coefﬁcients B Coefﬁcients Beta

Covariates - Step One

 

 

(Constant) 4.36 0.13 34.69 0.00
Out of School -0. 12 0.05 -0.19 -2. 16 0.03
Interracial Contact

Step Two

(Constant) 4.40 0.21 20.96 0.00
Out of School -0. 12 0.06 -0. 18 -2.13 0.03
Interracial Contact

Adolescent Other- -0.01 0.05 -0.02 -0.20 0.85
Worldly

Step Three

(Constant) 4.12 0.27 15.37 0.00
Out of School -0.10 0.06 -0.16 -1.86 0.07
Interracial Contact

Adolescent Other- 0.00 0.05 0.00 -0.01 0.99
Worldly

Parent Cautious- 0.08 0.05 O. 14 1.62 0.1 1
Defensive

Step Four

(Constant) 3.85 0.29 13.13 0.00
Out of School -0.09 0.06 -0.14 -1.59 0.1 1
Interracial Contact

Adolescent Other- 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.1 1 0.91
Worldly

Parent Cautious- 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.76 0.45
Defensive

Adolescent Cautious- 0.12 0.06 0.20 2.10 0.04
Defensive

Dependent Variable: African
American Identity

R Square Change
Statistics
Model Summary R Square F Change dfl dt2
Change
1 0.03 0.03 4.67 1 131
2 0.03 0.00 0.04 1 130
3 0.05 0.02 2.64 1 129
4 0.09 0.03 4.43 1 128

 

298

 

 

 

Table 24.20 African American Identity and Integrative-Assertive Racial Socialization Practices

 

 

Variables Unstandardized Std. Error Standardized t Sig.

Coefﬁcients B Coefﬁcients

Beta

Covairiates - Step
One
(Constant) 4.36 0.13 34.54 0.00
Out of School
Interracial Contact -O.12 0.06 -0.18 -2.14 0.03
Step Two
(Constant) 4.04 0.22 18.56 0.00
Out of School
Interracial Contact -0.09 0.06 -0. 15 -1.66 0.10
Adolescent Communal 0.09 0.05 0.16 1.83 0.07
Step Threee
(Constant) 3.80 0.26 14.79 0.00
Out of School
Interracial Contact -0.08 0.06 -0.13 -1.51 0.13
Adolescent Communal 0.07 0.05 0.13 1.42 0.16
Parent Integrative-
Assertive 0.09 0.05 0.15 1.72 0.09
Step Four
(Constant) 3.53 ' 0.26 13.76 0.00
Out of School
Interracial Contact -0.06 0.05 -0.10 -1.16 0.25
Adolescent Communal 0.06 0.05 0.11 1.31 0.19
Parent Integrative-
Assertive 0.00 0.06 0.00 -0.01 0.99
Adolescent Integrative-
Assertive 0.19 0.05 0.33 3.57 0.00

Dependent Variable:
African American
Identity

Model Summary
R Square Change Statistics

R Square Change F Change dfl df2 «

I 0.03 0.03 4.56 1 130
2 0.06 0.02 3.36 l 129
3 0.08 0.02 2.97 1 128
4 0.16 0.08 12.73 1 127

 

299

 

 

 

Table 24.21 African American Identity and Cautious-Defensive Racial Socialization Practices

 

 

Variables Unstandardize Std. Error Standardize t Sig.

d Coefﬁcients d

B Coefﬁcients

Beta

Covairiates - Step One
(Constant) 4.36 0.13 34.69 0.00
Out of School
Interracial Contact -0.12 0.05 -0.19 -2. 16 0.03
Step Two
(Constant) 4.05 0.22 18.80 0.00
Out of School
Interracial Contact -0.10 0.06 -0. 15 -1.71 0.09
Adolescent Communal 0.09 0.05 0.16 1.80 0.07
Step Threee
(Constant) 3.80 0.26 14.63 0.00
Out of School
Interracial Contact 008 0.06 -0. 13 -1.43 0.16
Adolescent Communal 0.09 0.05 0.16 1.81 0.07
Parent Cautious-
Defensive 0.08 0.05 0.14 1.66 0.10
Step Four
(Constant) 3.57 0.28 12.77 0.00
Out of School
Interracial Contact -0.07 0.06 -0. 10 -1.17 0.24
Adolescent Communal 0.09 0.05 0.15 1.79 0.08
Parent Cautious-
Defensive 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.78 0.44
Adolescent Cautious-
Defensive 0.12 0.06 0.19 2.09 0.04
Dependent Variable:
African American
Identity

Model Summary

Change
R Square Statistics

R Square

Change F Change dfl df2
1 0.03 0.03 4.67 1 131
2 0.06 0.02 3.23 l 130
3 0.08 0.02 2.76 1 129
4 0.11 0.03 4.37 1 128

 

300

 

 

 

Table 24.22 African American Identity and Individualistic-Universalistic Racial Socialization Practices

 

Variables Unstandardize Std. Error Standardize t §g.

d Coefﬁcients d

B Coefﬁcients

Beta

Covariates - Step One
(Constant) 4.36 0.13 34.69 0.00
Out of School Interracial Contact -0. 12 0.05 -0.19 -2.16 0.03
Step Two
(Constant) 4.62 0.16 29.25 0.00
Out of School Interracial Contact -0.09 0.05 -0.14 -1.66 0.10
Adolescent Privatistic -O. 12 0.05 -0.22 -2.59 0.01
Step Three
(Constant) 4.60 0.25 18.62 0.00
Out of School Interracial Contact -0.09 0.05 —0. 14 -1.65 0.10
Adolescent Privatistic -0. 12 0.05 -0.22 -2.55 0.01
Parent Individualistic- 0.00 0.06 0.01 0.07 0.94
Universalistic
Step Four
(Constant) 4.54 0.30 15.05 0.00
Out of School Interracial Contact -0.09 0.06 —0. 14 -1.64 0.10
Adolescent Privatistic -0. 12 0.05 -0.23 -2.55 0.01
Parent Individualistic- 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.12 0.91
Universalistic
Adolescent Individualistic- 0.02 0.06 0.04 0.40 0.69

Universalistic
Dependent Variable: African
American Identity

R Square Change
Statistics
Model Summary R Square F Change dfl de
Change
1 0.03 0.03 4.67 1 131
2 0.08 0.05 6.68 1 130
3 0.08 0.00 0.01 1 129
4 0.08 0.00 0.16 1 128

 

301

 

Table 24.23. Cautious-Defensive Racial Socialization Practices

 

 

Variables Unstandardized Std. Error Standardized t Sig.
Coefﬁcients B Coefﬁcients
Beta
Covairiates -
Step One
(Constant) 4.36 0.13 34.69 0.00
Out of School
Interracial Contact -0.12 0.05 -O.19 -2.16 0.03
Step Two
(Constant) 4.62 0.16 29.25 0.00
Out of School
Interracial Contact -0.09 0.05 -0.14 -1.66 0.10
Adolescent
Privatistic -0.12 0.05 -0.22 -2.59 0.01
Step Threee
(Constant) 4.39 0.22 19.90 0.00
Out of School
Interracial Contact -0.08 0.06 -0.12 - l .43 0.16
Adolescent
Privatistic -0.1 1 0.05 -0.21 -2.46 0.02
Parent Cautious-
Defensive 0.07 0.05 0.12 1.45 0.15
Step Four
(Constant) 4.15 0.25 16.78 0.00
Out of School
Interracial Contact -0.06 0.05 -0.10 - 1 .18 0.24
Adolescent
Privatistic -0.1 1 0.04 -0.21 -2.42 0.02
Parent Cautious-
Defensive 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.60 0.55
Adolescent
Cautious-
Defensive 0.12 0.06 0.19 2.08 0.04
Dependent
Variable: Ethnic
Identity
Achievement
Model Summary
R Square Change Statistics
R Square Change F Change dfl df2

1 0.03 0.03 4.67 1 131

2 0.08 0.05 6.68 1 130

3 0.10 0.01 2.10 1 129

4 0.13 0.03 4.31 1 128

 

302

 

 

 

 

 

REFERENCES

Akbar, N. (1989). Nigrescence and identity: Some limitations. The Counseling
Psychologist, 17 (2), 258-263

Allen, R. L., Dawson, M. C., & Brown, R. E. (1989). Toward a schema based
model of an African American racial belief system. American Political Science Review,
83 (2) 422-438

Alston, J. P., Week, C. W., & Wingrove, C. R. (19XX). Religiosity and Black
Militancy: A Reappraisal * 252-261.

Andrews, P. T. (1971). A study of the effects of Black studies on the self-concept
of Negro children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-

Champaign.

Arp, W. & Boeckelman, K. (1997). Religiosity A source of Black
environmentalism and empowerment? Journal of Black Studies 28 (2), 255-267.

 

Arroyo, C. G., & Zigler, E. (1995). Racial identity, academic-achievement, and
the psychology well-being of economically disadvantaged adolescents. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology2 69 (5), 903-914.

Asante, M. K. (1980). Afrocentricity: The theory of social change. Buffalo. NY:
Amulefl Publishing Company.

Baer, H. A. (1988). Black mainstream churches, emancipatory or accommodative
responses to racism and social stratiﬁcation in American society. Review of Religious
Research 30(2) 162-175.

 

Baldwin, J. A. & Bell, Y. R. (1985). The African American self-consciousness
scale: An African personality questionnaire. The Western Journal of Black Studies 9 (2),
pp. 61-68.

 

Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The Moderator-mediator variable
distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical
considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (6), 1173-1182.

Billingsley, A. (1968). Black families in White America. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice—Hall.

Billingsley, A. & Caldwell, C. H. (1994). The church, the family, and the school
in the African American committee. Journal Negro Education, 60 (30), 427-440

Billingsley, A. (1999). Mighty like a river: the Black church and social reform.
New York: Oxford University Press.

303

 

 

 

Blaine, B. & Crocker, M. (1995). Religiousness, race and psychological well-
being: Exploring social psychological mediators. Personaligl and Social Psychological
Bulletin, 21 (10) 1031-1041.

 

Bowman, P.J. & Howard, C. (1985). Race-related socialization, motivation and
academic achievement: A study of black youths in three-generation families. Journal of
the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 24 (2), 134-141.

 

Boykin, W. A. (1986). The triple quandary and the schooling of Afro-American
children. Ulric Neisser (Ed.) The school achievement of minority children new
perspectives. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

 

Boykin, W. A. & Toms, F. D. (1985). Black child socialization: A conceptual
framework. In H. P. McAdoo, & J. L. McAdoo, (Eds) Black Children: Social,
Educational, and Parental Environments. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

 

 

Brookins, C.C., Anyabwile, T. W., & Nacoste, R. (1996). Exploring the
relationship between racial identity attitudes and psychological closeness in African
American college students. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26 (3), 243-264.

 

Brown, D. R. & Gary, LE. (1991). Religious Socialization and Educational
Attainment among African Americans: Empirical Assessment. Journal of Negro
Education 60 (3), 411—426.

 

 

Brown, D. R. & Gary, LE. (1985). Social support network differentials among
married and nonmarried Black families. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, 229-241.

 

Burlew, K. A., & Smith, L. R. (1991). Measures of Racial Identity: An overview
and proposed framework. Journal of Black Psychology, 17, 53-71.

 

Calhoun-Brown, A. (1998). While Marching to Zion: Otherwordliness and
Racial Empowerment in the Black Community. Journal of Scientiﬁc Study of Religion,
3], (3), 427-439.

 

Carter, R. T. (1991). Racial identity attitudes and psychological functioning.
Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 19, 105-114.

 

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences.
Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers

Cohen, J. (1992). A Power Primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112 (I), 155-159.

 

Constantine, M. G., Richardson, T. Q., Benjamin, B. M., Wilson, J. W. (1998).
An overview of Black racial identity theories: Limitations and considerations for future
theoretical conceptualizations. Applied & Preventive Psychology, 7, 95-99.

 

304

 

 

 

Cone, J. H. (1970). A Black theology of liberation. Philadelphia: Lippincott.

Cone, J. H. (1990). A Black theology of liberation. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis
Books.

Cone, J. H. (1997). Black theology and Black power. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis
Books.

Cross, W. E. (1971). The Negro to Black conversion experience: Toward a
psychology of Black liberation, Black World 20 13—27.

 

Cross, W. E. (1978). The Thomas and Cross models of psychological
nigrescence: A literature review. Journal of Black Psychology, 4, 13-31.

Cross, W. E. (1991). Shades of Black: Diversity in African-American Identity.
Philadelphia. PA: Temple University Press.

Cross, W. E. (1994). Nigrescence theory-historical and explanatory notes.
Journal of Vocational Behavior 44 (2), 119—123.

 

Dawson, M. C., Brown, R. E., & Allen, R. A. (1990). Racial Belief Systems,
Religious Guidance, and African-American Political Participation. National Political
Science Review 2 22-44.

 

Demo, D.H. & Hughes, M. (1990). Socialization and racial identity among black
Americans. Social Psychology Quarterly, 53 (4), 364-374.

DuBois, W. E. B. (1967). The Philadelphia Negro; A Social Study. New York:
Schocken Books.

Ellison, C. G., (1991). Identiﬁcation and Separatism: Religious Involvement and
Racial Orientations among Black Americans. Sociological Quarterly, 32 (3), 477-494.

Ellison, C. G. (1993). Religious involvement and self—perception among Black
American*. Social Forces, 71 (4), 1027—1055.

Ellison, C. G. & Powers, D. A. (1994). The contact hypothesis and racial
attitudes among Blacks. Social Science Quarterly, 75 (2) 385-400.

Ellison, C. G. (1997). Religious involvement and the subjective quality of family
life among African Americans. Taylor, R. T., Jackson, J. S., & Chatters, L. M. (Eds)
Family Life in Black America, (pp. 117 131) Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications

Erickson, E. (1964). Childhood and Society. New York: Norton

305

 

Franklin, A. J. & Boyd-Franklin, N. (1985). A psychoeducational perspective on
Black parenting. McAdoo, H. P & McAdoo, J. L. (Eds) Black Children: Social,
Educational, and Parental Environments (pp. 194-210). Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.

 

Fishman, P., Salem, D. Allen, N., & Farbach, K. (1999). Ecological factors
impacting provider attitudes towards human service delivery reform. American Journal
of Community Psychology, 27 (6), 785-816.

 

 

Frazier, E. F. (1963). The Negro church in America. New York: Schocken
Books.

 

Frazier, E. F. (1966). The Negro family in the United States. Chicago:
University Press.

 

Frazier, E. F. (1967). Negro youth at the crossways, their personality
development in the Middle States. New York: Schocken Books.

 

 

Gaines, S. O., & Reed, E. S. (1994). Two social psychologists of prejudice:
Gordon W. Allport, W. E. B. Du Bois, and the legacy of Booker T. Washington. Journal
of Black Psychology, 20, 8-28.

 

Gaines, S. O., & Reed, E. S. (1995). Prejudice: From Allport, to Du Bois.
American Psychologist, 50, 96-103.

 

Greene, B. A. (1992a). Racial socialization as a tool in psychotherapy with
African American children. In LA. Vargas & J. D. Koss-Chiono (Eds), Working with
Culture: Psychotherapeutic interventions with ethnic minority children and adolescents
(pp. 63-81). San Francisco: Jossey Boss.

 

 

Gordon, K. A. (1995). Self-concept and motivational patterns of resilient African
American high school students. Journal of Black Psychology, 21 (3) 239-255.

 

Gustafson, J. M. (1961). Treasure in earthen vessels. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

 

Haight, W. L. (1998). Gathering the sprit at First Baptist Church: Spirituality as a
protective factor in the lives of African American children.

Hale, J. (1991). The transmission of cultural values to young African American
children. YoungChildren, 6-15.

 

Harris, F. C. (1994). Something Within: Religion as a Mobilizer of African-
American Political Activism. Journal of Politics, 56 (1), 42-68.

 

306

 

 

Helms, J. E. (1986). Expanding racial identity theory to cover counseling
process. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33 (1), 62-64.

Helms, J. E. (1990). Black and White racial identity. Westport, CT: Greenwood
Press.

Hrabowski, F., Maton, K., & Greif, G. (1998). Beating the odds: Raising
academically successful African American males. New York: Oxford University.

Hu, L. & Benter, P. (1998). Fit indices covariance structure modeling:
Sensitivity to underparameterized model speciﬁcation. Psychological Methods, 3 (4),
424-453.

Hunt, L. H. & Hunt, J. G. (1997). Black religion as both opiate and inspiration of
civil rights militance: Putting Marx’s data to the test. Social Forces 56 1-14.

——;_

Jackson, J. S., McCullough, W. R., Gurin, G., Bowman, C. L. (1991). Racial
Identity. In J. S. Jackson (Ed.) Life in Black American, (pp. 238 -253). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.

Jackson, J. S., McCullough, W. R., & Gurin, G. (1988). Family, socialization
environment, and identity development in Black Americans. In H. P. McAdoo (Ed.)
Black Families, (pp. 242-256). Newbury Park, CA :Sage Publications.

June, S. S. (1991). The role of the home in the spiritual development of Black

children. In L. N. June (Ed), The Black Family: Past, Present, and Future (pp. 99-114).
Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House.

Kelly, S. (1998). The effects of racial issues on Black couple relationships.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University.

King, W. (1995). Stolen childhood: slave youth in nineteenth-century America.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Kunjufu, J. (1994). Adam! Where are you? Why most Black men don’t go to
church. Chicago, 111: African American Images.

Levin, J. S., Taylor, L. M., & Chatters, L. M. (1995). A multidimensional
measure of religious involvement for African Americans. The Sociological Quarterly, 36
(1),157-173.

Lincoln, E. C. (1999). Race and Religion. Durham, NC: Duke University Press

Lincoln, E. C. & Mamiya, L. H. (1990). The Black church in the African
American experience. Durham, NC: Duke University Press

307

 

 

Lofton, F. (1991). Teaching Christian values within the Black family. In L. N.
June (Ed), The Black Family: Past, Present, and Future (pp. 125-139). Grand Rapids:
Zondervan Publishing House.

Makkar, J. K. & Strube, M. J. (1995). Black women’s self perceptions of
attractiveness following exposure to White versus Black beauty standards: The

moderating role of identity and self-esteem. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25
(17) 1547-1566.

 

Marable M. (1989). Religion and Black protest thought in African American
history. In G. S. Gilmore (Ed.) African American Religious Studies: An Interdisgﬂinary
anthology, (pp. 318-339). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

 

Marx, G. T. (1967a). Religion: Opiate or inspiration of civil rights militancy
among Negros? American Sociological Review 32 64-77.

 

Marx, G. T. (1967b) Protest & Prejudice. New York: Harper Row.

 

Marshall, S. (1995). Ethnic socialization of African American children:
Implications for parenting, identity development, and academic achievement. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 2i (4), 377-396.

 

Marcia, J. (1966). Deve10pment and validation of ego-identity status. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 3 551-558.

 

Martin, J. K., & Hall, G. C. (1992). Thinking Black, thinking internal, thinking
feminist. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39 (4), 509-514.

 

McAdoo, H. P. (1995). Stress levels, family help patterns, & religiosity in
middle-and working-class single African American single mothers. Journal of Black
Psychology, 21 (4), 424-449.

McAdoo, H. P. (1985). Racial attitude and self-concept of young Black children
over time. McAdoo, H. P. & McAdoo, J. L. (Eds). Black Children: Social, Educatiorgl,
and Parental Environments, (pp. 213-2433). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publication.

 

Millstones, J. (1980). Construction of a Black consciousness measure:
Bychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice, 17 175-182.

Mitchell, H. H. & Thomas, E. T. (1994). Preaching for Black self-esteem.
Nashville: Abingdon Press.

Mont-Reynaud, R., Ritter, P., & Chen, Z. (1990). Correlates of perceived

discrimination among minority and majority youth in the Dombush-Steinberg dataset.
Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Research on Adolescence, Atlanta, GA.

308

 

 

 

 

Munford, M . B. (1994). Relationship of gender, self-esteem, social class, and
racial identity to depression in Blacks. Journal of Black Psychology, 20 157-174.

 

Nelson, H. M. & Nelson, A. K. (1975). Black church in the sixties. The
University of Kentucky Press.

 

Nelson, H. M., Maldron, T. W., & Yokley, R. L. (1981). Black religion’s
promethean motif: orthodoxy and militancy. American Journal of Sociology, 81 (1),
139-149.

 

Ogbu, J. (1990). Minority education in comparative perspective. Journal of
Negro Education, 59 (1) 45-57..

 

Pargament, K. I. (1999). The psychology of religion and spirituality? Yes and no.
International Journal for the Psychology of Religion 9, (1) 3-16.

 

Parham, T. A., & Helms, J. E. (1981). The inﬂuence of Black-students racial
identity attitudes on preferences for counselors race. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
_2_8 (3), 250-257.

 

Paris, P. J. (1985). The social teachings of the Black churches. Philadelphia,:
Fortress Press.

 

Parham, T. A., & Helms, J. E. (1985). Attitudes of racial identity and self-esteem
of Black —students — An exploratory investigation. Journal of College Student
Development, 26 (2), 143-147.

 

 

Parham, T. A. (1989). Cycles of psychological nigrescence. Counseling
Psychology, 17 (2), 187-226.

 

Peck, G. R. (1982). Black radical consciousness and the Black Christian
experience: Toward a critical sociology of Afro-African religion. Sociological Analysis
43, 155-169.

 

Pedhauzer, E. J. (1997). Multiple regression in behavioral science: Explanation
and prediction. New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

 

 

Penn, M. L., Gaines, S. 0., & Phillips, L. (1993). On the desirability of own-
group preference. Journal of Black Psychology, 19 303-321.

 

Peters, M. F. (1985). Racial socialization of young Black children. McAdoo, H.
P. & McAdoo, J. L. (Eds). Black Children: Social, Educational, and Parental
Environments, (pp. 159-173). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publication.

 

309

 

 

 

 

 

Peters, M. F. (1997). Historical note: Parenting of young children in Black
families. In H. P. McAdoo (Ed.) Black Families, (pp. 167-182). 3rd Ed., Newbury Park,
CA: Sage Publication.

Phinney, J .S. (1989). Stages of ethnic identity development in minority group
adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 9 34-49.

Phinney, J. S. & Alipuria, L. L. (1990). Ethnic identity attitudes in college
students from four ethnic groups. Journal of Adolescence 13 (2)171-183.

 

Phinney, J. S. & Chavira, V. (1995). Parental Ethnic Socialization and
Adolescent Coping with Problems Related to Ethnicity. Journal of Research on
Adolescence 5(1), 31-53.

 

Phinney, J .S. (1992). The Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure: A New Scale for
Use With Diverse Groups. Journal of Adolescent Research 7 (2), 156-176.

 

Phinney, J. S. & Rosenthal, D. A (1992). Ethnic identity in adolescence : Process
context, and outcome. Adolescent identity formation advances in adolescent
development, In G.R. Adams & T. P. Gullotta (Eds). Adolescent identity formation
advances in adolescent development (pp. 145—172). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publication.

Phinney, J. S. (1996). Understanding ethnic diversity: the role of ethnic identity.
American Behavioral Scientist 40 (2) 143-152.

 

Plummer, D. L (1995). Patterns of racial identity development of African
American adolescent males and females. Journal of Black Psychology, 21 (2) 168-180.

Reese, L. A., & Brown, R. E. (1995). The effects of religious messages on racial
identity and system blame among African Americans. Journal of Politics, 57 (1), 24-43.

Roberts, V. E. (1996). A conﬁrmatory analysis of Baldwin’s theory of Black
personality development. Unpublished master’s thesis, Michigan State University

Sanders-Thompson, V. L. (1994). Socialization to race and its relationship to
racial identiﬁcation among African-Americans. Journal of Black Psychology 20 (2),
175-188.

Sellers, R..M., Shelton, J. N., Cooke, D. Y., Chavous, T. M., Rowley, F. A.,
Smith, M. A. (1997). A multidimensional model of racial identity: Assumptions,
ﬁndings, and future directions. Jones, R. L. (Ed.). African American identity
Development. Hampton: Cobb & Henry.

310

 

 

 

Sellers, R..M., Smith, M. A, Shelton, J. N., Rowley, F. A., Chavous, T. M.,
(1998). Multidimensional model of racial identity: A reconceptualization of African

American racial identity. Personality and Social Psychology Review 2, (1) 18-39.

Sigelman, L., Bledsoe, T., Welch, S. & Combs, M. (1996). Making contact? Black-
White social interaction in an urban setting. American Journal of Sociology, 101 (5)
1306-1332.

Smith, E. P., & Brookins, C. C. (1997). Toward the development of an ethnic
identity measure for African American youth. Journal of Black Psychology, 23 (4), 358-
377.

Smith, E. P., F ogle, V., & Jacobs J. (2001). Assessing Parental Ethnic
Socialization: Issues and Implementation. Unpublished Manuscript.

Spencer, M. B. (1983). Children’s cultural values and parental child rearing
strategies. Developmental Review 3, 351-370.

Spencer, M. B. (1984). Black children’s race awareness, racial attitudes, and self-
concept. A reinterpretation. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatgy, 25, 433-441.

Stevenson, H.C. & Renard, G. (1993). Trusting ole’ wise owls: Therapeutic strengths in
African American families. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 24, (4) 433-
442.

Stevenson, H.C. (1994). Theoretical considerations in measuring racial identity
and socialization: Extending the self-further. Unpublished manuscript, University of
Pennsylvania.

Stevenson, H.C. (1994). Racial socialization in African-American families: The
art of balancing intolerance and survival. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy
for Couples and Families, 2 (3), 190-198.

Stevenson, H. C. (1994). Buffer zone: Impact of racial socialization experiences
on anger expression in African American adolescents. In R. Jones (Ed.) Advances in
African American Psychology.

Stevenson, H. C. (1995). Relationship of adolescent perceptions of racial
socialization to racial identity. Journal of Black Psychology, 21, 1, 49-70.

St. George, A. & McNamara, P. H. (1984). Religion, race, and psychological
well-being. Journal for the Scientiﬁc Study of Religion, 23 (4), 351-363.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1995). Using Multivariate Statistics. New
York, NY: Harper Collins College Publishers.

311

 

Taylor, R. J., Thornton, M.C., & Chatters, L. M. (1988). Black Americans’
perceptions of the sociohistorical role of the church. Journal of Black Studies, 18 (2),
123-138.

 

Tatum, B. D. (1997). “Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the
cafeteria?” and other conversations about race. New York: Basic Books.

 

Thomas, A. J. & Speight, S. L. (1999). Racial identity and racial socialization of
African American Parents. Journal of Black Psychology, 25 (2) 152-170.

 

Thomas, R. (1992). Life is what we make it: buildingBlack community in
Detroit, 1915-1945. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

 

 

Thornton, M.C., Chatters, L.M., Taylor, R.J. & Allen, W.R. (1990).
Sociodemographic and environmental correlates of racial socialization by black parents.
Child Developmentg61, 401-409.

 

Thornton, MC. (1990). Strategies of racial socialization among Black parents:
Mainstream, minority, and cultural messages. Taylor, R. T., Jackson, J. S., & Chatters,
L. M. (Eds) F arnily Life in Black America, (pp. 201 215) Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publication.

 

Thornton, M. C. (1995). Indigenous resources and strategies of resistance:
informal caregiving and racial socialization in Black communities. McCubbin, H. 1.,
Thompson, E. A. & Futrell, J. L. (Eds).Resiliency in African American Families, (pp.
49-69). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publication.

 

Thornton, M. C. (1997). Strategies of racial socialization among Black Parents:
Mainstream, minority, and cultural messages. In R. J. Taylor, J. S. Jackson, and L. M.

Chatters (Eds) Life in Black American, (pp. 201 —2i5). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

 

Wilmore, G. S. (1972). Black religion and Black radicalism. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday.

 

Young, J. L. (1994). Sapphires-in transition: Enhancing personal development
among Black female adolescents. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development,
22 86-95.

 

Zinnbauer, B. J ., Pargament, K. 1., Cole, B., Butter, E. M., Belavich, T. G., Hipp,
K. M., Scott, A. B., & Kadar, J. L. (1997). Religion and spirituality: Unfuzzying the
fuzzy. Journal for the Scientiﬁc Study of Religion, 36 (4) 549-564.

 

312

 

 

 

“nun...

:a a I _..

“Vaulwli

 

1:
was} .
2.5.... ....

«insinu- h. .i
a. . . . .
. 3.! . .
11. r . 1:45

a...

a. 5

.1
. .r: ..
.21: 1:3:
53.. z. e.
t . 5

.1 . . .
_upvaarygrﬁ

.
f

05.

a...