v . 58. a.
in“. .353.

33‘: vi!

..
.11.... .' iv...
41:. 1.3.31.3

« .2.
i... .

.. .1...
a. .
. :. 1. $959.3?“
tutelaxedr .
.35};—

4%

a

l I“! :- I,‘
it: ‘ . c :1 .
s : . yin“; an.
. . V .mﬁquif
3 . ‘
. .ﬁa
_.......,z.. .4.
. L3.

.13.,”

3

. a

raﬂx «v.1

:42: .53:
3.1%..

u.
9.

{It

. §
1‘» 3.1.
1» 5.33.2... 1

aha-33.14”

 

1 tr .5: v
.71.
;

 

‘ 2.1;... .. :\

 

LIBRARY
”an State
University

bio

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

The Role of Shame in African American Racial Identity:

A Bridge to Negative Affect
presented by

Stephen Dale Jefferson

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. Clinical Psychology

degree in

We

W
Major professor \

 

 

09-26-01
Date

 

MS U 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

 

0:012. 0 2003 rm: t 3 atal

 

d'iN m 2 gags

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJCIFtC/DateDue.p65cp.15

THE ROLE OF SHAME IN AFRICAN AMERICAN RACIAL IDENTITY: A
BRIDGE To NEGATIVE AFFECT
By

Stephen Dale Jefferson

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTORATE OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Psychology
2001

ABSTRACT
THE ROLE OF SHAME IN AFRICAN AMERICAN RACIAL IDENTITY: A
BRIDGE To NEGATIVE AFFECT
by

Stephen Dale Jefferson

Past research has revealed that certain stages of Cross’s African American
racial identity development model are associated with particular forms of
negative affect. Utilizing a sample of 168 African American university students,
this study found that although feelings of shame and depression were not
signiﬁcantly correlated with lmmersion-Emersion and lntemalization attitudes,
regression analyses revealed that shame feelings did seem to mediate the
relationship between Preencounter attitudes and depression. Further, this study
found no support for its hypothesis that Preencounter attitudes would act as a
moderator between participant’s self-ratings of Skin color and feelings of shame.
Finally, this study found no support for the hypothesis that lntemalization

attitudes would be negatively correlated with feelings of Shame and depression.

DEDICATION

I dedicate this dissertation to my parents, Charles and Laura Jefferson.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my partner, Matt Wojack,
whose moral and physical support allowed me to enter my data in record
time, and who was always available to read drafts and give helpful
comments. Also, I would like to thank the editorial and intellectual efforts of
Peter Hovmand. Peter, I doubt that I could have completed this paper
without our Sunday coffee discussions.

It is also important to acknowledge the incredible staff of the MSU
Psychology Department, particularly Greta McVay. Whenever I lost faith,
your smile, good humor, and procedural insights were always rejuvenating.
Thank you so very much.

Further, I would like to thank my committee for going above and beyond
to help me finish this paper. Thank you Dr. Kaufman, Dr. Bogat, Dr.
McAdoo, and Dr. Karon.

Finally, I would again like to acknowledge my parents and thank them for
giving so selﬂessly so that I might be where I am today. I could not ask for

better parents.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................... 1
Nigrescence Theory ........................................................................... 1
Preencounter Attitudes and Negative Affect ...................................... 8
Shame ..................................................................................... 9
Cultural Mistrust: Gateway to Shame ..................................... 14
lmmersion-Emersion Attitudes and Negative Affect .......................... 20
Shame as a Gateway to Hostility ....................................................... 21
Hostility .................................................................................... 22
lntemalization and Negative Affect .................................................... 24
Racial Identity and Skin Color ............................................................ 25
CHAPTER TWO
DESIGN OF THE CURRENT STUDY ........................................................ 33
Hypotheses .................................................................................... .34
CHAPTER THREE
METHOD ..................................................................................................... 35
Participants and Procedures .............................................................. 35
Measures ........................................................................................... 38
Racial Identity Attitude Scale (RIAS) ....................................... 39
Buss Durkee Hostility Inventory (BDHI) ................................... 40
Center for Epidemiologic Studies
Depression Scale (CES-D) ..................................................... 41
lntemalized Shame Scale (ISS) ............................................... 42
Cultural Mistrust Inventory (CMI) ............................................. 43
Other Questionnaires .............................................................. 44
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS .................................................................................................... 44
Hypothesis 1 ...................................................................................... 47
Part 1 ....................................................................................... 53
Part 2 ....................................................................................... 53
Hypothesis 2 ...................................................................................... 56
Hypothesis 3 ...................................................................................... 56
Hypothesis 4 ...................................................................................... 56
Post Hoc Analyses ............................................................................. 58
Overall Sample ........................................................................ 58
Women .................................................................................... 61
Men .......................................................................................... 64
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION .............................................................................................. 68

REFERENCE LIST ...................................................................................... 76

APPENDICES
Consent Form (Appendix F) .............................................................. 85
Measure of Racial Attitudes (Appendix G) ......................................... 87

vi

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE1 ...................................................................................................... 45
TABLE 2 ...................................................................................................... 46
TABLE 3 ...................................................................................................... 48
TABLE 4 ...................................................................................................... 49
TABLE 5 .......................................... L ........................................................... 50
TABLE 5 ...................................................................................................... 54
TABLE 7 ...................................................................................................... 57
TABLE 8 ...................................................................................................... 59
TABLE 9 ...................................................................................................... 50
TABLE 10 .................................................................................................... 52
TABLE 11 .................................................................................................... 63
TABLE 12 .................................................................................................... 55
TABLE 13 .................................................................................................... 66

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1 .................................................................................................... 36
FIGURE 2 .................................................................................................... 37
FIGURE 3 .................................................................................................... 52
FIGURE 4 .................................................................................................... 55

viii

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW

Past research has revealed that certain stages of the process of African
American racial identity development as conceptualized by Cross (1978) are
associated with particular forms of negative affect (Parham & Helms, 1985a;
Parham & Helms, 1985b; Munford, 1994). Speciﬁcally, both Preencounter
and lmmersion-Emersion attitudes have been found to be positively related to
depression; and Immersion-Emersion attitudes have been found to be
positively associated with hostility. The present study will examine the role of
shame in these relationships. Speciﬁcally, shame is hypothesized to be a
mediating variable in all of the aforementioned relationships. Additionally, this
study will examine the role of cultural mistrust and Preencounter attitudes in
the development of shame; and it will examine how skin color perceptions and
Preencounter beliefs relate to feelings of Shame. Finally, this study is also
postulating that endorsing an affirmative stance towards being African
American will be negatively related to feelings of shame and depression. The
ﬁndings from this study will increase knowledge of certain affective
components of African American identity development.
Nigrescence Theory

Personality theorists in recent decades have begun to focus
increasing attention on various aspects of African American personality
and racial identity development (Baldwin & Bell, 1985; Brookins, 1994;
Cross, 1978; Parham & Helms, 1981 ). One of the major contributors to
this area of research is William E. Cross, Jr., who proposed a theory of

Nigrescence (1978). Nigrescence theory attempts to explain the

process of “psychological liberation under conditions of oppression”
(Cross, 1971, p. 14) and the development of positive attitudes and
identiﬁcation of African Americans with the African American community.
Cross has proposed ﬁve stages in the process of racial identity
development: (1) Preencounter stage; (2) Encounter stage; (3)
lmmersion-Emersion stage; (4) Internalization stage; and (5)
Internalization-Commitment stage.

The Preencounter stage is typified by an individual who disparages his/her
African heritage while exalting a European worldview. “The person may have
an intact and functional identity, but one which, in the overall scheme of
things, makes being Black somewhat insigniﬁcant” (Cross, 1994, p. 122).
This denial of self can result in identity confusion, and Cross posits that this
individual is ripe for change. The Encounter stage, the second in Cross's
theory, is the catalyst for such change. During this phase, the Preencounter
individual experiences an event or learns some discordant piece of
information that causes him/her to reevaluate the soundness of his/her
Eurocentric orientation. Individuals in the encounter stage ﬁnd their whole
value system in turmoil. “The person in this stage begins to search for a
Black identity, initially feeling guilty about previously holding attitudes that
degraded his or her Blackness, and eventually becoming increasingly angry
for having been trained in this way" (Sabnani & Ponterotto, 1992, p. 176).
The contempt that was once turned against “Black-ness” is now turned
against Whites. Driven by guilt and anger, the individual moves next into the
Immersion-Emersion stage and begins to transform old self-denigrating

cognitions into more self-afﬁrming beliefs. During this stage, both African

heritage and people are exalted as well as idealized, while White people and
culture are equally disparaged. “Superhuman and supernatural expectations
are conjured concerning anything Black” (Cross, 1971, p. 18). While
Immersion-Emersion individuals spend a great deal of time and energy
constructing a pro-Black identity, they arrive at this more positive identity only
through the denigration of their past idols.

Persons who ﬁxate or stagnate at this point in their development

are said to have a “pseudo” Black identity because it is based on

the hatred and negation of white people rather than on the

afﬁrmation of a pro-Black perspective which includes

commitment to the destruction of racism, capitalism and

Western dominance. (Cross, 1971, p. 19)

At the end of this stage, the extreme evaluations associated with the
lmmersion-Emersion stage are somewhat modulated by more realistic
assessments of both European and African American groups. Eventually
resolution occurs, and the dissonance that existed between the Preencounter
and the lmmersion-Emersion person is dissolved during the lntemalization
phase. “Tension, emotionality, and defensiveness are replaced by a calm,
secure demeanor. Anti-White feelings decline to the point where friendships
with White associates can be renegotiated. . .[and the] uncontrolled rage
toward White people [is converted into] controlled anger toward oppressive
and racist institutions” (Cross, 1978, p. 18). This leads directly into the ﬁfth
stage of Cross's theory, Intemalization—Commitment. During this stage, the
lntemalization individual chooses to become politically active in ﬁghting

oppression. This last stage embodies “the proposition that in order for Black

identity change to have lasting political signiﬁcance, the ‘self' (me or I) must
become or continue to be involved in the resolution of problems shared by the
‘group' (we)" (1978, p 18).

Because this is a stage model, individuals are presumed to progress
from one stage to the next in a more-or-less linear fashion. Despite this,
progression across stages does not imply that stages are mutually
exclusive, nor does it mean that movement between stages occurs only
in one direction. Individuals involved in this process may still possess
some attitudes from a previous stage (or stages) despite the fact that
many more of their attitudes have become consistent with a later stage
(and vice versa). This model represents a spectrum, and individuals can
possess attitudes and beliefs, to lesser or greater degrees, from all
points. Although a signiﬁcant number of African Americans undergo
such a process of identity development, not all African Americans
necessarily experience all of these stages, nor is this the only way for
African Americans to develop positive identiﬁcation with the Black
community.

Parham and Helms (1981) have developed the Racial Identity Attitude
Scale (RIAS) to measure the stages inherent in Cross’s theory.

Research has generally supported the internal consistency and factor
structure of this measure (Parham & Helms, 1981; Ponterotto & Wise,
1987; Sabnani & Ponterotto; 1992), and support for its validity can be
gleaned from looking at its relationship to other attitudinal variables
(Mitchell & Dell, 1992; Parham & Helms, 1985a & b). In a study of the

relationship of racial identity to Black students’ preferences concerning

counselors’ race, Parham and Helms (1981) found that “preencounter
and encounter attitudes were signiﬁcantly related to subjects’
preferences for the same-race counselor" (p. 253). As participants'
scores on the Preencounter stage increased, their preference for a White
counselor also increased signiﬁcantly while their preference for Black
counselors decreased signiﬁcantly. This suggests that Preencounter
attitudes are related to pro-White/anti-Black attitudes. These
researchers also found that “encounter and immersion-emersion
attitudes were associated with pro-Black, anti-White counselor
preferences” (1981, p. 255). These ﬁndings indicate that racial identity
attitudes can inﬂuence African Americans’ choices for mental health
services, and that although Preencounter attitudes were associated with
a preference for a White counselor, later stages in this model were
associated with a preference for a Black counselor. Finally, Mitchell and
Dell (1992) found that “the higher a person’s pro-White, anti-Black (Pre-
Encounter) attitudes, the less likely a person is to participate in cultural
(i.e., Black-oriented) campus activities” (p. 42). All of these ﬁndings
support the validity of the Racial Identity Attitude Scale and demonstrate
that it adequately measures the stages of Cross’s theory. While the
Preencounter stage was found to be associated with pro-White/anti-
Black behaviors, later stages were associated with choosing to afﬁliate
with African Americans rather than European Americans.

In relating racial identity attitudes to psychological variables, there have
been mixed ﬁndings. The self-actualization variable of time competence was

found to be signiﬁcantly related to the racial identity attitudes of 166 African

American college students from four predominantly European American
universities. Time competence was deﬁned as “the degree to which an
individual lives in the past, the present, or future; high scores indicated an
integration of past and future, which permits the individual to be content in the
here and now” (Parham & Helms, 1985a, p. 433). Emphasizing the present
was seen as more representative of self-actualization than ﬁxating on the past
or future.
. . .preencounter, encounter, and immersion attitudes were signiﬁcantly
related to time competence. . . .Thus, the higher one's prowhite-
antiblack (preencounter) attitudes and the higher one's problack-
antiwhite (immersion) attitudes, the less present oriented the person.
On the other hand, attitudes consistent with a decision to become black
(encounter) were related to a tendency to be present oriented. (Parham
& Helms, 1985a, p. 435)
This ﬁnding suggests that Preencounter and lmmersion-Emersion attitudes
are associated with feeling unhappy with the present, and experiencing less
integration of thoughts concerning the past and future. Additionally, with
regard to the self-actualization variable of inner-directedness (i.e., “whether a
person’s reactions are self or other oriented”; Parham & Helms, 1985a, p.
433), Preencounter attitudes were associated with a tendency to rely on
others for intrapersonal support. These researchers concluded “that higher
levels of preencounter attitudes consistently were associated with less self-
actualization, and thus these attitudes were less psychologically healthy;. . .
[and] that higher immersion attitudes . . . contributed to lower levels of self-

actualization” (Parham & Helms, 1985a, p.435).

Signiﬁcant relationships have been uncovered between racial identity
attitudes and other psychological variables. A study utilizing an African
American college student sample (N = 95) found that “preencounter attitudes
were signiﬁcantly positively related to self-reported anxiety, memory
impairment, paranoia, hallucinations, alcohol concerns, and global
psychological distress” (Carter, 1991, p. 111). lmmersion-Emersion attitudes
were found to negatively relate to memory impairment, and positively relate to
concerns about drug use (Carter, 1991 ). Another study (Munford, 1994)
found that stronger Preencounter, Encounter, and lmmersion-Emersion
attitudes were each associated with higher depression scores. In addition,
lntemalization attitudes were inversely related to measures of depression
(this study utilized a sample drawn from African American university students
and non-student community members). Parham and Helms (1985a) found
that “high levels of preencounter and immersion attitudes were likely to be
[positively] related to feelings of inferiority, personal inadequacy, and
hypersensitivity. . . [as well as] anxiety” (p. 436). Preencounter attitudes were
negatively associated with self-acceptance and lmmersion-Emersion attitudes
were positively related to feelings of anger and hostility. Although the
relationship fell just short of reaching signiﬁcance, lntemalization attitudes
were found to be positively associated with self-acceptance.

In terms of self-esteem, Preencounter and lmmersion-Emersion attitudes
have been found to be inversely related to self-regard, suggesting that the
more strongly one endorses such attitudes, the lower one’s self-regard
(Parham and Helms, 1985b). Munford's work (1994) also found an inverse

relationship between Preencounter attitudes and self-esteem, and a positive

relationship between lntemalization attitudes and self-esteem. Again, these
ﬁndings lead to the conclusion that while endorsing anti-Black beliefs is
associated with lower self-esteem, internalizing pro—Black beliefs is related to
higher self-esteem.

While lntemalization attitudes were found to be negatively associated with
anxiety, low self-esteem, and depression (Munford, 1994), some stages of
Cross’s Nigrescence theory were related to negative affect. From the
description of these stages, one could accurately surmise that there are very
deﬁnite idealizational processes occurring when individuals are in the
Preencounter stage, and also when individuals are in the lmmersion-
Emersion stage. Preencounter individuals over-idealize European American
culture and determinants, while lmmersion-Emersion individuals over-idealize
comparable African American qualities. For both groups, there appears to be
a “drive” to live Up to these ideals, along with a discrepancy between what
these individuals idealize and what they perceive as their actual selves.
Preencounter Attitudes and Negative Affect

The idealization of European aesthetics that occurs during the
Preencounter stage negates the development of positive identiﬁcation with
things African American. This is partly a function of the oppositional nature of
these two identiﬁcations. For example, if one believes that pale skin and
straight hair are the hallmark of beauty, then dark skin and curly hair cannot
also be defined as beautiful. In fact, such features are likely to be seen as
ugly or shameful. Although somewhat simplistic, this example describes a
process likely to be occurring in the Preencounter stage. According to Cross,

Preencounter individuals perceive Blacks as inferior (Cross, 1991), which is

illuminating in the light of the fact that certain theorists define shame as “the
affect of inferiority" (Kaufman, 1996, p. 16) or as “a negative evaluation of
one’s self” (Harper 8 Hoopes, 1990, p. 3).

Preencounter individuals who endorse anti-Black attitudes may indeed
experience shame because they belong to a group that they hold in contempt.
Empirical research has demonstrated that “preencounter attitudes were
inversely related to self-acceptance, indicating that prowhite-antiblack
attitudes were indicative of difficulty in accepting oneself in spite of the
absence of identiﬁcations with one's ascribed racial group” (Parham & Helms,
1985a, p.436). To date, research is lacking with regard to empirically
examining the relationship between shame and Preencounter attitudes. A
comparison of these two constructs indicates that the Preencounter stage is
conceivably typified by a specialized form of racial shame. Further, it implies
that Preencounter attitudes and Shame ought to be positively related. Support
for this hypothesis can be gleaned from research which has focused on
increasing our understanding of the concept of shame.

m

Many theorists have contributed to our understanding of shame. Darwin
(1899) described shame as “a strong desire for concealment" (pp. 321-322)
signiﬁed by downward cast eyes and blushing. Additionally, he assumed that
“self-attention directed to personal appearance, in relation to the opinion of
others [and one’s moral conduct], was the exciting cause” (1872, p. 326) of
shame. Although Freud’s contribution to this area of research has been
described as minimal (Kaufman, 1996; Lewis, 1987a; Morrison, 1983), several

psychodynamically oriented theorists have done much to refine our

understanding of this construct.

Lewis (1987a) described shame in terms similar to Darwin. “Shame
makes us want to hide. We avert our gaze or hang our heads in shame”
(Lewis, 1987a, p. 1). Additionally, Lewis suggested that shame was more
prevalent in the human experience than previous analytic research
acknowledged, and that it, like other emotions, often occurs outside of
awareness. She also suggested that shame could be linked to other
emotions. “Feeling ridiculous, embarrassment, Chagrin, mortification,
humiliation, and dishonor are all variants of [the] Shame state” (Lewis, 1987b,
p. 191 ). Rage, according to Lewis, could also be linked to shame (Scheff,
1987). Despite relating shame to a constellation of experiences, Lewis
distinguished shame from guilt. “Shame is about the self, guilt is about things
done or undone” (Lewis, 1987b, p. 192).

In contrast to this particular formulation, Tomkins (1963), working
from the perspective of affect theory, considered the feeling of shame
to be at the core of a number of negative emotional states including
guilt. “Guilt is not a different innate affect, but instead is viewed, as a
theoretical concept, as moral shame” (Kaufman, 1996, p. 25). Tomkins
deﬁned shame as “an innate auxiliary affect and a speciﬁc inhibitor of
continuing interest and enjoyment” (Tomkins, 1963, p. 123). Tomkins
was working from the perspective that “it is the affects rather than
drives which are the primary motives” (Nathanson, 1997, p. 111) in the
human experience. “Affect, says Tomkins, makes good things better
and bad things worse; it makes US care about different kinds of things

in different ways” (Nathanson, 1997, p. 115). He identiﬁed nine innate

10

affects of which shame-humiliation was one (Tomkins, 1963, p. 120).
Shame is feeling inferior or humiliated and it results from desiring
something that is thwarted, withdrawn, or given away. “Insofar as there
may be impediments, innate or learned, to any. . . [desired] objects,
there is a perpetual vulnerability to idiosyncratic sources of shame”

(T omkins, 1963, p. 188).

The signiﬁcance and purpose of shame have been examined at length.
“To begin with, shame plays a vital role in the development of conscience”
(Kaufman, 1996, p. 5) and self-esteem. Shame also “figure[s] prominently in
theories regarding such important domains as the regulation of moral
behavior and the formation of psychological symptoms” (Tangney, 1996, p.
471 ). The adaptive purpose of shame is that it helps one focus on personally
or interpersonally unacceptable behaviors or thoughts; it also encourages one
to modify behavior when necessary (Kaufman, 1996). Additionally, shame is
vitally important in identity development itself. “Answers to the questions,
‘Who am I?’ and ‘Where do I belong?’ are forged in the crucible of shame”
(Kaufman, 1996, p. 5). This places shame at the core of such phenomena as
loneliness, perfectionism, and inferiority. Finally, although shame can be
incapacitating, its primary role is to amplify experience (Kaufman, 1996).
Despite this, shame is also associated with a number of negative affective
states.

Although traditional psychoanalytic theory has suggested that depression
results from anger being directed at the self, other theorists have placed
shame at the center of explaining depression (Kaufman, 1996; Lewis, 1987b;

Tomkins, 1963). Kaufman (1996) has asserted that “although directing anger

11

inward is a secondary means of reproducing shame, it is not itself the source
of depression” (p. 135). Bibring, as cited by Lewis (1987b), arrived at a
similar conclusion:
In fact, he [Bibring] regards depression as “essentially
independent of the vicissitudes of aggression” (p. 40). He
hypothesizes further that the observed “turning of aggressive
impulses against the self is secondary to the breakdown of self-
esteem” (p. 45; Italics added). (1987b, p. 38)
Finally, Tomkins (1963) describes depression as “a syndrome of
shame and distress, which also reduces the general ampliﬁcation of all
impulses” (pp. 126-127). These theorists strongly argue for placing
shame at the fore in explaining depression, and empirical work has
demonstrated a consistent and strong relationship between shame and
depression.
Cook (1994) has conducted extensive research in measuring the construct
of shame. Working from Tomkins’s (1963) definition that shame is a
collection of emotions consisting of guilt, humiliation, shyness, and
embarrassment, Cook has created a 30-item scale called the lntemalized
Shame Scale (ISS). The lSS's validity has been demonstrated primarily
through its relationship with other affective variables and its relationship with
self-evaluative cognition. Speciﬁcally, the ISS shame scale has been shown
to be signiﬁcantly related to depression in multiple samples of college
students, and in various clinical samples (Cook, 1991 & 1994). Across clinical
and non-clinical samples, the correlation of the ISS with the Beck Depression

Inventory has been found to range from .59 to .79 (Cook, 1994). Additionally,

12

when a sample of 185 psychiatric patients were divided into four categories of
depression (i.e., asymptomatic, mild depression, moderate-severe
depression, and extreme depression), the following was found:
. . . subjects reporting the highest levels of current depressive
symptoms also had the highest levels of internalized shame.
The post-hoc test (Newman-Kuels) indicated that all the
symptomatic categories were differentiated form the categories
below them on the ISS . . . . Based on these result, scores on
the ISS of 60 or above are very likely to be accompanied by
multiple symptoms of depression. (Cook, 1994, p. 24)
Further, research examining a possible curvilinear relationship between the
ISS and positive affect found no support for such a relationship, suggesting
that “at even relatively low levels of shame, greater shame correlated with
decreased levels of Positive Affect” (1994, p. 23). With regard to self-esteem,
the ISS has been consistently found to be negatively related to various
measures of this construct.
It would be expected that the ISS would be convergent with various
measures of self-esteem and self-concept. In studies analyzed so far
the Shame total correlates -.52 with Coopersmith Self-Esteem Scale
(N=92); -.66 with the Tennessee Self Concept Scale total score and -
.72 with the Personal Self subscale (N=118); and -.80 with the Janis-
Field feelings of Inadequacy Scale (N-[=]113, all females). (Cook,
1991,p.414)
Finally, the ISS has been shown to strongly correlate positively with both

State Anxiety and Trait Anxiety for a mixed sample of college students and

13

adults, and for a sample of inpatient adolescents being treated for substance
abuse (Cook, 1990).

Considering Preencounter attitudes in the context of shame research and
theory, there is strong support for hypothesizing a relationship between these
variables: Both shame and Preencounter attitudes have been found to be
negatively related to similar measures of psychopathology; both involve a
negative evaluation of a signiﬁcant aspect of the self.

Cultural Mistrust: Gateway to M

The relationship between Preencounter attitudes and shame is a complex
one. The Preencounter stage is exemplified by attitudesthat placﬂeﬁjgwﬁyaﬂue
wing Black or by attitudes that demonstrate an overtly anti-Black bias
(Cross, 1991). Preencounter individuals are equally prone to idealizing all
things European. This constellation of attitudes could reasonably be expected
to create a Signiﬁcant amount of cognitive tension in the psyches of
individuals caught in this stage, pushing them to arrive at a method for
reducing this inner conflict. Extrapolating from Cross’s theory, one could
conclude that Preencounter individuals might ideally prefer to resolve this
tension by shirking their actual racial status in favor of a European
designation. However, it is equally probable that individuals in the
Preencounter stage perceive the impossibility of such a transformation, and
therefore settle for a compromise: They minimize the importance of race in
their lives. This allows them to identify with people of European descent by
emphasizing the commonality of both groups, which are then viewed simply
as “human” or “American." An example of minimizing the importance of race

can be seen in the lyrics of Michael Jackson and Bill Bottrell's 1991 song,

14

“Black or White.” With this song, these lyricists state that they will not spend

their lives being any color, and that it does not matter if one is White or Black. I,

I

Ironically, these lyricists seem unaware of a paradox: If race were an ,
inconsequential matter, there would be no inspiration for their song. What is i
deﬁned as “Human/American” is by default all too often based on norms that
people of European descent have established, not on norms that are African-
centered. As Preencounter individuals struggle to become more “human,”
they essentially, albeit indirectly, struggle to adopt the values of Western
culture, a culture with a long history of denigrating the experiences of African
people. Individuals in the Preencounter stage who embrace a Western
worldview will also internalize this negative bias.

Research in this area has been inconclusive to date. A study by Fordham
has (1988) suggested that one strategy that African American adolescents
utilize to succeed in predominantly European American educational settings is
to adopt a “raceless persona” (p. 57).

In an effort to minimize the effects of race on their aspirations,
some Black Americans have begun to take on attitudes,
behaviors, and characteristics that may not generally be
attributed to Black Americans. Out of their desire to secure jobs
and positions that are above the employment ceiling typically
placed on Blacks, they have adopted personae that indicate a
lack of identiﬁcation with, or a strong relationship to the Black
community in response to an implicit institutional mandate:
Become “unBlack.” (1988, p. 58)

Fordham concludes that for African Americans and other minority

15

groups, this racelessness phenomenon is associated with high
academic performance. Nevertheless, this study has limited
generalizability because Fordham utilized a qualitative design, the
study was conducted at a single school, and the methods utilized do
not allow causal statements to be made concerning any of the
relationships examined. Additionally, excerpts from Fordham’s
interviews further suggest that despite participants’ high academic
performances, they were also experiencing signiﬁcant personal and
social conﬂicts concerning racial identity issues. One respondent
poignantly described the following strategy as a method that many
African Americans utilize in order to gain acceptance in predominantly
European American settings:
They [Raceless African Americans] consciously Choose their
speech, their walk, their mode of dress and car; they trim their
hair lest a mountainous Afro set them apart. They know they
have a high visibility, and they realize that their success
depends not only on their abilities [emphasis added], but also on
their white colleague’s feeling comfortable with them.
(Campbell, 1982, p. 32 [as cited by Fordham, 1988, p. 60])
This commentary suggests that African Americans who are attempting
to adopt a raceless identity actively work to distance themselves from
the physical and interpersonal attributes that cause European
American peers to take notice of racial differences. European
Americans in these settings oftentimes reinforce the adoption of a

raceless identity by making statements such as the following: “We’re

16

colorblind here . . . . We don’t see black students or white student, we
just see students” (1988, p. 61). Racial differences are not perceived
as qualities to be celebrated; rather, they are to be minimized and
hidden. The difﬁculty involved in hiding such a readily apparent aspect
of the self may leave many African Americans feeling exposed in this
area, and feelings of exposure are synonymous with shame (Kaufman,
1996). Thus, despite the possible beneﬁts of adopting a raceless
orientation, there may be Signiﬁcant psychological and social costs to
such a decision. Hall (1998), utilizing a sample of deaf African
American high school students from six different schools in the
Midwest and Northeast, found no support for a relationship between
academic performance and racelessness. Arroyo and Zigler (1995),
utilizing a sample of 243 African American public school students, also
found a lack of support for a relationship between academic
performance and the endorsement of racelessness. Despite this, the
latter study did ﬁnd small but signiﬁcant positive relationships between
racelessness attitudes and both anxiety and introjective depression.

Grier and Cobbs (1968) have suggested that for African Americans
“survival in America depends in large measure on the development of a
‘healthy’ cultural paranoia” (p. 161 ). These authors have asserted that African
Americans must balance a certain level of justiﬁed suspiciousness of Western
culture against succumbing to inaccurate perceptions of persecution. This
suspiciousness is believed to be healthy because it is a self-protective
response to a legitimate threat from society, and it may serve to buffer against

the lntemalization of negative attitudes about being African American.

17

Researchers interested in empirically studying this suspiciousness have
described this phenomenon as “cultural mistrust” (Terrell & Terrell, 1981, p.
180)

Terrell and Terrell (1981) examined four areas of the mistrust that African
Americans experience when interacting with European Americans. These
domains include: (1) educational and training settings, (2) interpersonal
relationships, (3) laws and politics, and (4) employment and business
relationships.

Typically, it is assumed that Blacks become mistrustful as a
result of direct or vicarious mistreatment by whites. More
precisely it has been proposed that as a result of either being
exposed to racism or treated unfairly by whites, Blacks become
mistrustful of whites. (1981, p. 180)

Much of this research has examined the effect of cultural mistrust on
interracial counseling relationships, for example, a White therapist and an
African American client. Findings from such studies have demonstrated that
African Americans who are higher in their mistrust of Whites are more prone
than low mistrust individuals to discontinue therapy at an earlier date (Terrell
& Terrell, 1984); to have lower expectations for the success of the counseling
process (Watkins & Terrell, 1988); and to perceive White counselors as less
credible than comparable African American counselors (Poston, Craine, &
Atkinson, 1991). Additionally, higher mistrust has been found to predict that
African American clients would make less intimate disclosures in the absence
of direct discussion of racial issues during therapy sessions (Thompson,

Worthington, & Atkinson, 1994), and research in this area suggests that

18

higher cultural mistrust seems to be related to a decreased inclination to seek
out psychological services at predominantly White staffed Clinics (Nickerson,
Helms, & Terrell, 1994).

These ﬁndings demonstrate that Terrell and Terrell’s operationalization of
cultural mistrust is related behaviorally to how African Americans perceive and
respond to Whites. African Americans who have strongly endorsed the items
of the Cultural Mistrust Inventory (CMI) have been shown to behave in a
doubting or cautious fashion toward Whites. The relationship of cultural
mistrust to other psychological domains, such as shame, has yet to be
investigated.

Cultural mistrust, as Terrell and Terrell have conceptualized it, also ought
to relate to how much African Americans embrace European American or
mainstream culture. Speciﬁcally, cultural mistrust ought to be inversely
related to Preencounter attitudes. Preencounter attitudes have been found to
be positively associated with anxiety, depression, and some forms of lower
self-esteem in African Americans (Munford, 1994; Parham & Helms, 1985a
and b). This suggests that African Americans who embrace European
American culture are prone to experiencing negative affect. This negative
affect is hypothesized to be a function of the shame that comes from
belonging to an ethnic group of which one is contemptuous, and this shame is
further hypothesized to come from internalizing the negative messages
perpetuated by mainstream European American culture. Thus, the more an
African American individual trusts European American culture, the more
strongly he/she will internalize a negative bias against Blacks, endorse a

Preencounter stance, and, therefore, experience more shame. Shame has

19

been described as a key variable in depression, and it is hypothesized that
shame probably accounts for a signiﬁcant part of the variance in the
relationship of Preencounter attitudes to depression.
Immersion-Emerslon Attitudes and Negative Affect
The lmmersion-Emersion stage of Cross’s Nigrescence theory also needs

to be studied further with respect to its relationship to negative affect. As
individuals move from anti-Black to pro-Black attitudes, the lmmersion-
Emersion process necessitates a profound psychological shift.

During this period of transition, the person begins to demolish

the old perspective and simultaneously tries to construct what

will become his or her new frame of reference. . . . [T]he person

is more familiar with the identity to be destroyed than the one to

be embraced. . . . In effect, the new convert lacks knowledge

about the complexity and texture of the new identity and is

forced to erect simplistic, gloriﬁed, highly romantic speculative

images of what he or she assumes the new self will be like.

(Cross, 1991, p. 202)
Individuals involved in this stage have a tendency to “deify Black people and
Black culture” (Cross, 1978, 17), and also attribute “[s]uperhuman and
supernatural [qualitites to]. . . anything Black” (Cross, 1991,p. 203). This
suggests that lmmersion-Emersion individuals establish personal standards of
Blackness that are extremely unrealistic. Additionally, while this stage is the
point at which such individuals idealize and embrace their African heritage,
they are simultaneously attempting to rid themselves of their deeply

entrenched, anti-Black beliefs. These separate but related processes create

20

two contradictory self-schemes, and the discrepancy between these “selves”
has an implied ideal self vs. actual self duality. The ideal self is one who
loves all things African and denigrates everything opposed to this value, and
the actual self is one ﬁlled with self-doubt and ambivalence about embracing
an African heritage. Cross has defined this as “Weusi anxiety” (1991, p. 205),
which is anxiety about not being Black enough (Weusi is a Swahili word for
“black”). This inability to actualize an ideal self suggests that shame plays a
role in Weusi anxiety because “whenever expectations are thwarted or
disappointed, shame is . . . activated” (Kaufman, 1996, p. 30). The
disappointment that comes from not attaining a Black ideal is likely to cause
individuals in the lmmersion-Emersion stage to experience shame.
Shame as a Gateway to Hostillgy
If shame is a prominent affect of the Immersion-Emersion stage, then there

will be a strong motivation to reduce its effects. Rage is a reaction that serves
to ward off shame. “Whether in the form of generalized hostility,. . . chronic
hatred, or explosive eruptions, rage protects the self against exposure”
(Kaufman, 1996, p. 97) to shame. Other theorists also recognize that the
experience of shame can initiate a sequence of emotional reactions
culminating in feelings of anger (Scheff, 1987). In keeping with this view,
Tangney, Wagner, Fletcher, & Gramzow (1992) have succinctly summarized
Lewis's (1971) perspective on shame and hostility:

According to Lewis, in shame, hostility is initially directed toward

the self. But because shame also involves the imagery of a

rejecting, disapproving other, this hostility is easily redirected in

retaliation toward the rejecting other. Lewis sees this as a

21

defensive maneuvef an attempt to turn the tables and to right
the self, which has been impaired in the shame experience. At
some level, the shamed individual recognizes this humiliated
fury as inappropriate 'or unjust (Lewis, 1987), and this
recognition may lead to further shame or guilt. (Tangney et al.,
1992,p.670)
This process has been described as an “escalating spiral” (Retzinger,
1987, p. 151 ). Retzinger believes that this spiral fuses rage and shame
into what she describes as resentment. Empircal research has
supported a signiﬁcant relationship between higher shame scores and
higher scores on the Buss-Durkee Hostility lnventory’s Resentment (r =
.42) and Suspicion (r = .40) scales (Tangney et al., 1992). “Shame-
proneness was consistently positively correlated with anger arousal,
suspiciousness, resentment, irritability, a tendency to blame others for
negative events, and indirect (but not direct) expressions of hostility“
(1992, p. 673). Shame has also been found to be positively related to
other measures of anger affect (Tangney et al., 1992; Tangney,
Wagner, Marschall, Hill-Barlow, Marschall, & Gramzow, 1996),
supporting a relationship between shame and hostility.
Hostilig
To avoid the ambiguity inherent in global deﬁnitions of hostility, Buss and
Durkee (1957) attempted to identify and measure various facets of hostility.
These researchers identiﬁed the following seven categories: Assault, Indirect
Hostility, lrritability, Negativism, Resentment, Suspicion, and Verbal Hostility.

Based on these categories, they constructed the Buss-Durkee Hostility

22

Inventory (BDHI). “Factor analysis of college men’s and women's inventories
[for these combined subscales] revealed two factors: an attitudinal
component of hostility (Resentment and Suspicion) and a ‘motor’ component
(Assault, Indirect Hostility, lrritability, and Verbal Hostility)” (p. 349). Other
researchers have found support for a virtually identical two-factor model of
Hostility. Bushman, Cooper, and Lemke (1991) in their meta-analysis of
factor analytic studies which utilized Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory data from
a variety of populations (e.g., men, women, as well as various ethnic groups)
found the following:
. . . that the seven subscales of the Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory
measure two dimensions of aggressiveness, one that can be called
overt and one that can be called covert. The overt factor consists
primarily of the Assault and Verbal Hostility subscales, whereas the
covert factor consists primarily of the Resentment and Suspicion
subscales. (p. 349)

Covert hostility has been described as “the experience of hostility. . . which
consists of feelings of anger, suspicion, and resentment” (Felston, 1996a, p.
180). Furthermore, because it has consistently been found to be associated
with anxiety and neuroticism -- unlike overt hostility - covert hostility is often
referred to as neurotic hostility (Seigman, Dembroski, & Ringel, 1987; Felsten,
1996a). Overt hostility, in contrast, has often been referred to as expressive
hostility, and has been described as consisting of such behaviors as “frequent
expressions of anger and annoyance, a tendency to argue in a loud voice,
and the capacity to resort to physical aggression if provoked” (Felston, 1996a,

p. 181).

23

Past research has demonstrated a relationship between lmmersion-
Emersion attitudes and feelings of hostility (Parham and Helms, 1985a). This
is consistent with Cross’s theory because feelings of anger, suspiciousness,
and resentment typify how lmmersion-Emersion individuals feel toward
Western culture and White people. Consequently, there ought to be a
positive relationship between lmmersion-Emersion attitudes and covert
hostility. Additionally, the lmmersion-Emersion stage represents a movement
away from the shame of the Preencounter stage through a strategy similar to
what Kaufman (1996) has described as reactionary contempt. This reaction is
a defense against shame and, further, implies that shame may be a salient
experience for lmmersion-Emersion individuals as well. Shame has also
been found to be positively associated with hostility (Tangney et al., 1992;
Tangney et al., 1996). Therefore, shame is believed to mediate the
relationship of lmmersion-Emersion attitudes and Hostility.
lntemalization and Negative Affect

Cross asserts that lntemalization attitudes act to buffer against the
development of anti-Black attitudes and feelings of cultural isolation.

From a psychodynamic point of view, the internalized identity
seems to perform three dynamic functions in a person’s
everyday life: (1) to defend and protect the person from
psychological insults that stem from having to live in a racist
society; (2) to provide a sense of belonging and social
anchorage and; (3) to provide a foundation or point of departure
for carrying out transactions with people, cultures, and situations

beyond the world of Blackness. (Cross, 1991, 210)

24

The adoption of such an orientation permits individuals to relate to the
world in a manner that does not allow society’s prejudices to tarnish their
valuation of their group. This stage represents an authentic positive
identiﬁcation with the African American community, and, unlike the
Preencounter and lmmersion-Emersion stages, it is not expected to leave one
vulnerable to feelings of shame and depression. Support for this inference
can be gleaned from past research which has demonstrated that
lntemalization attitudes were negatively correlated with depression and
positively correlated with self-esteem (Munford, 1994). Therefore, this study
hypothesized that there would be an inverse relationship between
lntemalization attitudes and both feelings of depression and shame.

Racial Identity and Skin Color

While Cross has conceptualized African American racial identity in terms of
stages, others have suggested that attitudes about skin color might also serve
as a useful means of assessing such beliefs (Averhart & Bigler, 1997; Clark &
Clark, 1940 & 1947; Hall, 1998; Wade, 1996). Research emphasizing the
latter approach has yielded highly inconsistent and markedly speculative
results, particularly when researchers have attempted to assess how skin
color attitudes relate to the affective experiences of African Americans. The
present study attempted to add Clarity to this area of inquiry by examining how
Cross’s model of racial identity relates to skin color factors (e.g., beliefs and
expeﬁences)

In his book, Black Beauty: A History and Celebgtion, Ben Arogundade
(2000) delineates the process by which Western cultures have historically

viliﬁed the meaning of blackness, and subsequently questioned the validity of

25

African beauty. With regard to the ﬁrst issue, Arogundade suggests that the
linkage between the color black and evil was not ﬁrmly established in Western
culture until the third century. At this time, Christian leaders “introduced the
theme of darkness as the enemy of spiritual light” (p. 14). Although this
darkness was not originally associated with skin color, a connection was
forged when the Church depicted black skinned Muslims as demons because
their heathenism was seen as a threat to the Church’s mandate of Christian
supremacy. To further cement this relationship, Arogundade and others have
suggested that the cursing of Canaan by Noah was used to justify the
dehumanization and enslavement of African people by Europeans.
The original story in Genesis 9 and 10 was that after the
Flood, Ham had looked Upon his father’s “nakedness” as Noah
lay drunk in his tent, but the other two sons, Shem and Japheth,
had covered their father without looking upon him; when Noah
awoke he cursed Canaan, son of Ham, saying that he would be
a “servant of servants” unto his brothers. (Jordan, 1982, p. 9)
Although Arogundade (2000) asserts that “the curse of Canaan was
ﬁrst equated with blackness in medieval Talmudic texts” (p. 14), Jordan
(1982) states that he has found no direct mention of “blackness” being
associated with Canaan’s curse. He hypothesizes that the
aforementioned association was applied retroactively. Thus, because
Western culture had already been primed to believe that “blackness
could scarcely be anything but a curse" (p. 10), this prejudice was used
in later interpretations of this story to bridge the logical gaps in the

assumption that because someone has dark skin he/she is inferior and

26

should be enslaved.

According to Jordan (1982), for hundreds of years the English
words “white and black connoted purity and ﬁlthiness, virginity and sin,
virtue and baseness, beauty and ugliness, beneﬂcence and evil, God
and the devil,” respectively (p. 6). He also suggests that the timing of
England’s contact with dark skinned Africans was such that the
aesthetic of the day cast beauty in terms wholly antithetical to what the
African represented. Specifically, beauty was epitomized by Queen
Elizabeth’s white powdered face, small sharp nose, and rosy Cheeks.
“By contrast, the Negro was ugly, by reason of his color and also his
’horrid Curles’ and ‘disﬁgured’ lips and nose” (p. 6).

Thus, the very language of Europeans, particularly the English,
viliﬁes things black, and this, according to Fanon (1967), has signiﬁcant
cultural and psychological ramifications. “To speak means to be in a
position to use a certain syntax, to grasp the morphology of this or that
language, but it means above all to assume a culture, to support the
weight of a civilization” (Fanon, pp 17-18). Fanon is suggesting that
the use of a particular language conveys to the speaker not only a
means of communication, but also a set of cultural values, many of
which are implicit. It is this implicit part of language that allows us to
understand euphemism and metaphor. Thus, Africans in America who
learned English as their ﬁrst, and often only, language may have,
through a sort of cultural osmosis, been saturated with a bias that sets
their positive sense of self in direct opposition to the values transmitted

by their new culture. Therefore, it is not surprising that research has

27

revealed that African Americans demonstrate a negative bias regarding
things black, even with regard to the t0pic of skin color.

The issue of skin color bias in the African American community has a
shorter, but no less profound, history, conceivably dating back to when
Africans were ﬁrst enslaved by Europeans. Some researchers assert that
African American intra-group stratiﬁcation by color began to occur when
slaveholders begot children with enslaved Africans. This created a new class
of people who, although still perceived as inferior, had a blood kinship with
their oppressors. This kinship is thought to have bestowed signiﬁcant, if
somewhat limited, advantage to these mixed blooded individuals. (Hughes &
Hertel, 1990; Keith & Herring, 1991) Thus, as Reuter (1918) describes it,
mixed race individuals

...enjoyed opportunities somewhat greater than those enjoyed by the
rank and ﬁle of the black Negroes. In slavery days, they were most
frequently the trained servants and had the advantages of daily contact
with cultured [White] men and women....They were considered by the
white people to be superior in intelligence to black Negroes and came
to take great pride in the fact of their white blood" (p. 378).

With regard to socioeconomic variables, the ﬁndings of recent studies
demonstrate that even today, skin color inﬂuences the experiences of African
Americans. Speciﬁcally, Keith and Herring (1991) found that possessing
lighter skin tones is still

. . . a signiﬁcant predictor of such outcomes as educational attainment,
occupation, and income among black Americans. Moreover,

[their]...analyses showed that skin tone and other contemporaneous

28

factors were more strongly related to stratiﬁcation outcomes than were
such background Characteristics as parental socioeconomic status (p.
777)

Using a probability sample of 510 African American adults, Seltzer and
Smith (1991) also found that “darker-skin respondents were less likely to have
completed high school, had lower occupational prestige scores, and were
more likely to report below-average family income at the time the respondent
was 16 years of age” (p. 282) than lighter respondents. It should be noted,
however, that with the latter ﬁnding by Seltzer and Smith, this difference in
income disappeared when respondents” incomes at the time of the survey
were compared.

A more recent longitudinal study of African American men by Hill (2000)
further supports the general ﬁnding that some advantage is conveyed to
individuals of mixed heritage and light complexions. Hill compared death
certiﬁcates of 1,232 African American men who died between the years of
1980 through 1985 with US Census data collected on these men in 1920
when these men ranged in age from O to 9 years old. The age at death for
these individuals spanned between 60 to 74 years old. Skin color was
assessed by census takers who, at that time, were responsible for recording
the racial admixture of individuals by their racial phenotype. In summary, Hill
found that although parental socioeconomic status (SES) is most predictive of
adult SES, when other childhood variables were controlled for (i.e.,
participants were matched on childhood characteristics like SES and
education of parents), a small but signiﬁcant color effect remained such that

skin color seemed to play a signiﬁcant and independent role in predicting

29

adult SES. This study is simply one of the most recent of a growing body of
research studies that have consistently found that light skin seems to be
associated with higher SES or educational attainment in African American
communities.

With regard to assessing the relationship between physical attractiveness
attitudes and skin color bias within African American communities, the picture
is complicated. Researchers exploring this issue have utilized a myriad of
approaches, some emphasizing external social forces, and others focusing on
the values and beliefs of individual African American respondents. The work
of Keenan (1996) aptly illustrates the former approach. Speciﬁcally, this
researcher examined the role of color bias in mass media by comparing
pictures of African American editorial authors with pictures of African
American models in general advertisements in both African American and
European American focused magazines. His thesis was that mainstream and
African American focused magazines both tend to utilize models with lighter
complexions than is representative of the average Black person’s Skin color.

The ﬁndings from his study supported this thesis. Keenan (1996) found
that “the blacks found in [both mainstream and African American focused]
magazine advertisements appeared to be more Caucasian looking than those
in editorial photographs. Differences are in the same direction for
complexion...[and] eye color...with black people in ads having lighter
complexions, [and] lighter eyes" (p. 909). Additionally, when African American
models from both mainstream and Black focused magazines were compared,
the models in Black focused magazines were generally found to have lighter

complexions than those found in mainstream magazines.

30

If we shift our focus to simply skin color, research again supports the
hypothesis that this variable inﬂuences deﬁnitions of attractiveness. For
example, Hall (1998) found that self-rated dark and light skinned respondents
had different perceptions of the hue of “pretty skin.” When asked to complete
the sentence, “Pretty skin is _” (p. 239) with a skin color rating, dark
skinned respondents rated darker skin as more attractive, while light skin
respondents rated lighter skin as more attractive.

Other researchers who have examined the topic of skin color and
perceptions of attractiveness have found that gender seems to play a salient
role in this phenomenon. For example, a study by Wade (1996) found that
although "fair-skinned females' and dark-skinned females' self-ratings of
sexual attractiveness did not differ, . . . [self-identiﬁed] dark-skinned males
rated themselves higher in sexual attractiveness than fair skinned males rated
themselves" (p. 366). With regard to dating and mate selection, Ross (1997)
found another gender disparity. Speciﬁcally, "being male predicted
preference to date and marry lighter-complexioned persons. Being male also
strongly predicted having dated lighter-complexioned persons" (p. 562).
Similar ﬁndings were not found for women in this study.

When research has examined the relationship between reported
satisfaction with one’s physical appearance (i.e., skin color, hair texture, etc.)
and experimenter rated degree of African facial features, ﬁndings suggest that
a third variable, racial identity, may moderate this relationship (Smith, Burlew,
Lundgren, 1991). Thus, in their study of African American female college
students, Smith, Burlew, Lundgren (1991) found that “among those

[respondents] with more African facial features, women with high Black

31

consciousness were more satisﬁed with their overall appearance then women
with low Black consciousness. The opposite ﬁnding occurred for women with
fewer African facial features” (Smith et al., p. 280).

Research attempting to assess the relationship of skin color and self-
esteem has also yielded inconsistent results. Although Wade (1996) found no
relationship between self-ratings of skin color and self-esteem in his sample of
40 college educated adults, this ﬁnding was only partially supported in a study
of younger respondents. Utilizing a sample of African American adolescents,
Robinson and Ward (1995) found that self-ratings of skin color satisfaction
were unrelated to self-esteem scores. Additionally, these researchers did not
ﬁnd a signiﬁcant difference between “the self-esteem means for students who
desired to be “lighter” (p. 264-265) and those who desired to be “darker.”
However, it is noteworthy that these researchers did ﬁnd that the mean self-
esteem rating for self-identiﬁed “darker” adolescents was lower than the
means for self-identiﬁed “lighter” and “somewhere in between" adolescents.

In summary, it seems that although a number of distinctly African physical
features seem to inﬂuence the treatment and experiences of African
Americans, the research presently cited has consistently supported the role of
skin color in predicting socioeconomic status, deﬁnitions of attractiveness,
educational attainment, and, to a more limited extent, negative and positive
psychological states for African Americans. Further, this research suggests
that racial identity may moderate the relationship between the type and
degree of African features possessed and psychological variables. The

present study attempts to blend and further clarify these ﬁndings.

32

Toward this end, Preencounter attitudes are hypothesized to moderate the
relationship between skin color and feelings of shame. The rationale behind
this hypothesis is that if African Americans believe that they are dark skinned,
and they have internalized a signiﬁcant amount of negative beliefs about
having such a complexion (i.e., endorse higher levels of preencounter
attitudes), then they may be more likely to experience greater levels of shame
than individuals who shares the same level of preencounter beliefs but who
have lighter skin. However, this relationship ought not to occur if a person is
low on internalized Preencounter attitudes.

CHAPTER TWO
DESIGN OF CURRENT STUDY

Cultural mistrust and Preencounter attitudes are hypothesized to play a
role in contributing to the development of feelings of shame. Speciﬁcally, low
levels of cultural mistrust leave one prone to internalizing negative attitudes
about being African American, and this is hypothesized to lead to the
development of Preencounter attitudes. Preencounter attitudes are
characterized by attitudes and behaviors that venerate European American
culture while denigrating African American culture (Cross, 1991). Endorsing
such attitudes will likely leave individuals vulnerable to experiencing a
negative evaluation of the self. This feeling of low self-regard is a prominent
characteristic of shame (Kaufman, 1996). Thus, Preencounter attitudes ought
to be positively related to shame. Further, because shame has consistently
demonstrated a strong relationship with depression (Cook, 1994), shame is
therefore hypothesized to mediate the relationship between Preencounter

attitudes and depression.

33

Shame also likely plays a role in mediating the relationship between
Immersion-Emersion attitudes and depression, and also between lmmersion-
Emersion attitudes and hostility. The lmmersion-Emersion stage can be
thought to consist of movement away from the shame of the Preencounter
stage; however, this movement introduces new feelings of shame concerning
not having attained an idealized African American identity. Depression is
likely to develop as a function of feelings of shame, suggesting that shame
mediates the relationship between lmmersion-Emersion attitudes and
depression. Further, if shame is such a salient variable during the lmmersion-
Emersion stage, this would further explain the relationship of lmmersion-
Emersion attitudes and hostility. Contempt and rage are strategies utilized to
escape feelings of shame (Kaufman, 1996), and these strategies may account
for the hostility that coincides with lmmersion-Emersion attitudes. Shame,
thus, likely mediates the relationship between lmmersion-Emersion attitudes
and hostility.

Finally, this study examined the relationship between skin color perception,
feelings of shame, and Preencounter attitudes. Simply put, the present study
hypothesized that if a relationship exists between self-ratings of skin color and
feelings of shame, this relationship would almost certainly have to be
moderated by internalized anti-Black beliefs (i.e., Preencounter attitudes).

The speciﬁc hypotheses of this study were as follows:

Hypothesis 1: Preencounter attitudes and shame were expected to mediate
the relationship of cultural mistrust and depression. This hypothesis was
evaluated in two parts (see Figure 1):

Part 1. Preencounter attitudes were expected to mediate the

relationship between cultural mistrust and shame.

_I?_aﬂ_2_. Shame was expected to mediate the relationship

between Preencounter attitudes and depression.
Hypothesis 2: Shame was expected to mediate the relationship between
lmmersion-Emersion attitudes and depression, and also between Immersion-
Emersion attitudes and covert hostility (see Figure 2).
Hypothesis 3: lntemalization attitudes were expected to be inversely related
to shame and depression.
Hypothesis 4: Preencounter attitudes were expected to moderate the
relationship between self-rated skin color and Shame.

CHAPTER THREE
METHOD
Partlcipants and Procedures
A sample of 168 students (95 women, 72 men, 1 no sex reported)
was recruited from various locations and organizations at a large
midwestern university. Forty percent of this sample was recruited from
the psychology subject pool, and the remainder was enlisted to
participate through direct verbal or e-mailed appeals to individuals and
African American organizations across the campus.
Although 74% of this sample was recruited to participate by the use of

a random drawing for a $50 award, 26% were alternately recruited by the

use of a $10 stipend. The latter enticement was implemented toward the

35

Hypothesis 1:

Cultural ——> Preencounter —) Shame ——+ Depression

 

Mistrust Attitudes

Part1:

Cultural —-> Preencounter ——> Shame
Mistrust Attitudes

Part 2:

 

Preencounter ——> Shame —-> Depression
Attitudes

Figure 1. This model illustrates the role of Preencounter attitudes and shame in

mediating the relationship of cultural mistrust to depression.

36

Depression

lmmersion- -—‘> Shame

Emersion
Hostility

M This model illustrates the role of shame in mediating the relationship of

Immersion-Emersion attitudes to depression, and Immersion-Emersion attitudes

to hostility.

37

end of the data collection process and was speciﬁcally focused to
encourage more males to participate (though one female in this sample was
paid $10). The latter subjects did not participate in the drawing for

the $50 award. Further, it should be noted that subject pool participants
received course credit for their participation in addition to any monetary
awards.

Participants were required to attend a single group or individual
administration session of approximately one hour in length. The principal
investigator ﬁrst asked all participants to complete a consent form and a
demographic questionnaire, and then participants were asked to complete a
series of written, self-report measures to assess their attitudes concerning
issues of racial identity, perceptions of skin color, cultural mistrust,
depression, shame, and hostility. Questionnaires were presented in a
completely randomized order to account for possible ordering effects.

The average age of participants was 20.92 (SD = 3.65; range 17 - 39), and
although graduate students made Up a markedly smaller proportion of this
sample (i.e., 6.5%), the undergraduate population seemed to be somewhat
evenly distributed across the four undergraduate classiﬁcations: Freshpersons
(21.4%), Sophomores (23.2%), Juniors (23.2%), and Seniors (25.6%). The
average grade point average of participants was 2.72 (SD = .51 ).

Measures
This study employed ﬁve widely used measures: The (1) Racial Identity

Attitude Scale; (2) Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory; (3) Center for Epidemiologic

38

Studies Depression Scale; (4) lntemalized Shame Scale; and (5) Cultural
Mistrust Inventory. Additionally, participants were asked to complete a consent
form, a skin color perception ratings form, and a brief demographic
questionnaire.

The Racial Identig Attitude Scale (RIAS)

This scale was created to measure an individual’s attitudes and behaviors
concerning African American identity (Parham & Helms, 1985). Respondents are
asked to rate from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) their endorsement
of racial identity attitudes. This measure merges the last two stages of Cross‘s
model (i.e., the lntemalization and the lntemalization-Commitment stages) and
therefore has four rather than ﬁve subscales. The last two stages were merged
because the relevant theoretical constructs for each were thought to be so similar
that they could adequately be measured by one subscale. A factor analysis of
RIAS conducted by Ponterotto and Wise (1987) identified three theoretically
consistent factors: Preencounter, Immersion-Emersion, and lntemalization.
Scores for each subscale are obtained by summing the respective items and
dividing by the number of items in the subscale. Higher scores are indicative of
greater endorsement of the measured construct. Subscales of the RIAS have
demonstrated adequate internal reliablitiy: .76 for Preencounter attitudes, .51 for
Encounter attitudes, .69 for Immersion-Emersion attitudes, and .80 for the
lntemalization stage (Sabnani & Ponterotto, 1992, p. 177).

This study utilized the Preencounter, Immersion-Emersion, and lntemalization

subcales of this measure. The Preencounter subscale consists of 18 items.

39

Examples include: (1) “I believe that large numbers of Blacks are untrustworthy,"
(2) “I believe that Black people should learn to think and experience life in ways
that are similar to White people’s ways,” and (3) “the people I respect most are
White.” The Immersion-Emersion subscale consists of 12 items. Examples
include: (1) “I constantly involve myself in Black political and social activities
(such as art shows, political meetings, Black theater, and so forth)," (2) “I limit
myself to Black activities as much as I can,” and (3) “Black people who have any
White people's blood Should feel ashamed of it.” And ﬁnally, the lntemalization
subscale consists of 14 items. Examples include: (1) “I believe that being Black
is a positive experience;” (2) “People, regardless of their race, have strengths
and limitations;” and (3) “l have a positive attitude about myself because I am
Black.”
Buss-Durkee Hostili Invento BDHI

This measure consists of 66 true-false hostility items which are grouped into
seven hostility subscales, and a 9-item guilt subscale. Multiple factor analyses of
the BDHI have led researchers to conclude that this inventory measures two
hostility factors: Covert and Overt (Felston, 1996a). Covert hostility is typiﬁed by
suspiciousness, anger, and resentment while overt hostility consists of such
expressive aspects of hostility as arguing in a loud voice, being physically
aggressive, and expressing anger frequently (Felston, 1996b). Test-retest
reliability for a seven-to-ten day period for the total BDHI was .92 (Moreno,
Fuhriman, & Selby, 1993). Additionally, this measure achieved content validity

by using strict criteria in item selection: Items had to refer to only one type of

40

hostility, be speciﬁc with regard to the hostile behaviors described, and provide
justiﬁcation for the hostile acts described. In addition, the scale also utilized
positively and negatively worded items in order to avoid response bias (Buss &
Durkee, 1957). Finally, the BDHI has demonstrated its construct validity by being
positively correlated with other measures of anger affect such as the State-Trait
Anger Inventory and the Multidimensional Anger Inventory (Riley & Treiber,

1989; Moreno, Fuhriman, & Selby, 1993).

The covert hostility subscale of the BDHI consists of 18 items and combines
the suspicion and resentment subscales of the BDHI. It includes questions such
as the following: (1) “I know that people talk about me behind my back;” and (2)
“I don’t seem to get what’s coming to me” (Buss 8 Durkee, 1957, p. 346). The
overt hostility subscale consists of 33 items and combines the assault, indirect,
irritability, and verbal hostility subscales of the BDHI. It consists of items such as
the following: (1) “When I really lose my temper, I am capable of slapping
someone;” (2) “I can remember being so angry that I picked Up the nearest thing
and broke it;" (3) “I sometimes carry a Chip on my shoulder;” and (4) ‘When I get
mad, I say nasty things” (Buss & Durkee, 1957, p. 346).

Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CESD)

This 20-item scale was designed to measure the affective elements of
depressive symptomatology for both normal and Clinical populations. “The major
components of depressive symptomatology [as measured by this scale]. .
.included: depressed mood, feelings of guilt and worthlessness, feelings of

helplessness and hopelessness, psychomotor retardation, loss of appetite, and

41

sleep disturbance” (Radloff, 1977, p. 386). Participants are asked to rate “how
often in the past week did you [feel]. . .happy[,]. . .lonely[,]” (p. 387) etc. This
measure utilizes a Likert scale range from 0 (none of the time) to 3 (most of the
time). Responses are summed across items to yield a total score, with higher
scores indicate more depressive symptoms. lntemal consistency for this
measure was .85 for the general population and .90 for clinical samples (Radloff,
1977). Other researchers, utilizing a sample of 142 African American men, have
reported an lntemal consistency coefﬁcient of .83 (Gary & Berry, 1985). Zich,
Attkisson, and Greenﬁeld (1990) concluded from their study that the “the BDI
[Beck Depression Inventory] and the CES-D performed comparably when
stringent cut-off scores were used” (p. 271 ). This ﬁnding supports the construct
validity of the CES-D. The eight week test-retest reliability has been reported to
be .59, and the 12 month test re-test reliability has been found to range from .32
to .49 (Radloff, 1977). These ﬁndings demonstrate that the CES-D is an
adequate measure of depression.

lntemalized Shame Scale (ISS)

This 24 item shame scale is scored using a Likert scale range from zero to
four (i.e., never=0, seldom=1, sometimes=2, frequently=3, and almost always=4).
ISS scores are derived by summing all shame items. Higher scores are
indicative of greater lntemalized shame. Sample items from the ISS include the
following: (1) I feel like I am never quite good enough, (2) I see myself as being
very small and insigniﬁcant, and (3) I could beat myself over the head with a club

when I make a mistake (Cook, 1994, pp. 67-68). Research indicates that the

42

internal consistency of the total shame scale of the ISS ranges from .96 to .84
(Cook, 1994). Additionally, “two non-Clinical samples (N=157, 60) were retested
over periods ranging from four to nine weeks producing stability coefﬁcients of
.82 and .85” (Cook, 1994, p. 4).

Cultural Mistrust Inventory (C_ML)

This 48-item measure, developed by Terrell and Terrell (1981), asks African
American participants to rate their agreement with statements related to how
much they trust or mistrust Whites as a group on a scale from 0 (strongly
disagree) to 9 (strongly agree). Items were deleted during the original
construction of this measure if they were found to correlate signiﬁcantly with the
Jackson Social Desirability scale. These procedures yielded a measure that is
free of the inﬂuence of social desirability. This measure includes items such as,
“Black parents should teach their children not to trust White teachers,” “It is best
for Blacks to be on their guard when among whites,” and “Whites deliberately
pass laws designed to block the progress of Blacks" (Terrell & Terrell, 1981, p.
184). The CMI total mistrust score is calculated by adding all scores together
with negatively keyed items reverse scored. lntemal consistencies for this scale
have been reported to range from .89 (Nickerson, Helms, & Terrel, 1994) to .86
(Poston, Craine, & Atkinson, 1991). Additionally, a two week test re-test

reliability was .86 (Terrell & Terrell, 1981) for the full scale.

43

Other Questionnaires

The demographic questionnaire utilized in this study was created for this
study and assessed variables related to age, parental income, college major
and class, etc. The skin color measure employed in this study was also
created speciﬁcally for this study and assessed attitudes concerning group
and self-evaluations of skin color (e.g., “My skin color is: 1= very light; 2 =
light; 3 = dark; 4 = very dark”). See Appendix A and B for copies the
demographic and skin color perception measures, respectively.

CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS

Before conducting the analyses for this study, the data were reviewed to
assure accurate entry, account for missing values, and ensure that the
distribution of the data ﬁt with the basic assumptions of multivariate
analysis. In this process, mean values were inserted for missing values for
the following variables: RIAS (preencounter, immersion-emersion,
lntemalization subscales), ISS, CESD, and CMI. Additionally, after the
preceding step, some variables were transformed to reduce the acuteness
of their skew and kurtosis. Speciﬁcally, CESD and ISS scores were
subjected to square root transformations, and Preencounter scores were
subjected to a logarithmic transformation. Pre- and post-transformation
mean values, as well as standard deviations, are provided on these

variables in Table 1.

44

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics on Variables Transformed to Reduce their Skew and

 

 

Kurtosis

Preencounter CESD lntemalized

Subsca_le Scalre Shame Scaﬁ
(LOG‘) (RAW) (SQRTb) (RAW) (SQRTb) (RAW)

Mean 1.54 35.83 3.67 15.08 4.65 24.83
Std. Deviation .09 8.11 1.26 9.80 1.79 17.07
Skewness .35 1.05 .17 1.14 .00 .83
Kurtosis .19 1.60 .14 1.33 -.47 .25 .

 

aLogarithmic transformation of data. bSquare root transformation of data.

_N_=168

45

Table 2

Mean Differences Between Men M Women on Depression, Shame, Racial
IdentigyI HostilityII Cultural MistrustI and Self-Rated Skin Color Scores

 

SEX I! Mean SD
Center for Epidemilogic Men 72 3.59 1.26
Studies Depression Scale1 Women 95 3.74 1.27
Internalized Shame Men 72 4.59 1.87
Scale1 Women 95 4.71 1 .73
RIAS Preencounter Men 72 1.53 .09
Subscale2 Women 95 1 .55 .09
RIAS Immersion-Emersion Men 72 24.58 5.94
Subscale Women 95 23.63 4.90
RIAS lntemalization Men 71 57.17 5.53
Subscale Women 95 56.72 4.90
Buss Durkee Overt Hostility Men 72 18.85 4.64
Subscale Women 95 18.43 4.51
Buss Durkee Covert Hostility Men 72 8.71 3.26
Subscale Women 95 8.1 1 3.03
Cultrual Mistrust Inventory Men 72 191.01 48.92

Women 93 178.67 49.61
Self-Rated Skin Color Men 72 2.49 .75

Women 95 2.57 .71

 

Note. No signiﬁcant differences were found between the means of men and
women on these variables.
1Scores have undergone square root transformations.

2Scores have undergone logarithmic transformations.

46

Independent samples t-tests revealed no differences between the means of
men and women on any of the main variables of this study (see Table 2). Also, a
one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed to assess if
participants scores on the main variables of this study differed signiﬁcantly as a
function of the type of recruitment incentive they experienced (i.e., males paid
$10, males entered into a drawing for $50, and females entered into a drawing
for $50). Again, signiﬁcant differences were not found on any of these main
variables: Wilk’s Lambda = .91, E_(18, 304) = .78, ns (see Table 3). Thus, unless
othenrvise stated, all analyses utilized combined data from both male and female
participants, as well as data from across the three incentive recruitment groups.

With the exception of ﬁndings for the true-false BDHI and self-fatings of
skin color, means, alpha coefﬁcients, and standard deviations (along with
RIAS intercorrelations) for the total sample on the remaining salient
variables are summarized in Tables 4 and 5. Mean and standard deviation
values for the two BDHI subscales utilized in this study are as follows:

Covert Hostility (Mean = 8.38; SD = 3.13) and Overt Hostility (Mean =
18.63, SD = 4.55). Mean and standard deviation values for self-ratings of
skin color were 2.53 and .72, respectively.
Hypothesis 1

The ﬁrst prediction of this study posited that Preencounter attitudes and
shame would mediate the relationship between cultural mistrust attitudes
and depression. AS previously mentioned, this hypothesis was evaluated in

two parts (see Figure 1), and each part consisted of the three regression

47

Table 3

Descriptive Statistics for MANOVA Examining Mean Differences for the
Nine Key Variables of this Study as a Function of Recruitment Incentive

Group

 

Nine Key Variables Incentive Groups
De endent Variables lnde endent Variable Mean SD N

lntemalized Shame Females in Drawing for $50 4.75 1.74 92
Males Paid $10 4.59 1.87 42
Males in Drawing for $50 4.58 1.93 29

CESD Scores Females in Drawing for $50 3.76 1.26 92
Males Paid $10 3.58 1.14 42
Males in Drawing for $50 3.55 1.44 29

RIAS Preencounter Females in Drawing for $50 1.56 .09 92
Scores Males Paid $10 1.54 .09 42
Males in Drawing for $50 1.53 .10 29

RIAS lmmersion- Females in Drawing for $50 23.63 4.96 92
Emersion Scores Males Paid $10 25.09 6.17 42
Males in Drawing for $50 24.04 5.65 29

RIAS Internalization Females in Drawing for $50 56.62 4.93 92
Males Paid $10 57.45 5.37 42
Males in Drawing for $50 56.77 5.82 29

Cultural Mistrust Females in Drawing for $50 179.83 48.60 92
Scores Males Paid $10 197.78 48.08 42
Males in Drawing for $50 181.03 50.11 29

Overt Hostility Females in Drawing for $50 18.46 4.57 92
Males Paid $10 18.52 4.64 42
Males in Drawing for $50 19.25 4.74 29

Covert Hostility Females in Drawing for $50 8.15 3.01 92
Males Paid $10 8.82 3.32 42
Males in Drawing for $50 8.55 3.29 29

Skin Color Ratings Females in Drawing for $50 2.57 .72 92
Males Paid $10 2.50 .70 42
Mair-gin Drawing for §50 2.48 .83 2_9

 

 

48

Table 4
Cronbach’s Alphas, Means, and Standard Deviations for the
lntemalized Shame Scale, Cultural Mistrust Inventogy, and the Center

for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale

 

 

 

Cronbach’s Standard
Alpha Mean Devia_tion

lntemalized .94 24.83 17.07
Shame Scale
Cultural Mistrust .92 184.27 49.40
Inventory
Center for
Epidemologic .88 15.08 9.80

Depression Scale

 

49

Table 5

lntercorrelations and Alpha Coefﬁcients for the Three Subscales of the
Racial Identity Attitude Scale In the Present Study

 

PREEN IMIEM INTERNAL

 

 

Preencounter .76 .05 -.O4
(PREEN) (167) (166)
ImmIEmersion .66 .07
(IMIEM) (166)
lntemalization .58
(INTERNAL)

Mean 1 .54 24.06 56.89
SD .09 5.37 5.16

 

Note. Alpha coefﬁcients are in the bold diagonal. Sample sizes are in

parentheses.

50

Equations (Baron & Kenny, 1986). First, the mediator is regressed on the
independent variable; second, the dependent variable is regressed on the
independent variable; and ﬁnally, both the mediator and the independent
variable are simultaneously regressed on the dependent variable.

To demonstrate mediation using this method, the independent variable
must signiﬁcantly affect the mediator and the dependent variable in the ﬁrst
and second equations, respectively. Also, the mediator in the third equation
must be signiﬁcantly affect the dependent variable. Finally, “if these
conditions all hold in the predicted direction, then the effect of the
independent variable on the dependent variable must be less in the third
equation than in the second” (Baron & Kenny, 1986, p. 1177).

In order to examine the role of Preencounter attitudes in mediating the
relationship of cultural mistrust attitudes with shame, the following three
regressions were conducted: ( 1) Preencounter scores were regressed on
cultural mistrust scores, (2) shame scores were regressed on cultural
mistrust scores, and (3) shame scores were regressed on both cultural
mistrust and Preencounter scores.

To summarize, after all necessary preconditions are met in the present
example, Preencounter attitudes can be deﬁned as a mediating variable if
the effect of cultural mistrust attitudes on shame is less in the third
equation than in the second. Identical analyses have been utilized to

evaluate the other mediation testing hypotheses of this study.

51

Preencounter

 

 

Attitudes
Step 1 Step 3
Beta = .12, ns Beta = .40, p <.001
Cultural A Shame
Mistrust Step 3

Beta = .17, p < .05

* Cultural > Shame
Mistrust Step 2

Beta = .21, p <.01

Figure 3. Standardized regression coefﬁcients utilized to assess the role of

Preencounter attitudes in mediating the relationship between cultural mistrust

and shame.

52

Bail

Results from testing the hypothesis that Preencounter attitudes mediate the
relationship between cultural mistrust attitudes and Shame did not support this
prediction. The ﬁrst regression equation demonstrated that Preencounter scores
were not signiﬁcantly associated with this study’s measure of cultural mistrust
F(1, 164) = 2.36, ns (see Figure 3 for standardized beta coefﬁcients). Thus,
because this ﬁnding does not fulﬁll the ﬁrst criterion in demonstrating mediation,
Preencounter attitudes cannot be a mediator in this model.
2341.2

Results from the present study support the hypothesis that shame acts as a
mediator in the relationship between Preencounter attitudes and depression.
Again, the ﬁrst and second regression equations needed to demonstrate
mediation yielded signiﬁcant results, as required. Speciﬁcally, when two
separate simple regression equations were used to regress Preencounter scores
on shame and depression scores; both shame scores, E (1, 166) = 30.60, p <
.001, and depression scores, E (1, 166) = 21.00, p < .001, were respectively
found to be positively associated with Preencounter scores (see Figure 4 for beta
coefﬁcients). Further, the third regression equation in testing for mediation,
regressing depression scores on both Preencounter and shame scores
simultaneously, also yielded signiﬁcant results, explaining 49% of the variance of
depression scores, E (2, 163) = 78.12, p < .001 (see Figure 4 for beta
coefﬁcients). These ﬁndings support the hypothesis that shame mediates the

relationship between Preencounter attitudes and depression.

53

Table 6

Correlations between Immersion-Emersion Attitudes and both Shame and

 

 

 

Depression
Shame Depression Overt Covert
Hostility Hostility
Total Sample8 .05 .03 .21" .18“
lmmersion-
Emersion Females” .12 .12 .25* .21*
Attitudes
Malesc -.01 -.06 .09 .18

 

Shame

 

 

Step 1 Step 3
Beta = .34, p < .001 Beta = .67, p < .001
Preencounter ’ Depression
Attitudes
Step 3
Beta = .07, ns
Preencounter > Depression
Attitudes Step 2

Beta = .39, p < .001

ﬂglet. Standardized regression coefﬁcients utilized to assess the role of
shame attitudes in mediating the relationship between Preencounter attitudes

and depression.

55

Hypothesis 2

The second prediction of this study posited that shame scores would mediate
the relationship between Immersion-Emersion scores and depression scores,
and also between Immersion-Emersion scores and covert hostility scores.
Unfortunately, Immersion-Emersion scores were not found to be signiﬁcantly
associated with shame scores; therefore, shame could not act as a mediator in
any of these relationships (see Table 6). Further, although Immersion-Emersion
scores were not signiﬁcantly associated with self-ratings of depression, they were
signiﬁcantly associated with this study’s measure of hostility — both covert and
overt (see Table 6). Although this relationship reached signiﬁcance for both the
overall sample and the all-female subgroup, this relationship was not signiﬁcant
for the all-male subgroup (see Table 6).
Hypothesis 3

The hypothesis that Internalization scores would be signiﬁcantly negatively
correlated with shame and depression scores was not supported by the ﬁndings
of this study. Speciﬁcally, the correlations of lntemalization scores with shame
and depression scores were -.05 and -.12, respectively, (N = 167) with neither
correlation reaching signiﬁcance.
Hypothesis 4

Finally, the last hypothesis of this study posited that Preencounter scores

ought to moderate the relationship between self-ratings of skin color and shame
scores. This hypothesis was assessed utilizing a succession of hierarchical

multiple regressions outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986):

56

Table 7

Results from Hierghical Regressions Utilized to Test the Prediction that

 

Preencounter Attitudes Would Moderate the Relationship Between Skin

Color Ratings and Shame Scores (Dependent Variable: Shame Scores)

 

 

 

 

Step Independent R2 R2 Beta F F
Variables Change Change
Entered
1. Preencounter Scores .16 .16“ .39“ 30.60“ 30.60“
2. Preencounter Scores, .40
Skin Color Rating .16 .00 —.O1 .02 .02
3. Preencounter Scores, .17
Skin Color Rating, -1.04
Preencounter Scores X
Skin Color Rating 16 .01 1.09 1.14 .29
“p < .001

57

...if the independent variable is denoted as X, the moderator as Z, and the
dependent variable as Y, Y is regressed on X, Z, and X2 [-- the product of
the two independent variables]. Moderator effects are indicated by the
signiﬁcant effect of X2 while X and Z are controlled. (p. 1176)

Thus, shame scores were regressed on skin color ratings, Preencounter
scores, and the interaction term (i.e., skin color ratings multiplied by
Preencounter scores) using hierarchical multiple regression. As apparent in
Table 7, the interaction term utilized in this analysis did not signiﬁcantly explain
the variance of depression after controlling for shame scores and skin color
ratings. Therefore, contrary to the prediction posited by the fourth hypothesis of
this study, Preencounter scores were not found to moderate the relationship
between self-ratings of skin color and shame scores.

Post-hoe analyses

Post-hoc analyses revealed some unpredicted and interesting ﬁndings for the
overall sample, as well as the separate subgroups of women and men. Due to
the exploratory nature of the following analyses, two-tailed tests of signiﬁcance at
the .05 level or higher were utilized throughout.

Overall Sample

For the overall sample, reported grade point averages were negatively
correlated with CESD scores ([ = -.17, N = 167, p < .05), indicating that students
with higher grades endorsed lower levels of depression compared to students
with lower grades. Also, covert and overt hostility scores were both found to be

signiﬁcantly positively correlated with internalized shame and CESD scores (see

58

Table 8

Correlation of Covert and Overt Hostility with Both the CESD1 and the

lntemalized Shame Scale for the Overall Sample of Men and Women

 

 

 

lntemalized
CESD1 Shame
Scale

Covert
Hostility .43“** .48“**
Subscale
Overt
Hostility .36“** .35**“
Subscale
_N_ = 168.

1Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale

“*9 < .001

59

Table 9

Correlation Between the cwral Misgust Inventory and Both the

lntemalized Shame Scale and the CESD for the Total Sample, Female

Subgroup, and the Male Subgroup

 

Internalized
Shame Scale CESD1
Total Samplea .20“* . 1 9“
Cultural
Mistrust Womenb 29*“ .28*“
Inventory
Menc .10 .1 1

 

“N = 155. bﬂ = 93. °g = 72.
1Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale
“p < .05

*“p < .01

 

60

Table 8). This suggests that for this sample, elevated feelings of shame or
depression are associated with increased levels of hostility, and that lower levels
of the former two variables are associated with a decline in hostility. Finally,
lntemalization scores were found to be positively associated with overt hostility
scores (1 = .22, N = 167, p < .01); indicating that for this sample, endorsing a
well-integrated sense of racial identity is associated with the open expression of
hostility.

Mm

Findings for the all female subgroup help to clarify some of the more general
ﬁndings for this study. For example, although shame and depression scores
both seemed to be signiﬁcantly correlated with cultural mistrust scores for the
overall sample (see Table 9), further analyses revealed that these ﬁndings are
misleading. Speciﬁcally, when these relationships were examined for male and
female subgroups separately, it was discovered that these relationships were
signiﬁcant only for the female subgroup of this study, and not the male subgroup
(see Table 9). Thus, it appears that this ﬁnding is more accurately attributed to
the female subgroup rather than the combined male and female sample.

Also, it appears that as age and level of education increase, so do the college
grade point averages of female participants in this sample (see Table 10 for
respective female and male correlations). In contrast, grade point averages for
women in this sample seem to be inversely related to both covert and overt
hostility scores (see Table 10 for respective female and male correlations);

suggesting that women in this sample with lower grades seem to endorse

61

Table 10
Correlation of Grade Point Average with Age, Level of Education, and

Covert and Overt Hos_ti_lih/ for Majgand Female Subgroups

 

Level of Covert Overt
Ade Education‘ Hostility Hostility

Grade
Point Women:3 .26“ .34“ -.24* -.32“
Average

Grade
Point
Average

g

CD

3
o-

.18 -.03 -.1O -.05

 

3;; = 54. “g = 55.
1Level of education was deﬁned as academic status (i.e., freshperson,
sophomore, junior, etc.).

“ p < .05

“*p < .01

62

Table 11
Correlation of the Percentage of African Americans in the Student Body of
the Last School Attended with ShameLRacial identity, and College Grade Point

Averages for Male and Female Subgroups

 

Internalized Preencounter Immersion- College
Shame Scale Subscale Emersion Grade Point

Subscale Average

Percentage of mg -.11 -.12 .29“ -.41**
student body (67) (67) (67) (62)
at last school

environment Women -.29“* -.32** .06 -.15
of same race (91) (91) (91) (81)

 

Note. Sample sizes are in parentheses.
* p < .05

““p < .01

63

elevated feelings of hostility, and vice versa. Also, signiﬁcant negative
correlations were found between the reported percentage of African Americans in
the student body of the last school female participants attended prior to college,
and both Preencounter and internalized shame scores (see Table 11 for
respective female and male correlations). These ﬁndings suggest that female
participants whose previous academic environments had higher levels of African
American students seem to endorse fewer Preencounter attitudes and
experience less shame than female students coming from environments with
smaller African American student bodies. Finally, a signiﬁcant relationship was
found between self-referent skin color ratings and overt hostility for the women in
this study (5 = .21, p = 95, p < .05). This suggests that women who describe their
complexions as lighter also tend to express their hostility more directly. This
relationship was not signiﬁcant for the men in this study (5 = .13, p = 72, ns).

Mgr;

This study also uncovered some unique ﬁndings for the all-male subgroup
that were not signiﬁcant for the all-female subgroup. For example, although age
was inversely related to both depression and overt hostility scores for men in this
sample, age and cultural mistrust scores were positively correlated (see Table 12
for respective male and female correlations). Therefore, this indicates that
younger men in this sample endorsed less depression and overt hostility
compared to older men, but older men seem to have endorsed higher levels of
cultural mistrust than younger men. Additionally, a positive correlation was found

to exist between cultural mistrust scores and both level of education and

64

Table 12

Correlation of Age with Depression.

for Male and Female Subgroups

Overt Hostility, and Cultural Mistrust

 

 

 

Overt Cultural
CESD1 Hostility Mistrust
Subscale Inventory
Mg -.32** -.24* .27“
(71) (71) (71)
Age
Women -.10 -.06 .19
(95) (95) (93)

 

1Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale

*p<.05

““p < .01

65

Table 13

Correlation between Cultural Mistrust Inventory and Both Level of

Education and Preencounter Subscale Scores for Female and Male

 

 

 

 

Subgroups
Level of Preencounter
Education1 Subscale
Cultural Malesa .28“ .29““
Mistrust
Inventory Females” .10 .1 1
”p = 72. ”p = 93.

1Level of education was deﬁned as academic status (i.e., freshperson,
sophomore, junior, etc).

“ p < .05

“*p < .01

66

Preencounter scores for men (see Table 13 for respective male and female
correlations). Thus, more academically advanced male students in this sample
seem to more strongly endorse cultural mistrust beliefs compared to less
advanced students. It also seems that males who endorsed higher levels of
cultural mistrust beliefs also endorsed higher levels of pro-White/anti-Black
attitudes. Further, men in this study who reported that their last school boasted a
high proportion of African American students were found to report lower college
grade point averages and a higher endorsement of Immersion-Emersion
attitudes than students whose previous schools had a lower proportion of African
American students (see Table 11 for respective male and female correlations).
Finally, a negative correlation was found between self-ratings of skin color and
Immersion-Emersion scores ([ = -.26, p = 72, p < .05), suggesting that lighter
skinned male participants more strongly endorsed Immersion-Emersion attitudes
than darker male participants. Again, this relationship was not found for the
female subgroup ([ = -.02, p = 95, ns).

In summary, only one of this study's hypotheses was supported. Speciﬁcally,
Preencounter attitudes were not found to mediate the relationship of cultural
mistrust beliefs and shame (Hypothesis 1, Part 1); however, shame was found to
mediate the relationship between Preencounter attitudes and feelings of
depression (Hypothesis 1, Part 2). Also, no support was found for the
supposition that shame would mediate the relationship between lmmersion-
Emersion attitudes and feelings of depression and shame, respectively

(Hypothesis 2). Nor was support found for the hypothesis that lntemalization

67

attitudes would be signiﬁcantly negatively correlated with either feelings of shame
or depression. Finally, Preencounter attitudes were not found to act as a
moderator in the relationship of skin color self-ratings and feelings of shame.
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION

The present study attempted to clarify past ﬁndings that have ostensibly
demonstrated that certain African American racial identity attitudes are
directly associated with negative affect and hostility. Although support for
the various hypotheses of this study was inconsistent, the role of shame as
a mediator in these relationships has been more fully Clariﬁed; and this
study has also somewhat elucidated the relationship of skin color beliefs
and feelings of shame. Despite these ﬁndings, this study also calls into
question certain aspects of the validity of the RIAS.

Although Preencounter attitudes were not found to be signiﬁcantly
associated with cultural mistrust beliefs for the overall sample, a signiﬁcant
positive correlation was found between these variables for the male
subgroup. The ﬁnding of a positive correlation was surprising because
while Preencounter attitudes are typiﬁed by a "worldview. . . dominated by
[the endorsement of] Euro-American determinants” (Cross, 1978, p. 17),
cultural mistrust beliefs are represented by “the tendency to be suspicious of
whites” (Terrell & Terrell, 1981, p. 180) and European American cultures.
Such descriptions suggest that these variables tap into antithetical

constructs and ought to be negatively correlated; however, for men in this

68

study, the opposite occurred. One possible explanation for this relationship
might be that the measures for these constructs both tap into a common
factor related to how much an individual endorses prejudicial attitudes about
social groups in general (e.g., women, gays and lesbians, or African and
European Americans). It is possible that men in this study who happen to
be more prone to internalizing stereotyped beliefs about various groups in
society would be more likely to score higher on these measures than
someone less prone to such thinking. If this explanation proves sound, then
this calls into question the validity of one or both of these measures of racial
attitudes. Future research needs to Clarify these issues, as well as account
for gender differences on these variables.

As hypothesized, shame was found to mediate the relationship between
Preencounter attitudes and depression. This ﬁnding suggests that the
depression associated with Preencounter attitudes is typiﬁed by “feelings of
inferiority, worthlessness, inadequacy, [and] a sense of being diminished“
(Cook, 1994, p. 2), and these feelings seem to be linked to endorsing
negative beliefs about what it means to be African American. This has
implications for Clinicians working with clients who endorse feelings of
depression and Preencounter attitudes concomitantly. Speciﬁcally, for such
individuals, the core of their depression may center on themes of self-
negatlon rather than despair concerning external factors in their lives. An
extreme example of this might be an individual who, after experiencing

some racist incident, blames him/herself and the fact of being African

69

American rather than the external racist system for this encounter. Further,
due to the somewhat restricted range of the standard deviation of the
transformed Preencounter subscale scores used in this study (see Table 1),
the signiﬁcant ﬁndings related to this subscale appear to be quite robust and
offer further support for the construct validity of this subscale.

Contrary to this study’s hypothesis, Immersion-Emersion attitudes were
not signiﬁcantly related to feelings of shame or depression in this sample,
and therefore shame has not been supported as a mediator between
Immersion-Emersion attitudes and depression. Additionally, shame was not
found to mediate the relationship between Immersion-Emersion attitudes
and covert hostility. Despite the latter ﬁnding, Immersion-Emersion attitudes
were found to be positively associated with feelings of overt hostility.
Curiously, this ﬁnding was applicable to both the overall sample and female
subgroup. This could be an artifact of the differences in the sample sizes,
or it suggests that men and women may cope differently with the
burgeoning awareness of racial oppression.

Although this gender difference must be explored more fully in future
studies, the ﬁnding that Immersion-Emersion attitudes are positively related
to feelings of hostility is consistent with Cross’s theory. Cross describes this
stage as one wherein individuals are hostile to European American people
and cultures, and these individuals are thought to be hostile with other
African Americans that they deem are not sufﬁciently Black (Cross, 1991).

It is possible that the hostility associated with this stage ﬁnds its atavism in

70

the experience of righteous indignation rather than a defensive reaction to
shame.

Unexpectedly, Internalization attitudes were not found to be signiﬁcantly
associated with feelings of shame or depression. This study predicted that
these variables would be inversely related because lntemalization attitudes
are thought to represent a healthy afﬁrmation of ones racial identity, and
these attitudes ought to serve as a buffer against the psychological distress
caused by racism (Cross, 1991). The present ﬁndings suggest that these
attitudes are not associated with greater or lesser vulnerability to feelings of
shame or depression. Despite this lack of ﬁndings, lntemalization attitudes
were found to be positively associated with feelings of overt hostility for the
overall sample. This suggests that these attitudes are associated with a
willingness to frankly express feelings of anger or frustration, and such
assertiveness would be expected of an lntemalization stance because
individuals in the advanced stages of this perspective are expected to
directly combat racism and oppression.

Preencounter attitudes were not found to be signiﬁcantly associated with
self-evaluations of skin color, and these analyses also revealed that
Preencounter attitudes could not act as a moderator in the relationship of
skin color ratings with feelings of shame. These ﬁndings seem to suggest
that the endorsement of shame attitudes by individuals of various skin hues
is randomly distributed across this sample.

Further, although skin color evaluations were not found to be signiﬁcantly

71

related to racial identity attitudes for the overall sample, some gender
differences were uncovered that suggest that skin color beliefs are
associated with different attitudes in men and women. Speciﬁcally, for men,
an inverse relationship was found between self-rating of skin color and
Immersion-Emersion attitudes; and for women, a positive association was
found between describing oneself as having a lighter complexion and
endorsing higher levels of overt hostility. If one considers that lmmersion-
Emersion attitudes have a hostile component, it would seem that male and
female participants describing themselves as lighter seem to more strongly
endorse somewhat hostile attitudes than their darker counterparts. Perhaps
this is a reaction to the alleged discrimination that lighter skinned African
Americans experience at the hands of both African Americans and
European Americans.

Although it is a valid exploration of this area of inquiry, this study has
some limitations. The most glaring of these limits is that it surveyed African
American students attending a predominantly European American
university, and this sample may not be representative of other populations.
Additionally, the lack of any signiﬁcant lntercorrelations between the
subscales of the RIAS is unusual, suggesting the possibility that this sample
is again somewhat unique. Finally, post-hoc analyses yielded interesting
ﬁndings that leave more questions than answers. From these analyses, it is
clear that future research in this area will need to consider the role of

interracial contact, age, and gender in any exploration of racial identity

72

attitudes in African Americans.

Other limitations include that Cross’s theory and its measurement by the
RIAS have undergone little revision in the last twenty years. Although it
seems likely that Cross’s theory still has relevance in the lives of
contemporary African Americans, it is equally possible that gross and
nuanced changes in the social status of African Americans may necessitate
reﬁnements in the operationalization of this theory. Speciﬁcally, the
evolution of certain social desirability factors in the last twenty years (e.g.,
political correctness) may inhibit some individuals from answering certain
questions of the RIAS honestly; particularly, questions that attempt to
assess negative attitudes about being African American.

Further, the behavioral expression of certain stages may also have
changed. It is possible that individuals who internalize negative beliefs
about being African American in the 21s“t Century may experience less
intensity in such beliefs than individuals in the 1970s, and as these
individuals cascade through the latter stages of this theory, their
experiences may be accordingly diminished. Additionally, the range of
behaviors available to individuals in such a process are different today than
they were twenty years ago. For example, contemporary Immersion-
Emersion individuals may be less inclined to join a separatist African
American group than Immersion-Emersion individuals from previous
decades. This does not necessarily mean that they are any less committed

to upsetting the racist status quo; rather, they may simply adopt different

73

strategies than their predecessors. Although this speculation needs to be
validated by continued research, these possibilities may illuminate the lack
of signiﬁcant ﬁndings for a number of the hypotheses in the current study.
Despite the preceding limitations, this study offers greater’insight into the
affective concomitants of Cross's racial identity theory, as well as teaching
us more about how skin color attitudes relate to racial identity beliefs and
affect. It demonstrates that for some groups of African Americans,
endorsing negative views about one’s racial group is associated with
feelings of shame, depression, and hostility. This ﬁnding has implications
for how clinicians focus their interventions when confronted with such
Clients. Speciﬁcally, clinicians may need to address issues of racial identity
when working with dysphoric clients who also endorse Preencounter beliefs.
Further, these ﬁndings suggest that possessing a positive stance toward
one’s racial identity does not appear to be directly associated with feelings
of shame or depression; neither have such attitudes been observed in this
study to act in a fashion that directly protects individuals from these feelings.
Finally, this study suggests that self-ratings of skin color as measured in the
present study may be unrelated to feelings of depression and shame.
Although shame has been shown to play a role in the affective process of
African American racial identity development, its role appears somewhat limited.
However, the problems with the RIAS make this relationship more difﬁcult to
ascertain deﬁnitively. Speciﬁcally, shame seems to primarily explain the

relationship of Preencounter attitudes and depression. It was not found to be

74

associated with the latter stage attitudes of Cross’s model. Future research in
this domain should work to clarify additional affective concomitants, especially for
the latter stages of Cross's theory. Also, such inquiry would beneﬁt from
assessing both positive and negative affective concomitants (e.g., assessing
what beneﬁts come from adopting a Preencounter perspective). Finally, the
present study suggests that further reﬁnement of the RIAS is needed in order to
explain how ostensibly diametrically opposed attitudinal positions were found to

be either unrelated or positively related.

75

REFERENCE LIST

Arogundade, B. (2000). Black beauty: A history and celebration.
Great Britain: Pavilion Books, Ltd.

Arroyo, C. G., & Zigler, E. (1995). Racial identity, academic
achievement, and the psychological well-being of economically
disadvantaged adolescents. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Q, 903-914.

Averhart, C. J., 8 Bigler, R. S. (1997). Shades of meaning: Skin
tone, racial attitudes, and constructive memory in African American Children.
Mal of Experimental Child Psycthggy, 6_7 , 363 - 388.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator
variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic,
and statistical considerations. Jouma_l of Personality and Social
Psycholmy, 5_1, 1 173-1 182.

Brookins, C. C. (1994). The relationship between Africentric values
and racial identity attitudes: Validation of the belief systems analysis scale
on African American college students. Journal of Black Psychology, 20,
128-142.

Bushman, B. J., Cooper, H. M., & Lemke, K. M. (1991). Meta-
analysis of factor analyses: An illustration using the Buss-Durkee hostility
inventory. Personajlityand Social Psycholpgy Bulletin, 1_7_, 344-349.

Buss, A. H., Durkee, A. (1957). An inventory for assessing different

kinds of hostility. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 2_1_, 343-349.

76

Carter, R. T. (1991). Racial identity attitudes and psychological
functioning. Jouma_l of Multicultural Counseling and Development. Q, 105-
114.

Clark, C. B. 8 Clark, M. K. (1940). Skin color as a factor in racial
identiﬁcation of Negro preschool children. Journal of Social Psychology, 1_1,
159—169.

Clark, C. B. & Clark, M. K. (1949). Racial identiﬁcation and
preference in Negro Children. In T.M. Newcombe & E.C. Hartley (Eds.),
Readings in social psychology (pp. 169-178). New York: Henry Holt and
Company.

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, _‘I_1__2_, 155-
159.

Cook, D. R. (1994). Internalized shame scale: Professional manual.
Menomonie, WI: Channel Press.

Cook, D. R. (1990). Manual for the internalized shame scale (ISS).

Cook, D. R. (1991). Shame, attachment, and addictions:
Implications for family therapists. Contemporam Family Therapy, ﬂ(5),
405-419.

Cross, W. E. (1971 ). The Negro-to-Black conversion experience:
Toward a psychology of Black liberation. Black World, 29, 13 - 27.

Cross, W. E. (1978). The Thomas and Cross models of psychological
Nigrescence: A review. Journal of Black Psychology, 5(1) 13-31.

Cross, W. E. (1991). Shades ofﬂack: Diversity in African-American

77

ide_ntity. USA: Temple University Press.

Cross, W. E. (1994). Nigrescence theory: Historical and
explanatory notes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, ﬂ, 199-123.

DanIvin, C. (1899) On the expressions of emotions in man and
animals (pp. 320-323). New York: D. Appleton and Company.

Fanon, F. (1967). Black skin, white masks. USA: Grove Press, Inc.

Felsten, G. (1996a). Five-factor analysis of Buss-Durkee hostility
inventory neurotic hostility and expressive hostility factors: Implications for
health psychology. Journal of Personality Assessment, _6_Z, 179-194.

Felsten, G. (1996b). Hostility, stress and symptoms of depression.
Personality and lndividuaJDifferences, 14, 805-813.

Fordham, S. (1988). Racelessness as a factor in Black students”
school success: Pragmatic strategy or pyrrhic victory? Harvard Educational
39M. 5_8, 54-84.

Gary, L. E., & Berry, G. L. (1985). Depressive symptomatology among
Black men. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 1_3, 121-129.

Grier, W. H., & Cobbs, P. M. (1968). Black rage. New York: Basic
Books, Inc..

Hall, C. J. M. (1998). The association between recelessness and
achievement among african american deaf adolescents. American Annals
of the Deaf, 113, 55-64.

Harper, J. M., & Hoopes, M. H. (1990). Shame: An approach

integrating individuals and their family systems. NY: W. W. Norton &

78

Company, Inc..

Hill, M. E. (2000). Color differences in the socioeconomic status of African
American men: Results of a longitudinal study. SociaLForces, _7_8_, 1437-1460.

Hughes, M. 8 Hertel, BR. (1990). The signiﬁcance of color remains: A
study of life chances, mate selection, and ethnic consciousness among Black
Americans. Social Forces, 6_8, 1105-1120.

Jackson, M. 8 Bottrell, B. (1991). Black or White (song title). Dangerous
(album title).

Jordan, W. D. (1982). The white man’s burden: Historical origins of

racism in the United States. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kaufman, G. (1996). The psychology of shame (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
Springer Publishing Company, Inc..
Keith, V.M., 8 Herring, C. (1991). Skin tone and stratiﬁcation in the Black

community. American Journal of Sociology, _91, 760-778.

Keenan, K. L. (1996). Skin tones and physical features of Blacks in
magazine advertisements. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly.
3, 905-912.

Lewis, H. B. (1987a). Introduction: Shame -the “sleeper" in
psychopathology. In H. B. Lewis’s (Ed.), The Role of Shame in Symptom

Formation (pp. 1-28). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc..

Lewis, H. B. (1987b). The role of shame in depression over the life
span. In H. B. Lewis’s (Ed.), The Role of Shame in Symptom Formation

(pp. 29-50). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc..

79

Mitchell, S. L., 8 Dell, D. M. (1992). The relationship between Black
students= racial identity attitude and participation in campus organizations.
Journal of College Student Development, 33, 39 - 43.

Moreno, J. K., Fuhriman, A., 8 Selby, M. J. (1993). Measurement of
hostility, anger, and depression in depressed and nondepressed subjects.

Journal of Personality Assessment, _6_1, 511-523.

 

Morrison, A. P. (1983). Shame, ideal self, and narcissism.
Contemporary chhoanaiysis, 19, 295-318.

Munford, M. B. (1994). Relationship of gender, self-esteem, social
class, and racial identity to depression in Blacks. JournJaI of Black
Psycholpgy, 29, 157-174.

Nathanson, D. L. (1997). Shame and affect theory of Silvan Tomkins. In
M. R. Lansky 8 A. P. Morrison (Eds), The WIQBDIDLSCODB of Shame (pp. 107-
138). Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic Press, Inc..

Nickerson, K. J., Helms, J. E., Terrell, F. (1994). Cultural mistrust,
opinions about mental illness, and black students“ attitudes toward seeking
psychological help form White counselors. Journal of Counseling Psychology,
41, 378-385.

Parham, T. A., 8 Helms, J. E. (1981). The inﬂuence of Black
students’ racial identity attitudes on preferences for counselors race.

Jouma_l of Counseling Psychology, 28, 250-257.
Parham, T. A., 8 Helms, J. E. (1985a). Relation of racial identity

attitudes to self actualization and affective states of Black students. Journal

 

80

of Comseling Psycholpgy, 3_2_, 431-440.

Parham, T. A., 8 Helms, J. E. (1985b). Attitudes of racial identity and self-
esteem of Black students: An exploratory investigation. Journal of College
Student Personnel, a, 143-146.

Ponterotto, J. G., 8 Wise, S. L. (1987). Construct validity study of the
racial identity attitude scale. prpnpl of CounselingPsycholpgy, 34;, 218-223.

Poston, W. S. C., Craine, M. 8 Atkinson, D. R. (1991). Counselor
dissimilarity confrontation, Client cultural mistrust, and willingness to self-disclose.

Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 19, 65-73.

 

Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression
scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological
Measurement, 1, 385-401.

Retzinger, S. M. (1987). Resentment and laughter: Video studies of
the shame-rage spiral. In H. B. Lewis’s (Ed.), The Role of Shamﬂ
Mptom Formation (pp. 151-181). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc..

Reuter, EB. (1969). The mulatto in the United StatesI including a study of
the role of mixed-blood races throughout the world. New York: Negro
Universities Press, p. 378.

Riley, W. T., 8 Treiber, F. A. (1989). The validity of multidimensional
self-report anger and hostility measures. Journal of Clinical Psycholpgy, i5,
397-404.

Robinson, T. L. 8 Ward, J. V. (1995). African American adolescents

81

and skin color. Journal of Black thology, _2_1, 256-274.

 

Ross, L. E. (1997). Mate selection preferences among African
American college students. Journal of Black Studies, Q, 554-569.

Sabnani, H. B., 8 Ponterotto, J. G. (1992). Racial/ethnic minority-
speciﬁc instrumentation in counseling research: A review, critique, and
recommendations. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and
Development, 2_4, 161-187.

Santor, D. A., Zuroff, D. C., Ramsay, J. O., Cervantes, P., 8
Palacios, J. (1995). Examining scale discriminability in the BDI and CES-D
as a function of depressive severity. Psychology Assessment, 1, 131-139.

Scheff, T. J. (1987). The shame-rage spiral: A case study of an
interminable quarrel. In H. B. Lewis’s (Ed.), The Role of Shame in Symptom
Formation (pp. 109-149). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, InC..

Seltzer, R. 8 Smith, R. C. (1991). Journal of Black Psychology, E. 279-

 

286.

Siegman, A. W., Dembroski, T. M., 8 Ringel, N. (1987). Components of
hostility and the severity of coronary artery disease. Psychosomajc Medicine.
49, 127-135.

Smith, L., Burlew, A. K., 8 Lundgren, D. C. (1991). Black consciousness,
self-esteem, and satisfaction with physical appearance among African-American
female college students. Journal of Black Studies, Q, 269-283.

Tangney, J. P., Wagner, P., Fletcher, C. 8 Gramzow, R. (1992). Shamed

into anger? The relations of shame and guilt to anger and self-reported

82

aggression. Mal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 669-675.

Tangney, J. P., Wagner, P. E., Hill-Bariow, D., Marschall, D. E., 8
Gramzow, R. (1996). Relations of shame and guilt to constructive versus
destructive responses to anger across the lifespan. Journal of Personality and
Social Psycholpgy, _79, 797-809.

Tangney, J. P. (1996). Conceptual and methodological issues in the
assessment of shame and guilt. Behaviour-ResearCh-and-Thergpy, 94;, 741-754.

Terrell, F. 8 Terrell S. (1981). An inventory to measure cultural mistrust
among blacks. The Western Journal of Black Studies, 9, 180-185.

Terrell, F., 8 Terrell, S. (1984). Race of counselor, Client sex, cultural
mistrust level, and premature termination from counseling among Black clients.
M of Counseling Psychology, 3_1, 371-375.

Thompson, C. E., Worthington, R., 8 Atkinson, D. R. (1994). Counselor
content orientation, counselor race, and black women’s cultural mistrust and self-
disclosures. Journal of Counseling Psycholggy, 4_1, 155-161.

Tomkins, S. S. (1963). Affect lmagem Consciousness. NY: Springer
Publication Company, Inc..

Wade, T. J. (1996). The relationship between skin color and self-
perceived global, physical, and sexual attractiveness, and self-esteem for African
Americans. Journal of Black Psychology, Q, 358 - 373.

Watkins, C. E., Jr., 8 Terrell, F. (1988). Mistrust level and its effects on

counseling expectations in Black client-White counselor relationships: An

analogue study. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 35, 195-197.

83

Watkins, C. E., Jr., Terrell, F., Miller, F. S., 8 Terrell, S. (1989). Cultural
mistrust and its effects on expectational variables in Black client-White counselor
relationships. Journal of Counseling Psychology, ﬂ, 447-450.

Yanico, B. J., Swanson, J. L., 8 Tokar, D. M. (1994). A psychometric
investigation of the black racial identity attitude Scale-Form B. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 4_4, 218-234.

Zich, J. M., Attkisson, C. C., Greenﬁeld, T. K. (1990). Screening for
depression in primary care clinics: The CES-D and the BDI. International

Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine, 29, 259-277.

APPENDIX A

DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE
(Please do not put your name on this form)

Please use the space provided to answer the following guestions.
1) Which of these racial designations do you feel most "comfortable with

(please check one)?
African American
Black
Biracial/Mixed heritage
Other (specify)

 

2) Sex: Male Female (Please Check one)

3) What is your major ﬁeld of study at MSU?

 

4) What MSU Classiﬁcation are you (Freshperson,
Sophomore, Junior, Senior)?

 

5) How old are you?

 

6) Please rate how religious and/or spiritual
you would consider yourself to be on
the following scale:

1 2 3 4 5
Not at all Moderately Very highly
religious/ religious! religious/
spiritual spiritual spiritual

7) Are you a member of any African American campus groups (i.e., As

One, Black Student Association, etc)? Yes No . If so, in
how many organizations are you involved? . What are their
names?

 

 

 

8) Are you a US. citizen? Yes No (please circle one)

85

8a) If not, what nationality are you?

 

8b) How long have you been in this country?

 

9) What is your overall MSU Grade Point Average?

10) Growing Up, do you feel that both of your parents were signiﬁcantly involved
in raising you? Yes No If you answered “no,” who was most involved?

 

(e.g., mom, dad, uncle, aunt)

11) What is the highest level of education that your father and mother
completed? (circle one of the bold numbers and qualify where needed)

FATHER
1 = grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6
2 = grades 7, 8, 9,10,11,12
3 = trade school, beauty school, etc.
4 = some college
5 = AA degree
6 = BN83
7 = some grad school
8 = graduate degree
(Check the relevant degree below)
MA?
Ph.D.?
Law?
MD?
9 = don’t know

 

 

 

12) Did he work outside of the home?
1 = yes
2 = no

13) If yes, what was his occupation?
(please be as speciﬁc as possible)

 

MOTHER
1 = grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6
2 = grades 7, 8, 9,10,11,12
3 = trade school, beauty school, etc.
4 = some college
5 = AA degree
6 = BNBS
7 = some grad school
8 = graduate degree
(Check the relevant degree below)
MA?
Ph.D.?
Law?
MD?
9 = don’t know

 

 

Did she work outside of the home?
1 = yes
2 = no

If yes, what was her occupation?
(please be as speciﬁc as possible)

 

14) What is your estimate of your father’s and mother's yearly salaries growing

Up?
Mother’s: $

Father’s: $

15) Before attending Michigan State University, what was the percentage of your
last school environment who were of your ethnicity/race?

 

86

APPENDIX B

A Measure of Racial Attitudes
1) I developed my present beliefs about being African American...

5 4 3 2 1
Very Recently Around the When I Was
(within the last year) Middle of my Life Very Young
2) My attitudes about African Americans have become more negative as I have gotten older.
1 2 3 4
Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree
3) I developed my present attitudes about White people...
5 4 3 2 1
Very Recently Around the When I Was
(within the last year) Middle of my Life Very Young
4) My attitudes about White people have become more negative as I have gotten older.
1 2 3 4
Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree
5) I would rate my skin color as:
l 2 3 4
Very Dark Very Light
6) My attitudes about African Americans have become more positive as I have gotten older.
1 2 3 4
Strongly Agree Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree
7) Most African Americans are:
l 2 3 4 5
Much darker The same color Lighter than
than I am as I am I am

8) My attitudes about White people have become more positive as I have gotten older.

1 2 3 4
Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree
9) My beliefs about being African American:
1 2 3 4 5
Have Never Are Often Are Always
Changed Changing Changing

87

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

III)(1)1)[ITIIIIITIITI