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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

arm cJCIRC/DateDue.p65-p.15

A MULTIDIMENSIONAL MEASURE OF AFRICAN AMERICAN
ACCULTURATION

By

Aisha Denise Smith

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTERS OF ARTS
Department of Psychology

2003

ABSTRACT

A MULTIDIMENSIONAL MEASURE OF AFRICAN AMERICAN
ACCULTURATION

By

Aisha Denise Smith

Guided by the Acculturation theory, the proposed thesis sought to create a
multidimensional measure of acculturation to be used within the African American
community. The proposed measurement design comprised behavioral, affective, and
cognitive processes into one measure with the hope of gaining a clearer picture of this
phenomenon within this cultural group. Two hundred sixty six African Americans
(n=266) from churches, as well as university settings, were given a self—report survey to
investigate culture within the African American community. Understanding
acculturation within this culture group is pertinent in the development of future culturally
competent programming and interventions where diverse cultural groups are present.
Conﬁrmatory factor analysis as well as several tests of validity was utilized to analyze the
results and establish the psychometric properties of the measure. The results of the
conﬁrmatory factor analysis yielded in the production of ﬁve statistically reliable
components of African American acculturation. The components of this scale are
African American behavior component, White American behavior component, White
American interracial/intra—racial attitude component, White American preference

component, and African American preference component.

Copyright by
Aisha Denise Smith
2003

For Cynthia Ann Dorsey Smith (My Mommy)

Because of “You” I am “Me”

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

As I write my acknowledgements, tears ﬂow from my eyes because I am
elated to have this blessed opportunity. First, thank you Jesus! Without my faith in my
savior this endeavor would have been impossible. If I had a million tongues, I would not
be able to express how deeply my faith has been strengthened because of this experience.
Next, I would like to extend sincere thanks to my family. To my mommy, Cynthia Ann
Dorsey Smith, I say thank you over and over again. Without your love, support,
guidance, faith, and strength I would not be the person that I am today. Thank you for
being you, and allowing me to grow into the woman that you knew that I could be. I
would also like to thank my father, Pastor Archie R. Smith. Thank you for remembering
the vision even when I was ready to let it go. Your constant bible quotes and stories of
faith helped me stay strong at times when I would have otherwise stumbled. To my Twin,
Ahmad, thank you for the laughter when I wanted to cry. To my granny, Dr. L.C.
Dorsey, thank you for being the example that paved the road and showed me that dreams
do come true. To my aunts (Adriane, Anita, and Norma) thank you for being strong,

beautiful African American queens.

Thank you to my committee, Drs. William Davidson 11, John Sweitzer,
and Isis Settles. Without your support and expertise this endeavor would be an under
developed thought in the mind of a confused 1St year student. Thank you especially to Dr.
Davidson, your countless hours of assistance helped pull me out of the darkness of woods

into the light.

I must also say thank you to my best friends (Christopher, Danielle, Lois,
Lori, and Rayna) and my good friend (David). All of you provided love and support
when I needed it most. Thank you for loving and supporting me with no boundaries.
Finally, I give homage to my ancestors; the faceless, countless individuals who worked
and deferred their dreams so little Black girls from the south could achieve greatness. On

your shoulders I stand. Thank you!

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. ix
CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1

Statement of the Problem ............................................................................. 1

The Study of Acculturation .............................................................................. 4

The Importance of Acculturation ................................................................ 9

Acculturation Measures ............................................................................. 11

African Americans and Acculturation ............................................................ 15

African American Historical Origins ......................................................... 16

Current African American Acculturation Measures .................................. 20

Measurement Design ...................................................................................... 23

Measurement Development ....................................................................... 23

Traditional Behaviors and Practices .......................................................... 24

Interracial/Intra—racial Attitudes ................................................................ 26

Preferences for Things Aﬁ'ican American ............................................... 27

Measurement Terminology ...................................................................... 28

Summary ........................................................................................................ 29

II. METHOD ................................................................................................................ 31

Participants ..................................................................................................... 31

Procedures ...................................................................................................... 32

Recruiting African Americans from Black Churches ............................. 32

Recruiting African American Students from Michigan State ................. 33

Study Measures ............................................................................................. 34

Demographic Sheet ................................................................................. 34

The Multidimensional Measure of African American Acculturation ..... 34

The Multidimensional Measure of Religious Involvement .................... 34

III. RESULTS ................................................................................................................ 35

What is the Dimensionality of African American Acculturation .................... 35

Behavioral Component ............................................................................ 37

Cognitive Component .............................................................................. 39

Affective Component ............................................................................... 42

The Need for Multidirectional Acculturation Measures .......................... 44

The Need for Multidimensional Acculturation Measures ............................... 47

vii

IV. DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................... 52

Maj or Findings ................................................................................................ 53

Dimensionality of the MM3A ................................................................... 53

Incorporating Multidirectional Measures into Acculturation Scales ........ 5 8

Using Multidimensionality to Measure Acculturation ............................. 60

Limitations and Implications for Future Research .......................................... 64

Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 66

LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 69
APPENDICES

A. Consent Form ............................................................................................. 79

B. Demographic Sheet .................................................................................... 80

C. Multidimensional Measure of Religious Involvement ............................... 82

D. Multidimensional Measure of Aﬁ'ican American Acculturation ............... 83

E. White American Behavior Scale ................................................................ 87

F. African American Behavior Scale ....................................... 88

G. White American Interracial/Intra-racial Attitude Scale ............................. 89

H. African American Preference Scale ........................................................... 90

1. White American Preference Scale .............................................................. 91

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 ............................................................................................. 92
Table 2 ............................................................................................. 93
Table 3 ............................................................................................. 96
Table 4 ....... I ...................................................................................... 97
Table 5 ............................................................................................. 98
Table 6 ............................................................................................. 99
Table 7 ............................................................................................. 100
Table 8 ............................................................................................. 101
Table 9 ............................................................................................. 103
Table 10 ............................................................................................ 104
Table 11 ............................................................................................ 105
Table 12 ............................................................................................ 106
Table 13 ............................................................................................ 107
Table 14 ............................................................................................ 108

ix

INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem

Acculturation is the changes that occur as a result of continuous ﬁrst-hand contact
between individuals of differing cultural origins. Theorists have considered acculturation
important, arguing, “Differences in the level of acculturation play a crucial role in many
areas of psychological functioning, including cognition, personality, and the expression
of psychopathology” (Bumam et al., 1987, p. 106).

Within the literature, it is indicated that the process of acculturation has been
applied to African Americans only rarely, and few suitable scales have been developed.
Several factors account for this neglect. Landrine and Klonoff (1994) observed that
African Americans traditionally have been considered as a racial, rather than an ethnic
group and therefore have been treated as lacking a non-American national identity and
culture of origin. Using this perspective, African Americans are viewed solely as
Americans, and intragroup differences between individuals of the same cultural group,
are accounted for primarily by using regional and socioeconomic inﬂuences (Snowden &
Hines, 1999).

Both methodological and conceptual difﬁculties must be overcome in attempting
to apply the concept of acculturation to African Americans. Scales devised for use in
non-African American cultural groups typically are created from several domains of
interest. Most often these scales ask about length of residence in the United States,
generation status (Buriel, 1975; Knight & Kagan, 1977; Cuellar, Harris, & J asso, 1980;
Grifﬁth, 1983) and English-language use and proﬁciency (Ohnedo & Padilla, 1978;

Padilla, 1980; Taylor, Cuellar, Harris, & Jasso, 1980; Griffith, 1983; Neff, Hoppe, &

Perea, 1987; Hurley, & Riley, 1986). Length of residence and primary language
preference are difﬁcult to assess for an ethnic group whose migration took place more
than 400 years ago.

For these reasons, only two attempts have been cited in the literature to measure
African American acculturation. The ﬁrst measure was developed by Landrine and
Klonoff (1994). The instrument constructed by Landrine and Klonoff assesses eight
aspects of African American traditional cultural behavioral practices. Even though,
Landrine and Klonoff consider their scale to be multidimensional, based on the deﬁnition
of dimensionality within the acculturation literature their scale will be deﬁned as
unidimensional/unidirectional. The second acculturation instrument was developed by
Snowden and Hines (1999). Their scale is also a unidimensional/unidirectional scale,
which emphasizes media preferences and social interaction patterns more than culturally
deﬁned beliefs and practices.

Despite the difﬁculty in applying this process to African Americans, many
advantages can be gained by considering African American acculturation and creating
measures to assess the process. Acculturation scales are essential to a precursory
understanding of cultural diversity in human behavior. A measure of acculturation for
usage within the African American community allows for assessing the complexities of
acculturation within their community, such as the relation African American
acculturation has with other applicable constructs such as behavioral, psychiatric, and
health processes.

Acculturation scales for Aﬁican Americans are needed because, many Anglo-

Arnerican researchers have assumed that within-group differences among racially

identiﬁed persons are negligible or may be equated with social class differences in the
mainstream society (Dana, 1993). However there has been consistent confusion with
regard to the criteria for social stratiﬁcation. Social classes among African Americans are
different in income, occupation, and educational representation from the class structure of
the mainstream society (Bass, 1982; Stricker, 1980). Moreover, the percentages of
persons in each social class are dissimilar, and neighborhood of residence fails to indicate
social class homogeneity of residents, as there is a mixture of lower and middle-class
persons in segregated urban neighborhoods (Myers, 1982). For these reasons it is
important that a culture speciﬁc moderator variable (such as acculturation) should be
applied whenever cultural differences exist between two groups. Thus, many ethnic
differences can be understood as a manifestation of degree of acculturation without
recourse to deﬁcit model explanations. The concept of acculturation thereby has the
potential to decrease racist beliefs about ethnic differences and facilitate an understanding
of all people as cultural products.

To address the gap in the literature regarding acculturation measures for African
Americans, the current research endeavor sought to create a multidimensional instrument
of acculturation for usage within the African American community. The measure
emerged cultural practices and traditions, along with media preferences, primary group
relationships, and personal comfort with one’s racial group and interracial attitudes. The
reason behind this developmental stance was that immersion in African American
oriented social settings, cultural and behavioral practices, and socialization is thought to

transmit African American culture and that interracial experiences and attitudes are

responsible for aiding in the cultural context and development of African American
culture.
THE STUDY OF ACCULTURATION

Contact between cultures is a centuries old phenomenon, as is the observation of
change in the behavior of members of one cultural group toward the practices and
behaviors of the other cultural group. Social scientists have labeled this phenomena as
“acculturation.” Use of the concept of acculturation appears as early as 1880 (Berry,
1976). There are however, four classic formulations of this concept: Redﬁeld, Linton,
Herskovits (1936), Herskovits (1938), Linton (1940), and the Social Science Research
Council (SSRC) Summer Seminar (1954). Redﬁeld et al. (1936) deﬁne acculturation
with the following deﬁnition:

Acculturation comprehends those phenomena which result when groups of

individuals having different cultures come into continuous ﬁrst-hand contact, with

subsequent changes in the original culture patterns of either or both groups. Under
this deﬁnition acculturation is to be distinguished from assimilation, which is at
times a phase of acculturation. It is also to be differentiated from diffusion, which
while occurring in all instances of acculturation, is not only a phenomena which
frequently takes place without the occurrence of the types of contact between
peoples speciﬁed in the deﬁnition above, but also constitutes only one aspect of
the process of acculturation.

Early research on acculturation addressed the impact of modernization on
indigenous peoples and traditional societies (Olrnedo, 1979). More recently the ﬁeld has
sought to focus on the experience of immigrants and ethnic minority groups (Rogler,
Cortes, & Malgady, 1991). Thus in recent years the ﬁeld has broadened its application to
a wider range of situations involving cultural contact. Moreover, the concept has been

embraced by those studying the adj ustrnent of non-ethnic minority groups to mainstream

society. For example, the process of how lesbians and gay men adapt to the mainstream

culture has begun to be studied (Brown, 1989). Originally, of primary interest to
anthropologists and sociologists, the term was ﬁrst used in reference to group-level
phenomena. More recently however, psychologists have become interested in the
process of acculturation and these phenomena are now also studied at the individual level
(Berry, 1997; Graves, 1967). The initial deﬁnition of acculturation proposed by Redﬁeld,
et al. (1936), made no explicit assumptions about the direction of cultural change.
However, since the concept has been operationalized in research, the term has come to
denote integration of an acculturating group into the mainstream culture (Berry, Trimble,
& Olrnedo, 1986), “whereby immigrants change their behavior and attitudes toward those
of the host society” (Rogler, Cortes, & Malgady, 1991, p. 585).

As the research on acculturation has expanded, three broad theoretical approaches
have emerged as guiding forces in the ﬁeld of psychology. The ﬁrst is associated with
social identiﬁcation theories and is concerned with the way people perceive and think
about themselves and others, including how they process information about their own
group (in-group) and other groups (out-group) (Ward, 1996). The second reﬂects a
cultural learning approach, which highlights the social psychology of the intercultural
encounter and the process involved in learning the culture-speciﬁc skills required to
thrive and survive in a new milieu (Ward, 1996). The third approach is linked to
psychological models of coping and is applied to the study of cross cultural transition and
adaptation.

The social identity approach has been inﬂuenced by contemporary theory and
research in the ﬁeld of social cognition. This model offers two differing perspectives on

intercultural change and culture. The ﬁrst perspective functions at the individual level of

analysis, viewing acculturation solely as an individual process. This highlights selected
aspects of ethnic or cultural identity and is concerned primarily with the deﬁnition and
measurement of acculturation (e. g. Cuellar, Harris, & Jasso, 1980; Hocoy, 1996). The
second line of inquiry is more suitable for group analysis. This method highlights the
importance of intergroup perceptions and relations. This line of research places primary
interest on social interactions between members of the host community and various

soj ourner or immigrant groups and most frequently interprets inter- group relations within
the context of Taijfel’s (197 8, 1981) social identity theory (e.g., Kosmitzki,1996;
Moghaddam, Taylor, & Lalonde, 1987; Ostrowska & Bochenska, 1996).

The cultural learning approach has been strongly inﬂuenced by Argyle’s (1969)
work on social skills and interpersonal behaviors. This approach is based on the belief
that cross-cultural problems arise because immigrants or minorities have difﬁculties
managing everyday social encounters. Adaptation therefore, comes in the form of
learning the culture-speciﬁc skills that are required to negotiate the new cultural milieu
(Bochner, 1972, 1986). Researchers who have adopted a cultural learning approach to
intercultural contact and change have emphasized the signiﬁcance of culture-speciﬁc
variables in the adaptation process. Attention is paid to differences in intercultural
communication styles, including its verbal and nonverbal components, as well as rules,
conventions, and norms and their inﬂuences on intercultural effectiveness (Ward, 1996).
Recently, researchers have broadened this line of inquiry in attempts to build predictive
models of sociocultural adaptation with emphasis on such factors as culture-speciﬁc
knowledge, intercultural training, and contact with host nationals, and cultural identity

(Ward, 1996).

The third major approach to understanding acculturation focuses on stress and
coping. From this perspective, cross-cultural transition is viewed as a series of stress
provoking life changes that draw on adjustive resources and require coping responses.
This approach has been strongly inﬂuenced by Lazarus and F olkman’s (1984) work on
stress, appraisal, and coping, as well as earlier theory and research on life events (Hohnes
& Rahe, 1967). The analytical framework is broad and incorporates both characteristics
of the individual and characteristics of the situation that may facilitate or impede
adjustment to the new cultural environment (Ward, 1996). Researchers seeking to
identify the factors that affect cross-cultural adjustment, particularly psychological well-
being and satisfaction, have examined many of the same variables as those who
investigate stress and c0ping in other domains. These factors include life changes,
cognitive appraisal of change, coping strategies, personality, and social support. With
respect to more culture—speciﬁc variables, cultural identity and acculturation status have
been considered in sojourner, immigrants, and refugee populations (Ward, 1996).

Together, these three approaches (affective, behavioral, and cognitive) constitute
acculturation. Affective components of acculturation are highlighted in the stress-and-
coping approach; behavioral elements are featured in the culture learning approach; and
cognitive variables are emphasized in the social identity approach.

Behavioral changes associated with the acculturation process have been well
documented over the past 15 years (Rogler, Cortes, & Malgady, 1991; Cuellar et al.,
1995). Psychological processes (i.e. affective and cognitive processes) have been
generally left undeﬁned. In the literature, cognitive changes refer to the attitudes of the

individual undergoing the acculturation process regarding their in-group, as well as their

out-group (Berry, 1980). It is important to document the cognitive changes that occur
during the acculturating process, because research has demonstrated that cognitive and
behavioral changes are interrelated (Der-Karabetian, 1980; Ullah, 1987). Although the
two concepts are interrelated, the two concepts exhibit different patterns of change over
time (Cuellar, Arnold, & Gonzalez, 1995; Szapocznik et al., 1978). Acculturating
individuals are usually willing to learn new behaviors and skills, but their attitudes and
values are generally more resistant to change (Triandis, Kashima, Shirnada, & Villareal,
1986; Wong-Rieger & Quintana, 1987). One example of this is demonstrated in a study
conducted by Rosenthal et al., (1989). In this study the researchers compared Greek
Australians to Anglo-Australians and to Greeks. Although Greek Australians were more
similar to Anglo-Australians in terms of behaviors, they more closely resembled native
Greeks in terms of values. Despite pragmatic behavioral responses, their core values
remained largely unchanged. This suggests that neither simply changing behaviors or the
acquiring of new cultural skills are necessarily indications of cultural identiﬁcation
(LaFromboise, Coleman, & Gerton, 1993).

These attitude-behavior discrepancies deserve further attention, particularly in
light of ﬁndings that show members of the majority culture are largely supportive of
members not belonging to their cultural group retaining the cultural traditions relating to
food, music or dress associated with their culture, but have stronger reservations about
the maintenance of traditional, potentially conﬂicting values (Lambert, Moghaddam,
Sorin, & Sorin, 1990). By failing to assess these changes that occur, understanding the
speciﬁcs of culture and its inﬂuences are limited. Thus, emphasizing the importance of

having multidimensional measures that adequately assesses several underlying principles

associated with the acculturation process results in a clearer picture of the phenomenon of
acculturation.
The Importance of Acculturation

Since the conception of the phenomenon of acculturation, many studies have been
conducted to aid in understanding the relationship between acculturation and a variety of
other variables. Studies have found relationships between acculturation levels and
several behavioral, psychiatric, and health processes including, cigarette smoking
(Sabogal, Otero-Sabogal, Perez-Stable, Marin & Marin, 1989; Landrine, Richardson,
Klonoff, & Flay, 1994), drug and alcohol usage (Caetano, 1987; Landrine, Klonoff, &
Richardson, 1993; Szapocznik & Kurtines, 1980); (Bumam, Hough, Kamo, Escobar, &
Telles, 1987; Montgomery & Orozco, 1985; Montgomery & Orozco 1985; Negy &
Woods, 1993); and hypertension (Dressler, 1982; Dressler, Mata, Chavez, & Viteri,
1987). So many varying studies of acculturation have been utilized because the construct
of acculturation can be measured in a variety of ways. The concept of acculturation is so
valued in the ﬁeld of cross cultural research and psychology because the construct can
take on a variety of measurable concepts.

Acculturation can be used as a moderator variable in assessment to correct for
cultural differences (one that is applied informally as part of an interview or more
formally in a questionnaire) (Dana, 1993). The purpose of such a moderator variable is
to obtain a reliable estimate of the potential contribution of cultural variance. Moderators
are often helpful and may be necessary, because ahnost all assessment of culturally

different persons in the country proceeds from an imposed ethnic status. In essence,

moderator variables prevent genuine differences from being ignored, disregarded, or
minimized.

Acculturation is a potentially important moderator because researchers in various
disciplines (anthropology, biology, genetics) have expressed the desire to discontinue the
usage of race as a moderator variable. The desire for this is because it is not possible to
measure race biologically and also because the construct does not allow for the
understanding and processing of within group differences (Snowden & Hines, 1999). In
the literature it has been argued that the use of race confounds individual, biological, and
cultural aspects of behavior (Wyatt, 1991). Another problem with race as a construct is
an implied homogeneity among racially deﬁned groupings and a lack of basis for
assessing intra-racial diversity. A study conducted by Zuckerman (1990) illustrated the
necessity to view within group processes. In Zuckerman’s analysis of psychological
studies he found more within group differences than between group differences.

Using the concept of acculturation in place of race can be seen in a study
conducted by Dana (1993). Dana found that highly traditional ethnic minorities differ
signiﬁcantly from Whites on a variety of scales and behavioral practices; however, highly
acculturated minorities scores typically are similar to those received by members of the
White culture. The results of this study were a signiﬁcant step for the study of
acculturation, because the study illustrated that highly acculturated minorities tend to
score similar to Whites on tests, and, in many instances behave in the same manner as
Whites. Thus indicating the differences in behavioral practices in this study were
accounted for by culture instead of race. The similar scoring by highly acculturated

minorities and Whites is because by deﬁnition, the beliefs, values and cognitive styles

10

that characterize highly acculturated minorities are largely a result of the dominant
society’s culture. Thus ethnic differences can be understood as a manifestation of an
individual’s level of acculturation: as a simple reﬂection of the extent to which ethnic
minority people participate (or not) in the beliefs, values, and cognitive styles of the
dominant culture. Also, the concept of acculturation provides a theoretical framework for
predicting the nature and the direction of ethnic group differences (Landrine and Klonoff,
1994). A speciﬁc example of using acculturation as a predictor variable is a study
conducted by Wells et al., (1989). In this study, using a sample of 1,055 Mexican
Americans, the researchers were looking to see how level of acculturation affects the
probability that Mexican Americans use general health, mental health, and human social
services. The study results indicated that less acculturated Mexican Americans had
signiﬁcantly lower probabilities of an outpatient medical visit for physical health
problems and of a visit to a mental health specialist or human service provider for
emotional problems. The concept of acculturation thereby has the potential to decrease
racist ethnocentric beliefs about ethnic differences (Landrine & Klonoff, 1994).
Acculturation Measures

Recognizing the importance of understanding cultural differences, acculturation
scales have been developed for a variety of ethnic groups, including: Chinese Americans
(Y ao, 1979), Japanese Americans ( Masuda, Matsumoto, & Meredith, 1970), Asian
Americans (Suinn, Rickard-Figueroa, Lew, & Vigil, 1987), Mexican Americans
(Bumam, Hough, Kamo, Escobar, & Telles, 1987; Cuellar, Harris, & Jasso, 1980; Deyo,
Diehl, Hazuda, & Stren, 1985; Olmedo, Martinez, & Martinez, 1978; Padilla, 1980),

Native Americans (Hoffman, Dana, & Bolton, 1985), Cuban Americans (Szapocznik &

ll

Kurtines, 1980), and only recently African Americans (Landrine, H., & Klonoff, E. 1994;
Snowden, L., & Hines, A., 1999).

As suggested by the variety of acculturation scales existing for usage among
various ethnic groups researchers recognize the importance of acculturation. Even
though researchers recognize the importance of this variable, they have yet to reach a
consensus on how to adequately measure this phenomenon. Due to the lack of agreement
surrounding the measurement of the acculturation process several measurements have
been designed from a variety of perspectives. Based on these varying perspectives
acculturation scales vary in two important ways:

a) unidimensional and unidirectional

versus

b) multidimensional and multidirectional

The unidirectional/unidimensional models are developed around the idea that the
acculturating individual relinquishes identiﬁcation with their culture of origin and
progresses toward identiﬁcation with the culture of primary contact by adopting the
cultural traits, values, attitudes, and behaviors of the majority culture (Olrneda, 1979).
This perspective was ﬁrst detailed by Gordon (1964), he developed an assimilation model
in which penetration into the mainstream culture is necessarily accompanied by “the
disappearance of the ethnic group as a separate entity and the evaporation of its
distinctive values” (Gordon, 1964, p.81). The unidimensional/unidirectional models are
based on the implicit assumption that change in cultural identity takes place along a
single continuum over the course of time. More speciﬁcally, the

unidimensional/unidirectional models are models of acculturation generally measuring

12

cultural behavioral practices such as language preference, traditional practices (i.e.
religion and values), etc.(Gordon, 1964). The unidimensional and unidirectional model is
embodied in a range of self-report measurements designed for the assessment of
acculturation. Such models include the Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican
Americans-1(ARSMA) (Cuellar et al., 1980); the Greek Immigrant Acculturation Scale
(Madianos, 1980, cited in Mavreas, Bebbington, & Der, 1989); and the acculturation
scale devised by Ghuman (1994) for Asian adolescents in Canada and the United
Kingdom.

The multidirnensional/multidirectional model offers a bicultural perspective by
which identiﬁcations with home and host cultures are seen as counterbalancing, rather
than opposing, forces in shaping the social identiﬁcation of members (Ward, 2001).
Theorists who adopt a multidimensional perspective argue that acculturation can be more
completely understood when heritage and mainstream cultural identities are seen as being
relatively independent of one another (e. g., Berry, 1997; Ramirez, 1984; Zak, 1973).
Thus, individuals in the multidirectional/multidimensional model may adopt many of the
values and behaviors of the mainstream culture without giving up facets of self-identity
developed in their culture of origin. Such models are based on two core assumptions.
First, these models presuppose that individuals differ in the extent to which self-identity
includes culturally-based values, attitudes, and behaviors. Culture may play a large role
in the identities of some individuals, whereas others may base their identity more on
factors such as occupation or religion. Second, individuals are capable of having
multiple cultural identities, each of which may independently vary in strength.

Measurements that rely on this approach are: the Multicultural Acculturation Scale

13

(Wong-Rieger & Quintana, 1987); the ARMSA-II (Cuellar, Arnold, & Maldonado,
1995); the adult and youth versions of the Short Acculturation Scale for Hispanics
(Barona & Miller, 1994; Marin, Sabogal, Marin, Otero-Sabogal, & Perez-Stable, 1987);
the Behavioral Acculturation Scale for Hispanics (Szapocznik, Scopetta, Kurtines, &
Aranalde, 1978); the Suinn-Lew Asian Self Identity Acculturation Scale (Suinn, Rickard-
Figueroa, Lew, & Vigil, 1987); the Acculturation Scale for Southeast Asians (Anderson
et al.,1993); the Acculturation Scale for Asian Americans (Lai & Linden, 1993); and the
International Relations Scale for International Students (Sodowsky, Lai, & Plake, 1991)

By continuing to use the unidirectional/unidimensional approach, an incomplete
and misleading picture of acculturation is being painted. For example,
unidimensional/unidirectional instruments are unable to distinguish a bicultural
individual who strongly identiﬁes with both reference groups from one who does not
strongly identify with either group (Mavreas, Bebbington, Der, & 1989; Szapocznik &
Kurtines, 1980). Both of these individuals would end up at the midpoint of a
unidimensional/unidirectional scale. For example, high biculturals possessing high
characteristics in both extremes (African American and American culture) cannot be
differentiated from biculturals having low characteristics in both extremes (African
American and American culture). However, it seems likely that people who have a well
developed bicultural identity would differ in important ways from those for whom
cultural identity is not a particularly salient aspect of their self-schemas. Similarly, if a
dependent variable were to be strongly related with both cultural identities, the two
effects would probably cancel each other out and remain invisible to

unidimensional/unidirectional instruments (Ryder, Alden, & Paulus, 1999). In theoretical

l4

terms, this instrumentation fails to consider alternatives to acculturation, such as the
emergence of integrated or bicultural individual identities (Dion & Dion, 1996). In
essence, while the unidimensional/unidirectional model provides an overly simpliﬁed
approach to acculturation, the multidimensional/multidirectional approach is a broader,
more inclusive and richer framework.
AFRICAN AMERICANS AND ACCULTURATION

Despite the abundance of acculturation literature about other ethnic groups, a
thorough literature review of this construct indicated that acculturation in the African
American community has been empirically understudied (Snowden & Hines, 1999).
Many researchers have failed to use cultural phenomena (i.e. acculturation) to explain
differences within the African American population. There are three main reasons
attributed to the understudy of culture within the African American community. First,
many scholars adhere to the belief that no cultural differences for African Americans
survived slavery (Jones, 1991). Second, it is difﬁcult to address African American
acculturation, because the culture of African Americans is largely intertwined into the
mainstream culture, therefore at times, it is difﬁcult to differentiate between the two
(Jones, 1991). Third, for years the ﬁeld of psychology has conceptualized African
Americans as a race, not as an ethnic or cultural group like other minorities (Jones, 1991;
Yee et.al., 1993). Because of the conceptualization of African Americans as a race, it is
difﬁcult to erase these notions proposed by the ﬁeld and apply cultural components to the
ethnic group.

Although it is difﬁcult to assess acculturation within the African American

population, it is still a relevant construct that needs to be understood within this ethnic

15

population. But before this construct can be fully understood within the African
American population, ﬁrst the history of this population needs to be explained. An
understanding of the history of Aﬁican Americans is important because their history in
the United States is responsible for shaping their current culture (Dana, 1993).
African American Historical Origins

African Americans have a turbulent and poignant history in this country, which
has been accompanied by racism in the form of terrorism, lynchings, and property
destruction (Dana, 1993). The following overview of African American history does not
provide a myriad of detail about many of the historic events and the people who are
important in African American, but the following does provide a snapshot of historical
trends and events that have shaped the lives and the culture of African Americans.
The 1 7:}: Century

The history of African Americans began with many of their ancestors and their
forcible removal from Africa, and chattel slavery in the United States. The majority of
African Americans derive ﬁ'om ancestors who came to America as slaves against their
will. The transporting of slaves across the Atlantic Ocean from the West Coast of Africa
is described as the “greatest migration in recorded history” (Bennett, 1966, p.30). Of the
millions of Africans forcibly removed from their homeland between the 15th and 19th
centtu'ies, it is estimated that about 4 million came to North America (Curtain, 1969).
The million who came to North America are the genesis of today’s African American
culture. By the beginning of the 18th century, 50,000-100,000 Africans each year were
being moved across the Atlantic to Europe and the Americas. African labor is credited

with keeping the rum, sugar, and molasses trade going; Africans also supported the

16

industries that developed around tobacco, hemp, ﬁshing, railroading, and distilling
(Genovese, 1974).
The I8”I and 19”I Centuries

Slaves were an integral part of the building of pre-and post Revolutionary
America. These individuals fought side by side with whites in the American Revolution
and the Civil War-with optimism that changes that took place would afford them the
status of being “created equal” with “certain inalienable rights” (Willis, 1999). African
American soldiers from all of the original 13 states fought bravely in most of the major
battles of the Revolutionary War, and, as a result of their ﬁghting, approximately 100,000
slaves did receive their freedom (Bennett, 1966).

Neither the dreams inspired by the American Revolution, nor the hopes built on
the Emancipation Proclamation, and the uniting of the states were to be easily realized by
African Americans. African Americans were tolerable as slaves, but as free individuals
they became a threat to White America and the system in which they thrived. Because of
this, years of discrirrrination and racism ensued, which led to the advent of contradictory
social forces: the Reconstruction Era, the Freedmen’s Bureau, the Ku Klux Klan, and the
Black Codes. The Reconstruction Era was from 1867-1877. During this time, the South
Carolina House of Representatives had an African American majority. The Freedmen’s
Bureau lasted 5 years (1865-1870) the Bureau was dedicated to providing assistance to
freedmen and whites in the areas of medical care and education (Willis, 1999). The Ku
Klux Klan, was organized in 1866 as a white supremacy group dedicated to committing
atrocities against African Americans. The institutionalization of the practice of lynching

can be accredited to this group. The Black Codes (1865-1866) were harbingers of many

17

years or systematic disenfranchisement of African Americans. In 1896, the US.
Supreme Court wrote the doctrine of racial separation and classiﬁcation into law. This
law (Plessy vs. Fergusion, 1896) gave states the sanction and the power to establish
“separate but equal” accommodations and institutions for the races (Willis, 1999).

Beginning in the 1890’s to 1970, there was a migration away from the South to
the North and West with a gradual shift from rural residence in the South to
predominantly urban residence in search of greater opportunities (Dana, 1993). The
beginning voluntary migration of African Americans coincided with considerable
crowding in northern and eastern cities occasioned by the inﬂux of European immigrants
(Leigh & Green, 1982). Educational, housing, and employment services were offered to
the newly arrived European immigrants, but African Americans were viewed as “a group
apart-a caste-physically present in American society but culturally distinctive because of
appearance, origins, and the experience with slavery” (Leigh & Green, 1982, p.95). As a
result of the prejudice encountered in the North, urban ghettos with slum conditions grew
and became the homes for many African Americans (Willis, 1999). The upward mobility
of African Americans continues to be restricted by poverty and discrimination in a
society they did not choose, but of which they now consider themselves an integral part
(Willis, 1999).
The 20"I Century

By 1901 , laws dealing with Jim Crow became the blueprint of how the races
would interrelate with one another. The culmination of Jim Crow was emphasized in the
systematic and extreme measures taken by states to deprive African Americans of the

right to vote. “Grandfather” clauses, literacy tests, white primaries, and poll taxes were

18

the most commonly used methods of disqualifying African American voters. Two major
events are credited with being the catalysts for change: desegregation of the army and the
Brown vs. Board of Education decision. The Brown vs. Board of Education decision
concluded that “separate but equal” had no place in the American system of education
and stated that separate educational facilities were inherently unequal (Bremner, 1974).
Even though the passing of Brown vs. Board of Education was a giant leap towards
equality, the legacy of Jim Crow was not to be removed by a decree of the Supreme
Court. Negative attitudes, instilled by years of institutionalized racism, fear, and
contempt are still evident (Willis, 1999). In the 1990’s many African Americans still
have lifestyles that are signiﬁcantly affected by racism (Jones, 1991). The most blatant
indicators of the crunulative results of discrimination and racism are found in health,
income, education, and occupation statistics that all show signiﬁcant and increasing
discrepancies between African Americans and Anglo-Americans (Dana, 1988).

All of these factors have contributed to a unique ethnicity or group identity, that
may be described in terms of a common historical style, shared behaviors, values and
perceptions, as well as distinctive patterns of cultural communication (Kochman, 1987).
This group identity of African Americans is complex, as a result of large within-group
differences and a mixture of cultural orientations. The ability to recognize cultural
identity options and orientations for Aﬁ‘ican Americans provides an explicit recognition
of their heterogeneity, and therefore necessitates the need for measures that recognize
such differences. Now that the history of African Americans has illustrated the differing
cultural elements of this ethnic group, the need for a measure of African American

acculturation can now be explained in full detail.

19

Current African American Acculturation Measures

To date, only two instruments exist to measure acculturation within the African
American community (Hines & Snowden, 1999; Landrine & Klonoff, 1994). The steps
that the researchers made towards understanding the process of acculturation are a valued
contribution to the ﬁeld. The contributions made by these researchers can be built upon
in order to create other measures of acculturation for use with this population. While
these measures represent an important step in measuring acculturation they both have
important limitations.

First with regards to measurement directionality and dimensionality, the
operational deﬁnition used for the design of these measures does not retain the original
deﬁnition of the construct of acculturation. Each measurement is designed to measure
acculturation linearly (undirectional). Acculturation is measured using American culture
at one extreme and African American culture at the other. Acculturation, linearly
deﬁned, is represented as a ﬁinction of movement in one direction along the continuum
with corresponding reduction along the other direction of the continuum (Cuellar et al.,
1995). The problem with this method is that the two poles are not independently
measured; as one consequence, it does not yield measurement scores for those biculturals
who score high or low in both directions (Cuellar et al., 1995).

The scale developed by Landrine and Klonoff (1994) is a
unidirectional/unidimensional model, which assesses many aspects of traditional African
American behaviors. The scale is a multidimensional scale in that eight factors of
African American traditional behaviors are measured by the scale. However, it is not

multidimensional with respect to having two distinct separate components of

20

acculturation being measured. Various components of the acculturation process are not
addressed within the developmental design of their measure (i.e. cognitive component or
affective component). Therefore, with regards to how the term multidimensionality is
used within the acculturation literature, their scale fails to meet these criteria. Each
aspect on the scale assesses a different practice of African American traditional behavior
(i.e. traditional African American religious family structure and practices (family),
preference for things African American (preference), preparation and consumption of
traditional foods (foods), interracial attitudes/cultural mistrust (attitudes), traditional
African American health beliefs and practices (health), traditional African American
religious beliefs and practices (religion), traditional African American childhood
socialization (child-hood), and superstitions). All of these aspects are measuring
different contents of the same concept (Aﬁ'ican American traditional behaviors).

Along with directionality and dimensionality Landrine and Klonoff have scale
limitations with the overall development of their measure. Acculturation is deﬁned as
those cultural changes that occur when two cultures come into continuous contact (Berry,
1980). Their scale assessing African American acculturation views acculturation only as
a dynamic of within group processes without assessing how the mainstream culture has
been instrumental in shaping the culture of the group being measured. By deﬁning the
process with primary focus on bearers of African American culture, without regards to
the mainstream culture, acculturation is no longer the phenomena being measured.
Rather, within group dynamics becomes the focus, and this can be deﬁned by using

ethnic or cultural identity measures. Also, by not comparing within group processes to

21

those processes of the out-group, within group homogeneity is assumed, which does not
recognize the cultural differences that exist within ethnic groups.

The scale developed by Snowden and Hines (1999) is a unidimensional and
unidirectional model looking only at behavioral preferences exhibited by Aﬁican
Americans (e. g. television and music preferences). This measure emphasizes media
preferences and social interaction patterns, rather than culturally-deﬁned beliefs and
practices. By only focusing on preferences rather than culturally-deﬁned beliefs their
scale is limited in scope and the insight into the phenomenon of acculturation for African
Americans is therefore limited because the scale does not address speciﬁc cultural
practices.

With each scale, a unidimensional/unidirectional approach was utilized in the
conceptual development, which used only behaviors or behavioral preferences exhibited
by African Americans. Also, the unidirectional method used for both scales assumes
within group homogeneity of African Americans, thus not accounting for those
individuals who may be bicultural. In order to fully measure biculturals with
characteristics relative to distinct cultures, a multidimensional framework applying two
independently derived sub-scales are required.

A multidimensional model will also allow us a clearer understanding of African
American culture, thus providing another method for researchers to understand cultural
differences. The problem with using this method of development is that this prospective
gives a narrow insight into the phenomenon of African American acculturation, thus
limiting the conclusions that can be made. A multidimensional/multidirectional

instrument within this cultural group can aid in the understanding of cultural processes

22

that occur for this ethnic group. The culture of African Americans has been affected by
mainstream society on a variety of levels, to just view the culture of this community with
regards to traditional behaviors’, we are missing a plethora of information that could
allow us a deeper understanding of this cultural group. The historical events that have
shaped the lives of the African American community, have not just affected the traditions
that this community adheres to, but it has impacted the way in which this community
socializes White America (mainstream society), and also the racial attitudes that they
hold towards White America. Without adding these two components into an
acculturation framework, we will continue to have only a myopic view of these
individuals whose uniqueness and resiliency could be extremely beneﬁcial to the social

science research of this phenomenon.

MEASUREMENT DESIGN
Measurement Development
Generally, acculturation has been understood to reﬂect “social distance from the

dominant society along the dimensions of culture-language, religion, values; primary
group interaction-work, social clubs, family, and friends (Gordon, 1964). Individuals and
groups become more acculturated, according to this formulation, as they adopt cultural
beliefs and practices of mainstream society. This underlying approach recognizes social
interactions more than culturally-deﬁned beliefs and practices. Beliefs and practices
characteristic of African Americans do exist, but appear to vary considerably according
to age, education, gender, and region of current residence (Heurtin-Roberts, Snowden &
Miller, 1997; Snowden, Libby, & Thomas, 1997). Recognizing the difﬁculty of using

only behavioral practices as a measure of acculturation, this measure of acculturation

23

integrated psychological (i.e. cognitive and affective) changes into the overall
measurement design. The proposed model for acculturation will comprised two essential
elements: behavioral (cultural awareness) and psychological changes (affective and
cognitive).

The set of African American acculturation questions developed represent the
aforementioned dimensions of existing acculturation measures. Traditional behaviors
and practices, preferences for things Aﬁican American and interracial attitudes will be
brought together under one construct to assess a multidimensional measure of African
American acculturation.

Traditional Behaviors and Practices Component

This dimension assessed involvement in fundamental behaviors, practices,
holidays and traditions displayed within the African American culture, as well as those
displayed by the mainstream culture. Items for this dimension were developed from the
existing contrasting beliefs, values, and practices paradigms proposed by Willis, (1999).
This model lists the speciﬁc beliefs, values and practices of the African American

tradition, as well as the White American tradition:

African American White American
Collective Orientation Individual Orientation
Kinship and extended family bonds Nuclear family bonds
Religious, spiritual orientation More secular orient
More authoritarian child-rearing practices More permissive child
rearing practices
Greater respect for elderly and their Less respect for the
role in the family role of elderly in
the family
More oriented to situation than time More oriented to time

than situation

24

Spirituality & Religious Orientation. A strong sense of spirituality persisted
among the slaves and remains a major aspect of African American community, culture
and personality development GVIcAdoo, 1981; Pipes, 1981). The organized church in
African American life was established after the Revolutionary War in 1787 (Willis,
1999). Religion has traditionally been the source of spiritual subsistence in the African
American family, regardless of whether the family regularly attends formal church
services (Randall-David, 1989). Inference to the role of the church in the African
American community Chambers wrote,

Since its inception, the black church has been more than a place to worship. It is

where the community has gathered to lobby for freedom and equal rights, where

Aﬁican-Americans have joined together to celebrate their victories and mourn

their loses ...it is a symbol of hundreds of years of hopes and dreams. A living

testament to the indomitable spirit of its people, the black church is not only a part
of Aﬁican-American history, it is a part of our collective American history.

(1997,p.42)

Although organized churches are not as inﬂuential as they were in the past, the spiritual
resources of the community have had a direct impact on the lives of most African
American people (Billingsley, 1974). At a young age children within the African
American community are taught that they must “believe in something” (have faith) in
order to have a good (meaningful) life (Willis, 1999).

Familism & Collectivism. Items pertaining to familism (the conviction that family
takes precedent over personal needs) and collectivism are signiﬁcant within the African
American tradition, because the family is often deemed as a source of strength, resilience,

and survival (Willis, 1999). The family also provides socialization, guidance, and

inspiration (Billingsley, 1974). The value of group efforts is taught as a more enduring

25

strategy for the survival of the African American community, as Opposed to individual
effort for private gain (Billingsley, 1974).

Elderly Respect. Deep respect for elderly individuals is another important
component of the African American tradition. (Boyd-Franklin, 1989; Carter & Helms,
1987). Elderly individuals are seen as having insight or wisdom; because of this they
should be respected and obeyed (Randall—David, 1989).

Child Rearing. African Americans are strongly dedicated to the social
development of children within their cultural group. Setting limits, or disciplining
children, is part of the socialization process needed for the child to learn to be sensitive
and as a way for the child to follow family rules outside the home (Willis, 1999).

Holidays. Signiﬁcant cultural events and holidays that have emerged within the
Aﬁ'ican American tradition are the celebration of Kwanzaa and Juneteenth. The purpose
of the celebration of Kwanzaa, is to reinforce Aﬁican American identity (i.e. the bonds
between Aﬁican Americans and their family and ﬁ’iends. Kwanzaa speciﬁcally focus on
the traditional African values of family, community responsibility, commerce and self-
improvement. J uneteenth is the oldest known celebration of the ending of slavery. The
observance of June 19th as the Aﬁican American Emancipation Day, emphasizes
education and achievement (Willis, 1999). The purpose of the celebration marks a time
for assessment, self-planning, and preparations for the future. (Appendix E)

Intra-racial &Interracial Attitudes Component

The affective component of acculturation was measured under the heading of

intra-racial/interracial attitudes. The rationale for this is because affective components of

acculturation are highlighted in the stress-and-coping approach. Thus, indicating how

26

each individual feels about their culture, as well as the mainstream culture, can ultimately
affect their level of acculturation. This dimension assessed an individual’s values,
attitudes, and beliefs about African Americans, as well as mainstream society. This
dimension assessed attitudes about African Americans and their institutions, as well as
Anglo-Americans and institutions commonly associated with their cultural group. The
logic for this dimension is set in the foundation that in the United States, culture does not
exist independently of race and racism. A result of these two constructs, individuals may
struggle with acculturation. Culture is often linked with race and ethnicity. Interracial
attitudes (linked to racism and discrimination) are an important aspect of how a minority
group member sees his or her own culture. Understanding attitudes towards the in-group,
as well as the out group, is important because feelings towards one’s own cultural group
as well as the mainstream culture, are important in shaping the behaviors and traditions
individuals participate in actively. This belief is emphasized in a study conducted by
(Davis et.al., 2000). In their study of 194 college students, they found that those
individuals whom exhibited higher scores on the Racial Identity index also proved to be
more traditional when given the African American Acculturation index. This ﬁnding
indicates that greater acceptance of self and ethnic group can be related to how
individuals view their culture as well as other cultural groups. (Appendix G).
Preferences Component

The measure of the cognitive component of acculturation was deﬁned under the
label of preferences for things African American or White American. The rationale for
this labeling is because cognitive variables are emphasized in what an individual socially

identiﬁes with. Beliefs and practices characteristic of African Americans do exist, but

27

appear to vary considerably according to age, education, gender, and region of current
residence (Heurtin-Roberts, Snowden, & Miller, 1997; Snowden, Libby, & Thomas,
1997). To help alleviate limitations in research literature that solely views traditional
behavioral practices, this dimension will also assess the individual’s preference for
practices and behaviors of their cultural group as well as those displayed by the out-
group. This dimension will primarily assess cultural loyalty (i.e. the individual’s
preference of one cultural orientation over the other). Preferences are behavioral indices
of cultural awareness and convey information about the extent of an individual’s
acculturation (Padilla, 1980). The logic is that the lesser acculturated individual will
prefer activities associated with their cultural group of origin. Thus, it is the belief that
ongoing interactions with African Americans are thought to transmit Aﬁican American
culture. (Appendix F)
Measurement Terminology

For each item on the measure relating to the minority culture, it was decided that
the term Aﬁican American was used within the various dimensions on the instrument.
The people referred to as African Americans originate from the continent of Africa.
These individuals come from several racial stocks and many Central and West African
tribes, including Ashantis, Bantu, Eﬁks, Hausas, Ibos, Krus, Mandingo, Sengalese, and
Yorubas (Bennett, 1966; Holloway & Vass, 1993). The term is potentially less
stigrnatizing than other terms such as “Black” or “Negro”, which have been associated
historically with negative racial attitudes and represent changes from one European
language to another (Fairchild, 1985). Fairchild (1985) suggests that the term African

American is preferable to the terms “Black” or “Negro” because it fonnalizes the African

28

connection, avoids ambiguity inherent in the capitalization/non-capitalization issue, and
adds a consciousness-raising dimension of self-respect and dignity.
SUMMARY

As stated earlier in this document, among other cultural groups there are a variety
of existing acculturation measures. These measures vary in terms of whether they view
acculturation as a unidimensional or multidimensional phenomenon, and as a
unidirectional or multidirectional phenomenon. Documented in the literature, only two
scales for African American acculturation currently exist and both of these scales only
assess acculturation as a unidimensional and unidirectional process. This indicates a gap
in the African American acculturation literature and suggests that acculturation for this
community is studied from an ethnic identity perspective, which has led to a limited
conceptualization of African American acculturation. In order to address the present gap
in the existing scales of African American acculturation, a
multidimensional/multidirectional measure of African American Acculturation (MM3A)
was developed. The developed measure views acculturation with African American’s
from a within group/out-group process, therefore not assuming within group
homogeneity. This multidimensional/multidirectional measure of African American
acculturation allows researchers to more accurately examine different dimensions of
African American acculturation. It also allows for the study of the complexities of
acculturation, such as the relation African American acculturation has with other
applicable constructs such as behavioral, psychiatric, and health processes. This
conceptual step could not be made without a measure that assesses the multiple

dimensions of acculturation within the African American community. Hence, the

29

rationale for the development of a multidimensional measure of African American

acculturation.

30

METHOD
Participants

Two hundred sixty-six persons participated in the completion of the MM3A.
Individuals from the community were recruited via churches and Michigan State
University. The churches where data collection were conducted were; St. Stephens
located in Lansing, MI (n = 40). The day the announcement regarding the study was
made to the congregation 64 members were in attendance. Thus indicating that 63% of
the church population present that day participated in the research study. Also, Trinity
AME located in Lansing, MI (n = 13). The day the study appeared in the Sunday
bulletin, 130 members were in attendance indicating that 10% of the church population
present that day participated in the study. Another church involved in the study, Union
Missionary Church located in Lansing, MI (n = 34). The day the study appeared in the
Sunday bulletin, 300 members were in attendance. Thus indicating that 11% of the
church population participated in the study. Finally, New Beginnings Cathedral located in
Detroit, MI (11 = 27). The day the study appeared in the Sunday bulletin, 400 members
were in attendance. Thus indicating that 6% of the church population participated in the
study.

Individuals from Michigan State University were recruited through the Black
Graduate Student Association (11 = 44), the Black Caucus (n = 17), the Black Poets
Society (11 = 16), McNair/SROP (n = 21), the Black Student Association (n = 31), Alpha
Phi Alpha Fraternity Inc. (n = 7) and Case Hall Black Caucus (n = 17). All student
organizations that participated in the study had a 100% participation rate except for the

Case Hall Black Caucus, this organizations participation rate was 57%.

31

All locations were contacted by the researcher and permission to use their facility
as a participation recruitment site or to attend a meeting to recruit participates was
granted. All participant recruitment sites were selected using the criteria of whether or
not they serviced a large population of African Americans. This sample was recruited for
convenience. Amongst the 266 participants all identiﬁed as being African American,
100% (n = 266). Seventy-three percent (n = 193) were female and twenty-seven were
male (n = 73). The age of the participants ranged from 18 to 63 with the mean age being
25. See Table 1 for complete demographic information. No study participants were
compensated for their involvement.

Procedure

The researcher recruited participants in the current study from two locations: (1)
African Americans from predominately Black churches (2) students from various
organizations on Michigan State’s campus. Below is a discussion on the procedures
taken to recruit participants from various locations.

Recruiting African Americans ﬁ'om Black churches. In order to recruit African
Americans from various churches within the area, the researcher ﬁrst contacted the
assistant pastor of various churches within the community. After speaking with a church
representative over the telephone the researcher would then schedule a meeting to speak
with the representative in person to provide further detail about the nature of the study.
At the meeting the researcher described in more detail the purpose of the study and went
through a copy of the survey with the representative. At the meeting if the church were
interested in being a part of the study the researcher would ask for a description of her

study along with the date, time and location of scheduled data collection to posted in the

32

Sunday bulletin or if she could make an announcement directly to the congregation
during Sunday morning church announcements. All churches contacted agreed to
participant. Aﬁer posting the abstract in the Sunday bulletins all interested participants
would show up at the designated time and location as indicated in the church bulletin.
The surveys were group administered. Before each survey administration the researcher
explained elements of anonymity, conﬁdentiality, acculturation, and voluntary
participation to the participants. Once they understood the purposes and procedures of the
study, the researcher asked participants to read and sign the consent form.

Recruiting African American students at Michigan State University. In order to
recruit African Americans from various organizations on campus the researcher ﬁrst
contacted the president of various organizations on campus. After speaking with the
president over the telephone the researcher would then schedule a meeting to speak with
the president in person to provide further detail about the nature of the study. At the
meeting the researcher described in more detail the purpose of the study and went
through a copy of the survey with the president. After speaking with the president if the
president were interested in allowing their organization to be a part of the study the
researcher scheduled a time to attend a general assembly meeting. At the assembly
meeting of the organization the researcher verbally explained the purpose and goals of
the study. The researcher would then sit through the entirety of the general meeting in
order to sign up interested individuals. Individuals interested in study participation
would schedule a time to attend the next group administration of the survey. Before each
survey administration the researcher explained elements of anonymity, conﬁdentiality,

acculturation, and voluntary participation to the participants. Once they understood the

33

purposes and procedures of the study, the researcher asked participants to read and sign
the consent form.
Study Measures

Demographic Sheet. Seven items assessed participants’ ethnicity, gender, age,
education level, marital status, region of the country raised in, and socioeconomic status.
Participants selected ﬁ’om a list of several responses. (Appendix B). Respondents were
included in the sample based on the self-identiﬁcation of self and their family of origin.
Respondents identifying as Black, not of Hispanic origin were designated as Aﬁican
American.

The Multidimensional Measure of Religious Involvement for African Americans.
Eleven items assessed religiosity among African Americans living within the US. Lewin,
Taylor and Chatters (1995) scale was utilized in this study. The measure included items
on spirituality as well as religiosity to ensure that both aspects of religiosity and
spirituality are being assessed. The response items are on a 5-point Likert scale such that,
l= “not at all” to 5= “always”. A sample item on the scale will read, “How often do you
attend religious services?” (Appendix C)

Multidimensional Measure of African American Acculturation. Initially ninety-
eight items were used to assess acculturation within the African American community.
The measure consists of three dimensions: traditional behavioral practices, preference for
things Aﬁican American, and interracial attitudes. Response items are on a 6-point

Likert scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. (Appendix D)

34

RESULTS

The results are presented according to the research question and method through
which these questions were answered. Thereby, there will ﬁrst be a discussion of the
results yielding the dimensions of the Multidimensional Measure of African American
Acculturation (MMBA). Following, there will be a discussion of the results indicating
the necessity to include multidirectional methods (i.e. separate scale for Aﬁican
American and White American) when measuring Aﬁican American acculturation. Last
there will be a discussion of the results indicating the relationship between the
dimensions of the behavioral, cognitive and affective components of the MM3A.

What is the Dimensionality of African American Acculturation?

Four steps were taken to construct the dimensionality of the MM3A. The ﬁrst step
involved examining the item distribution. With regards to item distribution, the problem
of missing data was resolved by imputing the item means. The second step involved
exploring the component structure of the items within the MM3A by performing an
exploratory factor analysis. The third step involved performing a conﬁrmatory factor
analysis to conﬁrm the items ﬁt for each proposed item in the scale. The ﬁnal step
involved calculating the reliability of the ﬁnal scales.

In terms of an exploratory analysis, a principal component analysis with
orthogonal varimax rotations was performed. The Statistical Package for Social Sciences
(SPSS) was utilized in performing the principal analysis. This analysis was used to
assess the loading of each item on a component and to assess if any conceptually
meaningful components emerged. For each scale (behavior, cognitive, and affective) two

components were extracted. Theses components were extracted based on the discretion

35

of the researcher because of the inclusion of African American items and White
American items on each scale.

In determining which items were a part of the factor structure, items with
component loadings of .30 or above were deemed as belonging to that particular factor
component. This cutoff score was derived from Thomas and Thompson (1994). These
researchers suggested that researchers consider items with component loading
coefﬁcients of at least .30 in absolute value as “loading on the respective factor” and
should be considered in the interpretation of the meaning of that particular component.

After the scales’ structure was determined using the principal component analysis,
conﬁrmatory analysis was conducted to illustrate how well each item ﬁt its’ perspective
scale placement. Since the research regarding African American acculturation is in the
infancy stage exploratory factor analysis was used ﬁrst to help generate the theory
proposed by the researcher.

The statistical package AMOS was used to graph the model that would be used to
test the theory of the three components (six scales) as they relate to African American
acculturation. The ﬁt statistics were then analyzed to test how well the competing
models ﬁt the data. The ﬁt statistics that were used in data analysis are as follows. First,
the goodness-of-ﬁt index (GFI), is “a measure of the relative amount of variances and
covariances jointly accounted foriby the model” (J oreskog & Sorbom, 1986, p. 41). The
GFI ﬁt statistic was used rather than the chi square statistic, because the GFI is less
sensitive to sample size. A goodness-of-ﬁt score can range from 0.0 to 1.0, but the closer
this score is to zero the better is the ﬁt of the model of the data (Thomas & Thompson,

1994). Next, the root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA) is a measure of

36

discrepancy per degree of freedom. It is suggested by Bentler (1990) that a RMSEA of
.05 or less represents a close ﬁt to the data; .05-.10 a moderate ﬁt to the data; and above
.10 is a bad ﬁt. Finally, the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) this ﬁt statistic compares the ﬁtted
model to the null model. A cutoff of .95 is recommended by Gillapsy (1996). Below
will be a discussion on the results that surfaced from the exploratory factor analysis,
conﬁrmatory factor analysis and reliabilities on each component of the MM3A, as well as
the scales of each of these components of the MM3A.

Behavioral Component
Step 1 .° Examining Item Distribution

In order to examine item distribution a ﬁequency distribution was conducted with
all items in each subscale. This was the ﬁrst step taken towards understanding how well
each subscale performed. No items within the subscale were dropped.

Step 2: Exploratory Factor Analysis

Next, an exploratory factor analysis with a varimax rotation was performed on
the behavioral items. The exploratory factor analysis had a forced component solution of
two components extracted (refer to Table 2). This forced extraction was conducted
because of the researchers initial scale construction of purposefully placing White
American items and African American items into the scale.

Write American Behavior. For the two-component solution component one
consisted of twenty-seven items. Of the twenty-seven items initially included in the
White American behavioral scale only eighteen items were retained within the subscale.
The retained items encompass various components of White American behavior as

deﬁned by the researcher. The various component structure is as follows: item 23, refers

37

to the permissive child rearing, items 27, 43, 61, and 84 refer to a secular orientation,
items 28 and 32 refer to celebrations of the mainstream culture, items 37, 41, 44, 46, 56,
89, 96, and 98 refer to a preference for individualism, item 40 indicates less respect for
the elderly, and item 58 refers to the nuclear family. The loadings for these items ranged
from .307 to .672 (see Table 2). A unity weighted scale for White American behavior was
created based on the items with loadings of .30 or higher. Some of the items included in
this dimension were: “My successes are attributed mainly to my own ability.”; “There is
no one force in control of the things going on in the world.”; “I believe that I am the only
person who can solve my problems.” These items are a part of the White American
Behavioral Scale. These items accounted for 12.01% of the explained variance.

African American Behavior. For the two-component solution component two
consisted of twenty-seven items. Of the twenty-seven items initially included in the
component structure only twenty-two items were retained. The retained items encompass
various components of African American Behavior as deﬁned by the researcher. The
various component structure is as follows: items 1, 2, 29, 62, 67, 68, and 75 refer to
kinship/extended family bonds, items 8 and 17 refer to38, 45, 55, and 64 refer to
spiritual/religious orientation, items 24, 36, 48, and 90 refer to a collective orientation
and items 31 and 63 refer to authoritarian child rearing practices. The loadings for these
items ranged from .303 to .625 (see Table 2). A unity-weighted scale for African
American behavior was created based on the items with loadings of .30 or higher. These
items were included in scale construction and all other items were dropped. Examples of
the retained items are: “ I take pride in the accomplishments of other African

Americans”; “I believe that if I have a problem it can be solved through prayer”; “I

38

believe that if I work hard I can improve my family’s status in life”. These items are a
part of the African American Behavioral Scale. These items accounted for 8.89% of the
explained variance.
Step 3: Conﬁrmatory Factor Analysis

A conﬁrmatory factor analysis on the ﬁnal two scales was performed. The
goodness of ﬁt (GF I) for the ﬁrst component, White American Behavior, was .81. The
Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) was .79. The Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation
(RMSEA) was .06. For the second component, Aﬁican American Behavior, the GFI was
.78. The TLI for this scale was .60. The ﬁnal ﬁt statistic for this scale, the RMSEA, was
.08. Based on the item ﬁt statistics analyzed for these two subscales, it is concluded that
the items within the two subscales are a moderate ﬁt to the overall scale models.
Step 4: Reliability Analysis

A reliability analysis on the ﬁnal two scales was performed. The alpha
coefﬁcient for the ﬁrst component, the White American Behavior Scale, was .80. The
corrected item-total correlations for this scale ranged from .16 to .53 (See Table 3). The
alpha coefﬁcient for the second component, the Aﬁican American Behavior Scale, was
.81. The corrected item-total correlations for this scale ranged from .24 to .54 (See Table
4). The correlation between two scales was signiﬁcant but small(r = -.134, p < .05).

Cognitive Component

Step 1: Examining Item Distribution

In order to examine item distribution a frequency distribution was conducted with
all items in each subscale. This was the ﬁrst step taken towards understanding how well

each subscale performed

39

Step 2: Exploratory Factor Analysis
Next, an exploratory factor analysis with a varimax rotation was performed next

on the preference for things African American items. The exploratory factor analysis had
a forced component solution of two components extracted (refer to Table 5). This forced
extraction was conducted because of the researchers initial scale construction of
purposefully placing White American items and African American items into the scale.

White American Preference. For the two-component solution component two
consisted of nine items. Of the nine items initially included in the component structure
all nine items had a factor loading of .30 or higher. The loadings for these items ranged
from .471 to .618 (see Table 5). A unity-weighted scale for White American Preference
was created based on the items with loadings of .30 or higher. Examples of retained
items are: “I like reading books that are written by White Americans”; “I like to work
with White Americans”; “I am married to/would marry a White American.” All of these
items are a part of the White American Preference Scale. These items accounted for 16%
of the explained variance

African American Preference. For the two-component solution component
consisted of nine items. Of the nine items initially included in the component structure
all items had a factor loading of .30 or higher. The loadings for these items ranged from
.501 to .723 (see Table 5). A unity-weighted scale for African American Preference was
created based on the items with loadings of .30 or higher. Examples of retained items
are: “I like listening to music that is created by African American artists”; “I am married

to/would marry another African American”; “I like going to movies or seeing plays that

40

have an African American cast.” All of these items are a part of the Aﬁican American
Preference Scale. These items accounted for 22% of the explained variance.
Step 3: Conﬁrmatory Factor Analysis
A conﬁrmatory factor analysis on the ﬁnal two scales was performed. The

goodness of ﬁt (GFI) for the second component, White American Preference, was .97.
The Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) was .93. The Root Mean Squared Error of
Approximation (RMSEA) was .09. For the ﬁrst component, African American
Preference, the GF I was .92. The TLI for this scale was .80. The ﬁnal ﬁt statistic for this
scale, the RMSEA, was .09. Based on the item ﬁt statistics for the two subscales it is
concluded that the items represented in the White American Preference subscale are a
good ﬁt to the overall model design, whereas the items represented in the African
American Preference subscale are a moderate ﬁt to the overall model design.
Step 4: Reliability Analysis

A reliability analysis on the ﬁnal two scales was performed. The alpha coefﬁcient
for White American Preference scale was .68. The corrected item-total correlations for
this scale ranged from .32 to .46 (See Table 6). The alpha coefﬁcient for, the Aﬁican
American Preference Scale, was .77. The corrected item-total correlations for this scale
ranged from .41 to .59 (See Table 7). The correlation between two scales was not

signiﬁcant (r=-.06).

41

Aﬂective Component

Step 1: Examining Item Distribution

In order to examine item distribution a frequency distribution was conducted with
all items in each subscale. This was the ﬁrst step taken towards understanding how well
each subscale performed. No items within the subscale were dropped.
Step 2: Exploratory Factor Analysis

An exploratory factor analysis with a varimax rotation was performed next on the
interracial/intra-racial attitude items. The exploratory factor analysis had a forced
component solution of two components extracted (refer to Table 8). This forced
extraction was conducted because of the researchers initial scale construction of
purposefully placing White American items and African American items into the scale.

White American Interracial/Intra-racial Attitude. For the two-component solution
component one consisted of thirteen items. Of the thirteen items initially included in the
component structure only eight items were retained. The loadings for these items ranged
from .310 to .717 (see Table 8). A unity-weighted scale for White American
interracial/intra-racial attitude was created based on the items with loadings of .30 or
higher. Examples of retained items are: “ I believe that White people are intellectually
superior to Aﬁican Americans”; “The person I respect the most is a White American”;
“I believe in the values of White Americans.” These items are a part of the White
American Interracial/Intra-racial Attitude scale. These items accounted for 15.05% of the
explained variance.

Aﬁican American Interracial/Intra-racial Attitude. For the two-component

solution component two consisted of 13 items. Of the thirteen items initially included in

42

the component structure only nine were retained within the subscale. All dropped items
had a factor loading less than .30. Examples of dropped items are: “I feel uncomfortable
around White Americans”; “I identify with the African American culture.” The loadings
for these items ranged from .310 to .554 (see table 8). A unity-weighted scale for African
American interracial/intra-racial attitude was created based on the items with loadings of
.30 or higher. Examples of retained items are: “ I ﬁnd it hard to trust most White
Americans”; I feel that African Americans are not capable of being racist”; “I believe
that African American parents should surround their children with Black art, music, and
literature. All of these items were initially a part of the African American Interracial
Attitude Scale. These items accounted for 9.20% of the explained variance.

Step 3: Conﬁrmatory Factor Analysis.

A conﬁrmatory factor analysis on the ﬁnal two scales was performed. The
goodness of ﬁt (GF I) for the ﬁrst component, White American Interracial/Intra—racial
Attitude, was .94. The Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) was .76. The Root Mean Squared
Error of Approximation (RMSEA) was .1. For the second component, Aﬁican American
Interracial/Intra-racial Attitude, the GF I was .91. The TLI for this scale was .60. The
ﬁnal ﬁt statistic for this scale, the RMSEA, was .1. Based on the item ﬁt statistics
analyzed for these two subscales, it is concluded that the items within the two subscales
are a moderate ﬁt to the overall scale models.

Step 4: Reliability Analysis

A reliability analysis on the ﬁnal two scales was performed. The alpha

coefﬁcient for the ﬁrst component, the White American Interracial/Intra—racial Attitude

Scale, was .71. The corrected item-total correlations for this scale ranged from .31 to .49

43

(See Table 10). The alpha coefﬁcient for the second component, the African American
Interracial/Intra-racial Attitude Scale, was .53. The corrected item-total correlations for
this scale ranged from .20 to .32 (See Table 9). The correlation between two scales
indicated no relationship (r=-.06). Since the reliability for the African American
interracial/intra—racial attitude scale was below .65, this scale was dropped from further
analyses.

In summary, the results indicated that the Multidimensional Measure of African
American acculturation has ﬁve reliable and statistically ﬁt scales which assess African
American acculturation: (1) African American Behavior (2) White American Behavior
(3) African American Preference (4) White American Preference and (5) White
American Interracial/Intra-racial Attitudes. After the dimensionality of the test was
conﬁrmed, next test were conducted to determine if the construct should be viewed a
multidirectional and multidimensional construct.

Are Multidirectional Components When Measuring African American Acculturation
Needed?

After determining what dimensions comprise the MM3A, next correlations were
conducted. The correlations were conducted to understand if separate scales for separate
racial groups are needed or if a single scale is acceptable. In order to answer this
question several statistical steps were conducted. First, correlations were conducted
between the various dimensions of the MM3A. In order to correlate the various
dimensions 2 transformations were performed. Next, the observed correlations were
corrected for reliability. Last, the patterns of correlations between the various scales
were examined to determine if these were evidence of the differential validity of the ﬁve

scales. Determining if the two dimensions behaved differently was done by using two

criteria. First it was determined if the subscales were related to external variables in
statistically different ways. In other words, did the two subscales have statistically
signiﬁcant different correlations with the external variables. Next, it was determined if
the subscales led to different conclusions. Meaning would different conclusions occur by
using separate subscales or are the same conclusions obtained regardless of the subscale
being utilized (Refer to Table 13).
Behavioral Component

Step I : Inter-correlations between the Behavioral Component

First, the directionality of the behavior component was determined: African
American Behavior and White American Behavior. A z transformation was performed
centering the two scales thus making the two separate scales comparable. After the z
transformation was performed, the correlation between the two scales was examined after
correction for reliability. The observed correlation of -. 14 was signiﬁcant and when
corrected was -.22.

Even though a signiﬁcant relationship between the two dimensions emerged, the
size of the correlation was moderate and insufﬁcient to justify combining into a single
dimension. Therefore, the next step involved relating these two subscales to several
external variables.

Step 2: Correlation with External Variables

Both subscales had statistically different patterns of relationships with the income
variable and the spirituality variable (Refer to table 12). The income ﬁnding was
signiﬁcant because individuals who displayed a White American behavioral orientation

had a statistically signiﬁcant lower income (r = -.23, p < .01). There was no relationship

45

between an African American behavioral orientation and income (r =.11) . The
spirituality ﬁnding was signiﬁcant because individuals who displayed an African
American behavioral orientation had a statistically signiﬁcant higher level of spirituality
(r = .46, p < .01 ). There was a signiﬁcant relationship in the opposite direction between
White American behavior and spirituality (r = -. 14, p < .05). Neither dimension had a
relationship with the ﬁiendship variable. These results indicate that there is a signiﬁcant
difference between Aﬁican American behavior and White American dimension behavior,
thus concluding that the two should be viewed separately when attempting to understand
the behavioral component of acculturation within the African American community.
Cognitive Component

Step 1:1nter—correlations between the Cognitive Component

Next, the directionality of the cognitive component was analyzed: Aﬁican
American Preference and White American Preference. A z transformation was
performed centering the two scales thus making the two separate scales comparable.
After the z transformation was performed, the correlation between the two scales was
examined after correction for reliability. The observed correlation of -.06 was not
signiﬁcant and when corrected was .11. The next step involved relating these two
subscales to several external variables to determine if they behaved differently.
Step 2: Correlation with External Variables

Of the four external variables included there were no conceptually different
conclusions (Refer to table 12). The statistical differences of the cognitive component
behaved as expected with regards to the ﬁiendship variable. Both dimensions had

statistically signiﬁcant opposite patterns of correlations. White American preference had

46

a signiﬁcant positive correlation with White American friends (r = .32) and a signiﬁcant
negative correlation with Aﬁican American ﬁiends (r =-.22). Aﬁican American
preference had a signiﬁcant positive correlation with African American friends (r = .27)
and a signiﬁcant negative correlation with White American ﬁiends (r = -.19). These
correlation relationships were expected. It is expected that individuals whom display an
African American preference orientation would have ﬁiends who were mostly African
Americans. The opposite is also true of individuals who display a White American
preference orientation. It is expected that these individuals would have friends who are
mostly White American. In essence, even though statistical differences emerged as a
result of the correlations, no different conclusions were made based upon the pattern of
correlations. Neither dimension had a relationship with the income variable or the
spirituality variable. Based on these results it is concluded that these two scales could be
combined into a single scale when assessing the cognitive component of African
American acculturation.

Do We Need Multidimensional Scales When Measuring African American

Acculturation?

After determining the directionality of the MM3A, next the multidimensionality
of the scale was determined. This step involved determining if multiple components (i.e.
behavioral, cognitive, affective) were necessary in understanding Aﬁican American
acculturation. To determine the multidimensionality, the various subscales of the MM3A
were grouped based on whether or not the subscale assessed elements of African
American or White American (i.e. African American preference vs. African American

behavior). First, correlations were conducted between the various dimensions of the

47

MM3A. In order to correlate the various dimensions 2 transformations were performed.
Next, the observed correlations were corrected for reliability. Third, the patterns of
correlations between the various scales were examined to determine if these was evidence
of the differential validity of the ﬁve scales. Determining if the two dimensions behaved
differently was done by using two criteria. First it was determined if the subscales were
related to external variables in statistically different ways. In other words, did the two
subscales have statistically signiﬁcant different correlations with the external variables.
Next, it was determined if the subscales led to different conclusions. Meaning would
different conclusions occur by using separate subscales or are the same conclusions
obtained regardless of the subscale being utilized (Refer to Table 14).
African American Behavior vs. African American Preference

Step I : Correction for Reliability

First the need for two separate dimensions for African American behavior and
African American preference was analyzed. A z transformation was performed centering
the two scales thus making them comparable. After the z transformation was performed,
the correlation between the two scales was examined after correction for reliability. The
observed correlation of .51 was signiﬁcant and when corrected was .82. A signiﬁcant
relationship between the two dimensions emerged providing evidence for combining the
two scales. The next step involved relating these two subscales to several external
variables.
Step 2: External Variables

Both subscales had statistically different patterns of relationship and

conceptually different conclusions with the spirituality variable (Refer to table 12).

48

Individuals with an Aﬁican American behavioral orientation had a statistically signiﬁcant
relationship with spirituality (r = .46; p < .01). There was no relationship between
Aﬁican American preference and spirituality (r = .03). Both subscales also had
statistically different patterns of relationship and conceptually different conclusions with
the friendship variable. Individuals with an Aﬁican American preference orientation had
a statistically signiﬁcant relationship with the Black friendship variable (r = .27; p < .01)
and the White friendship variable (r = -.19; p < .01). There was no relationship between
African American behavior and the Black ﬁiendship variable (r = .11) or the White
friendship variable (r = -.06). These results indicate that there is a signiﬁcant difference
between the African American behavior subscale and the African American preference
subscale, thus concluding that the two should be viewed separately.
White American Behavior vs. White American Preference

Step 1: Correction for Reliability

Next, the need for a separate White American behavior and White American
preference component was analyzed. A z transformation was performed centering the
two scales thus making them comparable. After the z transformation was performed, the
correlation between the two scales was examined after correction for reliability. The
observed correlation of .25 was signiﬁcant and when corrected was .45. A signiﬁcant
relationship between the two dimensions emerged providing evidence for combining the
two scales. However, the size of the correlation was moderate and insufﬁcient to justify
combining into a single scale. Therefore, steps were taken to determine if the two
subscales behaved differently.

Step 2: External Variables

49

Of the four external variables included there were statistically different patterns
of relationships and conceptually different conclusions with all variables (Refer to table
12). Individuals with a White American behavioral orientation had a statistically
signiﬁcant relationship with spirituality (r = -. 14; p < .05). There was no relationship
between White American preference and spirituality (r = .08). In addition to this
relationship, individuals with a White American behavior orientation had a statistically
signiﬁcant relationship with income (r = -.23; p < .05). There was no relationship
between White American preference and income. Individuals with a White American
preference orientation had a signiﬁcant relationship with the ﬁiendship variable: Black
friends (r = -.22; p < .05) and White friends (r = .32; p < .05). There was no relationship
between White American behavior and the friendship variable: Black friends (r = .03)
and White friends (r = .11). These results indicate that there is a signiﬁcant difference
between these two subscales, thus concluding that the two should be viewed separately
when attempting to understand the White American behavioral and White American
preference component of African American acculturation.

White American Behavior vs. White American Interracial/Intra-racial Attitude
Step 1: Correction for Reliability

Next the need for two separate dimensions for White American behavior and
White American interracial/intra—racial attitude was analyzed. A z transformation was
performed centering the scales thus making them comparable. After the z transformation
was performed, the correlation between the two scales was examined after correction for
reliability. The observed correlation of .53 was signiﬁcant and when corrected was .93.

A strong signiﬁcant relationship between the two dimensions emerged providing

50

evidence for combining the two scales. Even though the correlation between the
subscales was signiﬁcantly large, steps were taken to determine if the two subscales
behaved differently.
Step 2: External Validity

Of the external variables included there were statistically different patterns of
relationships and conceptually different conclusions with the spirituality variable and the
income variable (Refer to table 12). Individuals with a White American behavioral
orientation had a statistically signiﬁcant relationship with spirituality (r = -.14; p < .05).
There was no relationship between White American interracial/intra-racial attitude and
spirituality (r = .03). Individuals with a White American behavioral orientation had a
statistically signiﬁcant relationship with income (r = -.23; p < .05). There was no
relationship between White American interracial/intra-racial attitude and income (r =
.02). These results indicate that there is a signiﬁcant difference between these two
subscales, thus concluding that the two should be viewed separately when attempting to
understand the White American behavioral and White American interracial/intra-racial
component of African American acculturation.

White American Preference vs. White American Interracial/Intra-racial Attitude

Step 1: Correction for Reliability

Next, determining the need for two separate dimensions for White American
behavior and White American interracial/intra-racial attitude was analyzed. First, a z
transformation was performed centering the two scales thus making them comparable.
After the z transformation was performed, the correlation between the two scales was

examined after correction for reliability. The observed correlation of .39 was signiﬁcant

51

and when corrected was .78. A strong signiﬁcant relationship between the two
dimensions emerged providing evidence for combining the two scales. Even though the
strong correlation would justify combining into a single scale, further steps were taken to
determine if the two subscales behaved differently.
Step 2: External Variables

Of the external variables included there were statistically different patterns of
relationships and conceptually different conclusions with the ﬁ'iendship variable (Refer to
table 12). White American preference had a signiﬁcant correlation with White American
friends (r = .32) and a signiﬁcant correlation in the opposite direction with Aﬁican
American friends (r =-.22). There was no relationship between White American
interracial/intra-racial attitude and the ﬁiendship variable: Black friends (r = -.04) and
White friends (r = .07). There were no relationships between either dimension and the
income variable or the spirituality variable. These results indicate that there is a
signiﬁcant difference between these two subscales, thus concluding that the two should
be viewed separately when attempting to understand the White American preference and
White American interracial/intra—racial component of African American acculturation.

DISCUSSION
The current research study sought to develop a multidimensional measure of

African American acculturation. Currently, there are only two scales measuring African
American acculturation. Landrine & Klonoff (1994) and Snowden & Hines (1999) are
the only scholars who have developed a scale to measure acculturation within the
contexts of African Americans. Neither of these scales measured acculturation with

reference to the cognitive or affective functions that can contribute to the understanding

52

of the phenomenon of acculturation for this cultural group. Hence, the role of the present
study was to develop reliable scales assessing the behavioral as well as the cognitive and
affective components of acculturation. The results of the study do provide evidence that
multidimensional/multidirectional scales can provide richer information when being used
within the Aﬁican American community. The following sections will highlight the major
ﬁndings found in the present study. Next, there will be a discussion on the limitations
and implications for ﬁrture research.
Major Findings
The Dimensionality of the Multidimensional Measure of African American Acculturation
Behavioral Component
Regarding the behavioral component of the African American acculturation

measure, the results of the exploratory factor analysis with a two components varimax
rotated solution yielded two components that measured African American behavior and
White American behavior. Moreover, the intercorrelation between the two scales further
supports the result that the African American behavioral subscale and the White
American behavioral subscale appear to be two separate constructs. By examining the
intercorrelation of the two constructs, the results indicated that they were not highly
correlated with one another and that they had different patterns of correlation with other
variables or other scales in the study. Therefore, the scales may be considered
orthogonal. The African American behavioral and the White American behavioral scales
were also reliable sub-scales of the African American acculturation measure. However,

there were items dropped respectively from each scale to retain this reliability.

53

Items 10, 19, 39, 42, and 49 were deleted from the White American behavioral
scale because their component loadings were less than .30. In addition, the corrected
item-total correlation also indicated that these ﬁve items correlated least with the other
items that appeared top be a measure of White American behavior. Furthermore, after
examining conceptual meaning of the dropped items, the researcher determined that the
items were not conceptually clear. The items were written poorly, which could have been
confusing to some participants.

For example, item 19 stated “I only consider my parents and siblings as a part of
my immediate family”. Edwards (1957) indicated that when writing survey items avoid
using the words such as “only”, “always”, and “never” because often times such words
introduce ambiguity. The statement of item 19 stated “I ‘only’ consider my parents and
siblings as a part of my immediate family.” This statement does not take into account
offspring and siblings. Thus the word ‘only’ in the statement of 19 might have been
ambiguous, which might explain why this item did not load highly on the component that
appeared to be a measure of White American behavior. In addition, some of the items in
this scale were double loaded or too complicated in the manner in which they were
written. For example, item 39 stated “I would rather place an aging family member in a
nursing home, rather than keeping them in my home.” This item is very wordy and thus
fails to capture the cultural practice that the researcher was initially attempting to achieve.

For the Aﬁican American behavioral scale items 15, 35, 51, 79, and 97 were
dropped. Items were dropped from this subscale for two reasons, either they had a factor
loading less than .30 or the items loaded higher with the White American behavior

subscale. Only one item within this subscale loaded higher with the White American

54

behavior subscale: “I believe that if a child is not whipped/spanked while misbehaving,
they will only continue to misbehave.” This item had a loading of .13 with the African
American behavior subscale and a factor loading of .32 with the White American
behavior subscale. Because subscales were initialljfconstructed based on traditional and
cultural beliefs for each cultural group represented it was not contextually logically to
remove this item and the item was therefore dropped. The other four dropped items had
a factor loading that ranged ﬁ'om .02 to .14. After examining the dropped items within
this scale the researcher recognized that there were wording issues with several of these
items. For example, item 51 states “I believe in the existence of a Supreme Force.” By
using the word “Supreme Force” this question could have been conﬁrsing or vague to
participants.

The conﬁrmatory factor analysis adds further support for the two scale models.
When conducting the conﬁrmatory factor analysis, the items within the two subscales had
a moderate ﬁt to the overall scale models. A moderate ﬁt to the data was a necessity in
justifying retaining the two dimensions (Thompson & Thompson, 1994). A poor ﬁt
would have resulted in dropping scale items to increase the over all model ﬁt. The
dropping of scale items could have decreased the overall reliability of the scale.
Altogether, the results indicate that both the African American behavior and White
American behavior scales appear to be orthogonal and that they are reliable measures of
the behavioral component of African American acculturation. These ﬁndings are
consistent with theory and previous research on acculturation, which implies that the
behavioral component is a measurable construct in the acculturation process (Berry,

1976; Cuellar et. al., 1993).

55

Cognitive Component

The cognitive component of the Aﬁican American acculturation measure also
yielded two scales of African American preference and White American preference. An
exploratory factor analysis, rotating a two-component solution, yielded two components
that appeared to be a measure of Aﬁican American preference and White American
preference, respectively. The intercorrelation also indicated that these two scales were
separate constructs in that they did not correlate with one another. Furthermore, as with
the Aﬁican American behavior and White American behavior scales, African American
preference and White American preference did not have the same patterns of correlation
with other external variables. Thus indicating, that the two scales appear to be separate
constructs. The Aﬁican American preference and the White American preference scales
were also reliable sub-scales of the Aﬁican American acculturation measure. Each scale
retained all initial items.

The conﬁrmatory factor analysis added .further support for the two-scale model.
When conducting the conﬁrmatory factor analysis, the two subscales had a good ﬁt to the
overall scale models. The items of these two-scale models represented better ﬁts than the
other scales within the MM3A. A good ﬁt to the data was a necessity in justifying
retaining the two dimensions. Altogether, the results indicate that the African American
preference and White American preference scales are measures of the cognitive
component of African American acculturation. This upholds the literature that indicates
that assessing the cognitive component independently of the behavioral component is
important when measuring the construct of acculturation (Berry, 1976; Cuellar et. al.,

1993).

56

Aﬂective Component

Finally, with regards to the affective component of the African American
acculturation measure, the results of the exploratory factor analysis with a two
components varimax rotated solution yielded two components. These two components
were a measure of African American interracial/intra-racial attitude and White American
interracial/intra—racial attitude. Even though two components emerged from the factor
analysis, the Aﬁican American subscale was subsequently dropped. This subscale was
dropped because the scale retained a low alpha of .53. In order be retained as a scale an
alpha of .65 or higher is needed (Bryant & Yamold, 1995). However, The White
American interracial/intra-racial scale was also a reliable sub-scale of the African
American acculturation measure. To retain reliability for the White American
interracial/intra—racial attitude scale several items were dropped.

All dropped items had a factor loading of less than .30. In all there were ﬁve
items dropped from this scale (item 5, item 6, item 12, item 13, item 33). Upon
reviewing the dropped items it appeared that several items lacked conceptual clarity. For
example, item 12 states “I have changed my lifestyle to ﬁt my beliefs about White
American.” This statement could have been interpreted in several ways interpretation
simply depended on the participant.

The conﬁrmatory factor analysis added ﬁrrther support for the one-scale model.
When conducting the conﬁrmatory factor analysis, the White American interracial/intra-
racial subscale had a moderate ﬁt to the overall scale models. A moderate ﬁt to the data

was a necessity in justifying retaining the ﬁnal scale. Altogether, the results indicate that

57

the White American interracial/intra—racial scale is a measure of the affective component
of African American acculturation.

The results indicated that ﬁve statistically reliable dimensions emerged as suppose
to six as initially assumed. The results are in accordance with the literature which views
acculturation as a multiple construct phenomenon (Berry, 1997; Ward, 2001).

Incorporating multidirectional measures into acculturation scales with African
Americans

With regards to measuring acculturation as a multidirectional construct (i.e. a
scale for African Americans and a scale for White Americans), only one of the subscales
provided evidence regarding the necessity to intertwine separate racial subscales rather
than just recoded items within the dimension.
African American Behavior and White American Behavior

The behavioral component had statistically and conceptually signiﬁcant
relationships with several external variables. The difference in signiﬁcant relationships
adds to our knowledge about how to view individuals who fall within either dimension.
For example, there was a signiﬁcant relationship between White American behavior and
income (r = -.23), whereas there was no correlation between Aﬁican American behavior
and income (r = .11). This ﬁnding contradicts other ﬁndings within the literature
regarding acculturation and income, in other studies individuals with a White American
orientation have a higher income than their counterparts (Landrine & Klonoff, 1994;
Snowden & Hines, 1997). There was also a signiﬁcant relationship between the
spirituality variable. Aﬁican American behavior correlated positively and signiﬁcantly

with spirituality, whereas White American behavior correlated negatively and

58

signiﬁcantly with spirituality. This indicates that the more one upholds an African
American behavioral orientation the more important spirituality is in their life. This
ﬁnding is consistent with theory and previous research on Aﬁican American
acculturation (Landrine & Klonoff, 1994). These ﬁndings are signiﬁcant because, if we
used one scale we would make an incorrect assumption by assuming that each group had
the same pattern of correlation. Therefore, this provides evidence that a richer framework
of understanding is gained when two separate dimensions of behavior are included.
African American Preference and White American Preference

Based on the non-signiﬁcant intercorrelation between White American
preference and Aﬁican American preference, it appeared that these two dimensions
would provide separate information. But upon ﬁrrther examination, no conceptual
differences emerged between external variables. Only statistical differences emerged with
the Black friend and White ﬁiend variables. African American preference was positively
and signiﬁcantly correlated with Black friends, and was negatively and signiﬁcantly
correlated with White friends. The same pattern of correlation emerged for the White
American preference scale. White American preference was positively signiﬁcantly
correlated with White friends, and was negatively and signiﬁcantly correlated with Black
ﬁiends. These statistical differences do not justify keeping the scales separate. It is
expected that individuals who preferred African American activities would also prefer to
be friends with other Aﬁican Americans’, therefore even though there was a statistical
relationship the relationship does not provide a strong argument for separating the two
dimensions. This ﬁnding adds support for the argument of having multidimensional

scales, but it does not support the need for multidirectional scales when assessing the

59

cognitive component. Therefore, it is concluded that creating one scale for the cognitive
component and simply using recoded items to assess the mainstream group would obtain
the same information.
African American Inter-racial/intra-racial Attitude and White American Inter-
racial/intra-racial Attitude

This component was not analyzed for directionality because the African
American dimension was dropped due to low scale reliability.

Based on these results, at this point it only seems necessary to view the behavior
component of Aﬁican American acculturation with regards to separate racial scales. The
cognitive subscale can simply use recoded items in order to achieve the same
information. Conclusions regarding the directionality of the affective component cannot
be reached due to reliability concerns with the African American component of the
affective dimension. Even though this is not the conclusion that the researcher hoped to
obtain, this conclusion makes logistical sense. The behavior component for each
subscale (White American and African American) was formed using various cultural and
traditional speciﬁc items in order to ensure that the subscales were culture speciﬁc. Due
to the speciﬁcity of items it would prove to be difﬁcult to intertwine these two separate
scales into one overall scale. In contrast, the construction of the cognitive component
contained virtually identical questions, except White American was substituted for
African American in order to obtain the questions for the Aﬁican American scale.

Using Multidimensionality to Measure Acculturation for African Americans

With regards to multidimensionality, the literature regarding multidimensionality

argues that multidimensional measures provide a richer and clearer framework for

60

understanding individual differences regarding an array of dimensions (Berry, 1997). The
literature states that the acculturation process can be observed in a number of different
domains, including attitudes, values, behaviors and a sense of cultural identity (Ryder, et.
al., 2000). Therefore, the current study sought to provide such a measure for usage
within the Aﬁican American community. The current study argued that this measurement
design would provide a clearer understanding into the many complexities of African
American acculturation. In order to support this argument the various dimensions
encompassed in the measurement design were correlated with one another based on racial
speciﬁcity (i.e. Aﬁ'ican American behavior was correlated with Aﬁican American
preference).
African American Behavior vs. African American Preference

Without statistical analysis, one could assume that the cognitive and behavioral
components are measuring the same construct. There are inconsistent ﬁndings in the
literature regarding the behavioral and cognitive component of acculturation. Some
research has demonstrated that the two are interrelated (Der-Karabetian, 1980; Ullah,
1987). However, other literature indicates they exhibit different patterns of change over
time (Cuellar, et. al., 1995). The research ﬁndings of the current study are in accordance
with the second viewpoint, which argues that they are separate constructs. The Aﬁican
American behavior and Aﬁican American preference components have different patterns
of correlations with the various external factors, thus illustrating that they are separate
constructs. For example, the external variable of spirituality had a signiﬁcant correlation
with African American Behavior (r = .46), but there was no correlation with African

American preference (r = .03). Thus this indicates that just because an individual has a

61

strong preference for African American settings does not mean that they will have the
same religious orientations as their counterparts who have a strong Aﬁican American
behavioral orientation. Furthermore, Aﬁican American preference correlated positively
and signiﬁcantly with the Black friend variable. This same variable correlated negatively
and signiﬁcantly with the White ﬁiend variable. Aﬁican American behavior did not
display a statistically signiﬁcant relationship with either variable. This means that
individuals with an African American behavior orientation and those with an Aﬁican
American preference orientation view friendships and spirituality differently. If these
two dimensions were measuring the same construct, the correlation relationships would
have been the same. This illustrates the need for including both dimensions when
assessing African American acculturation, because if we had used only one dimension we
would have missed pivotal information regarding African American acculturation.

White American Behavior vs. White American Preference

Both subscales behaved differently with regards to the Black ﬁiend variable, the

White friend variable, the income variable and the spirituality variable included. For
example, those individuals who displayed a White American behavior orientation
displayed a statistically signiﬁcant relationship with the income variable, whereas those
individuals displaying a White American preference orientation displayed no relationship
with the income variable. This indicates that individuals displaying a White American
behavior orientation have a lower household income. Also the White American behavior
scale correlated negatively and signiﬁcantly with the spirituality variable. There was no
relationship between White American preference and spirituality. This conclusion

indicates that individuals, who display a White American behavior orientation will be

62

less likely to view spirituality as important in their life. No assumptions can be made
about spirituality and White American preference. These ﬁndings are important, because
if both scales are not included incorrect assumptions can be made. Also if these two
dimensions, were measuring the same construct, they would have displayed the same
pattern of correlation across variables.
White American Behavior vs. White American Interracial/intra-racial Attitude

Individuals who display a White American behavior orientation correlated
negatively and signiﬁcantly with the spirituality variable and the income variable. The
White American interracial/inn‘a-racial attitude scale did not correlate with either scale.
This indicates that individuals with a White American behavioral orientation would have
a lower income and they would also view spirituality as less important. The differences
in these correlation patterns between the two scales are important, because without them
incorrect assumptions can be made. It can be assumed that since each scale is assessing a
White American orientation that they are one and the same; based on the patterns of
correlations, this would be an incorrect assumption. These results indicate that it is
necessary to view White American behavior and White American interracial/intra-racial
attitude as two separate scales when measuring African American acculturation.

White American Preference vs. White American Interracial/intra-racial Attitude

White American preference had a signiﬁcant positive correlation with White
American ﬁiends and a signiﬁcant negative correlation with Aﬁican American friends.
This pattern of correlation is expected. It is expected that individuals who have a White
American preference orientation would have ﬁiends who were mostly White. However,

there was no relationship between White American interracial/intra-racial attitude and the

63

friendship variable: Black friends and White friends. If these scales were measuring the
same construct it is expected that White American interracial/intra-racial attitude would
have the same pattern of correlations. These results indicate that there is a signiﬁcant
difference between these two subscales, thus concluding that the two should be viewed
separately when attempting to understand the White American preference and the White
American interracial/intra-racial component of African American acculturation.

In essence, a richer understanding of the phenomenon was achieved by using the
behavioral, affective, and cognitive components. According to this study, all components
are needed to achieve a clear understanding of African American acculturation. By
eliminating various components critical information is not obtained and incorrect
assumptions can be made. These results are in accordance with other multidimensional
models, which have been used within the Hispanic community (Berry, 1997; Ward,
2001)

Limitations and Implications for Future Research

Although there were several signiﬁcant ﬁndings regarding the scales of the
MM3A, no study is without limitations. The ﬁrst study lirrritation is in regards to
measuring the MM3A. The scales of the MM3A represent items thought to represent the
mainstream culture as well as the African American culture. With the present study no
individuals representing the mainstream culture were surveyed. Because of this, there is
no sure way of knong if the items chosen to represent White American culture are truly
representative of that culture or if they are just the manifestation of one culture’s biases

towards another culture. A future study should give the sample to individuals

64

representing the mainstream culture, since this cultural group is largely represented
throughout the various components MM3A.

A second limitation is that the measure was tested speciﬁcally on African
Americans living in the Detroit, Lansing and East Lansing communities. Even though it
is hoped that participants in this study encompass a large geographical background due to
the inclusion of college and graduate students into the sample, one should be cautious
when generalizing the ﬁndings found in this study to the general African American
population. A future study should take into account the various geographical origins of
individuals participating in the study to see if any acculturation differences emerge as a
result of where the individual has spent the majority of their adult life.

A third limitation to the study design has problems with validity. Validation for
the affective component did not emerge. Validation for this component did not emerge
because of reliability issues with both dimensions of this component: African American
interracial/intra—racial attitude and White American interracial/intra-racial attitude. With
regards to the White American dimension, the correlations between the affective and
cognitive dimension relating to White Americans are extremely large (i.e. r = .93; r =
.78). Also, none of the external scales used correlated with this subscale. This indicates
that these dimensions may be dependent upon one another. Although, this scales
reliability indicates that the items are measuring a particular construct consistently.
Without further validation, there is no absolute certainty what construct this scale is
measuring. Therefore further validation is needed for this scale to ensure that the concept

is measuring what it purports to measure.

65

After further tests of validation are conducted for the various scale dimensions,
steps can be taken to integrate all dimensions into one scale of acculturation for usage
within the African American community. Creating one scale of acculturation can be
done because each component of the scale contains two separate subscales: an African
American Orientation Subscale (AAOS) and a White American Orientation Subscale
(WOS). The sum of the AAOS scale can be divided by the total number of items in that
subscale to obtain a mean score for that subscale (the same can be done for the WOS
scale). The WOS mean is subtracted from the AAOS mean to obtain a linear
acculturation score that represents an individual’s score along a continuum from African
American-oriented to White-oriented. The acculturation score can be used to obtain an
acculturation level for the subject by employing the suggested cutting scores. The cutting
scores will be selected based on standard deviation units ﬁom the mean of the combined
sample of the individuals selected for this study.

The integration of the dimensions into one scale will create a
multidimensional/multidirectional measure of acculturation for African Americans’. As
indicated earlier, this scale will assess various components of the acculturation process as
well as allowing for the inclusion of individuals who fall within the bicultural category.

The ﬁnal limitation regarding this study is that all ﬁndings are exploratory. The
steps taken within this research design represent groundbreaking research within the area
of acculturation for the Aﬁican American population, therefore none of the ﬁndings are
absolute, and thus should not be treated as such. Replication studies need to be

conducted in order to ensure the validity and reliability of all indicated results.

66

Conclusion

In conclusion, the current study sought to construct a multidimensional
/multidirectional measure of African American acculturation (MM3A). This is the ﬁrst
step towards understanding acculturation as a multidimensional/multidirectional measure
within the African American community. Theorists who adopt a multidimensional
perspective argue that acculturation can be more completely understood when heritage
and mainstream cultural identities are seen as being relatively independent of one another
(e.g., Berry, 1997; Ramirez, 1984; Zak, 1973). Thus, individuals in the
multidirectional/multidimensional model may adopt many of the values and behaviors of
the mainstream culture without giving up facets of self-identity developed in their culture
of origin.

Based on the ﬁndings of this study it is indicated that the
multidimensional/mu]tidirectional model proposed within the Hispanic literature could
also be employed within the African American community. By employing multiple
dimensions a clearer understanding of a confusing topic is achieved. In the literature it is
argued that it is difﬁcult to assess African American acculturation due to several reasons:
lack of a distinct culture, or Aﬁican American’s are simply a race not a culture. By
taking a myopic approach to understanding the acculturation process of Aﬁican
Americans, researchers are only adding to the confusion. Therefore, this study sought to
add multidimensional and multidirectional models into the research design in an attempt
to get a clearer understanding of the acculturation process.

Regarding multidimensionality, reliable sub-scales emerged that assessed the

behavioral, affective and cognitive processes that are affected during the acculturation

67

process. This was a ﬁrst attempt to merge all these processes when attempting to
measure the phenomenon of acculturation within the African American population. This
study has helped address a gap within the literature regarding African American
acculturation by illustrating that in order to address acculturation within this cultural
group it is necessary to assess more than the behavioral component; one should also
assess the cognitive and affective component of individuals. This study also argued that
multidirectional measures need to be utilized when measuring acculturation; according to
the ﬁndings of this study, this factor is true only with the behavioral component. When
using the cognitive component, recoded items assessing elements of both culture groups
can be utilized. In essence, based on the ﬁndings of this study, it is indicated that a
clearer understanding of the acculturation process for African American’s is achieved

when using a multidimensional/mu]tidirectional model.

68

References

Anderson, J., Moeschberger, M., Chen, M. S., Kunn, P., Wewers, M. E., & Guthrie, R.
(1993). An acculturation scale for Southeast Asians. Social Psychiatry and
Psychiatric Epidemiology, 28, 134-141.

Argyle, M. (1969). Social interaction. London: Methuen.

Barona, A., & Miller, J .A. (1994). Short Acculturation Scale for Hispanic Youth (SASH-
Y): A preliminary report. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 16, 155-162.

Baker, F.M. (1987). The Aﬁo-American life cycle: Success, failure, and mental health.
Journal of the National Medical Association, 79(6), 625-633.

Bass, BA. (1982). The validity of socioeconomic factors in the assessment and
treatment of Afro-Americans. In B. A. Bass, G. E. Wyatt, & G. J. Powell (Eds),
The Afro-American family: Assessment, treatment, and research issues_(pp. 69-
83). New York: Grune & Stratton.

Bennent, L. (1996). Before the Mayﬂower. Baltimore : Penguin Books.

Bentler, RM. (1990). Comparative ﬁt indices in structural modeling. Psychological
Bulletin, 107, 238-246.

Berry, J. W. (1976). Human ecology and cognitive style: Comparative studies in cultural
and psychological adaptation. London: Sage.

Berry, J .W. (1980). Social and cultural change. In H.C. Triandis & R. Brislin (Eds),
Handbook of cross-cultural psychology, Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Berry, J. W. (1984). Cultural relations in plural societies. In N. Miller & M. Brewer
(Eds), Groups in contact. New York: Academic Press.

Berry, J. W., Kim, U., Minde T., Mok, D. (1987). Comparative studies of acculturative
stress. International Migration Review, 21, 491-511.

Berry, J .W., Kim, U. (1988). Acculturation and mental health. In P. Dasen, J .W. Berry,
& N. Sartorius (Eds), Health and cross-cultural psychology (pp.207-236).
London: Sage.

Billingsley, A. (1974). Black families in white America (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.

Bochner, S. (1972). Problems in culture learing. Inn S. Bochner & P. Wicks (Eds),
Overseas students in Australia (pp. 65-81). Sydney: University of New South
Wales Press.

69

Bochner, S. (1986). Coping with unfamiliar cultures: Adjustment or culture learning?
Australian Journal of Psychology, 38, 347-358.

Boyd-Franklin, N. (1989). Black families in therapy. New York: Guilford.

Bremner, RH. (1974). Children and youth in America: A documentary history.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Brown, LS. (1989). New voices, new visions: Toward a lesbian/ gay paradigm for
psychology. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 13(4), 445-458.

Buriel, R. (1975). Cognitive styles among three generations of Mexican American
children. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 6, 417-429.

Bumarn, M.A., Hough, R.L., Karno, M., Escobar, J.L., & Telles, CA. (1987).
Acculturation and lifetime prevalence of psychiatric disorders among Mexican
Americans in Los Angeles. Journal of Health and Social Behavior ,28, 89-102.

Caetano, R. (1987). Acculturation and drinking patterns among US. Hispanics. British
Journal of Addictions, 82, 789-799.

Caetano, R. (1987). Alcohol use and depression among US. Hispanics. British Journal
of Addiction, 82, 1245-1251.

Carter, R. T. & Helms J .E. (1987). The relationship of Black value-orientations to racial
identity attitudes. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development,
1 85-195.

Chambers, V. (1997). Say amen, indeed. American Way, 30(4), 38-43, 102-105.

Comrey, A (1973). A ﬁrst course in factor analysis. New York: Academic Press.

Comrey, A (1988). Factor analytic methods of scale development in personality and
clinical psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 754-761.

Cronbach, L., J., & Meehl, PE. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests.
Psycholgical Bulletin, 52, 281-302.

Cuellar, I., Hanis, I. C., J asso, R. (1980). An acculturation scale for Mexican American
normal and clinical populations. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Science, 2, 89-
102.

Cuellar, 1., Arnold, B., & Maldonado, R. (1995). Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican

Americans-II: A revision of the original ARSMA scale. Hispanic Journal of
Behavioral Sciences, 17(3), 275-304.

70

Cuellar, 1., Arnold, B., Gonzalez, G. (1995). Cognitive referents of acculturation
assessment of cultural constructs in Mexican Americans. Journal of Community
Psychology, 23, 339-356.

Curtain, RD. (1969). Atlantic slave trade: A census. Madison: University of Wisconsin
Press.

Dana, RH. (1988). Culturally diverse groups and MMPI interpretation. Professional
minorities: Research and Practice, 19, 490-495.

Dana, R.H., & Whatley, PR. (1988). When does a difference make a difference? MMPI
scores and African Americans. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 47, 417-440.

Dana, R.H., & Whatley, PR. (1991). When does a difference make a difference? Mlyﬂ’l
scores and Aﬁican-Arnericans. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 47, 417-440.

Dana, R. H. (1993). Multicultural Assessment Perspectives for Professional Psychology.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon. '

Der-Karabetian, A. (1980). Relation of two cultural identities of Arrnenian-Americans.
Psychological Reports, 47, 123-128.

DeVellis, R (1991). Scale Development; Theory, and Applications. Applied Social
Research Method_,26, 12-113.

Dion, K. L. & Dion, K. K. (1996). Chinese adaptation to foreign cultures. In M. H.
Bond (Ed.), The handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 457-478). Hong Kong:
Oxford University Press.

Domino, G., & Acosta, A. (1987). The relation of acculturation and values in Mexican
Americans. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 9, 131-150.

Dressler, W.W. (1982). Hypertension and culture change: Acculturation and disease in
the West Indies. New York: Redgrave.

Dressler, W.W., Mata, A., Chavez, A., & Viteri, FE. (1987). Arterial blood pressure and
modernization in a Mexican community. _Social Science and Medicine, 24, 679-
687.

Fairchild, H.H. (1985). Black, Negro, or Afro-American? The differences are crucial!
Journal of Black Studies, 16(1), 47-55.

Gamble, V. N. (1997). Under the shadow of Tuskegee: African Americans and health
care. American Journal of Public Health, 87(1 1), 1773-1778).

71

Genovese, ED. (1974). Roll, Jordan, roll: The world slaves made. New York. Pantheon
Books.

Ghiselli, E. E., Campbell, J. P., & Zedeck, S. (1981). Measurement theory for the
behavioral sciences. San Francisco: Freeman.

Ghuman, P., (1994). Canadian or Indo-Canadian: A study of South Asian adolescents.
International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 4, 229-243.

Goldberg, D. (1987). Raking the ﬁeld of the discourse of racism. Journal of Black
Studies, 18(1), 58-71.

Gonzalez, R., & Cuellar, 1., (1983). The readmission and prognosis of Mexican
American psychiatric inpatients. Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 17, 81-
94.

Gordon, M.M. (1964). Assimilation in American life. New York: Oxford University
Press.

Gould, SJ. (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York: Norton.

Graves, T. (1967). Acculturation, access and alcohol in a tri-ethnic community.
American Anthropologist, 69, 306-321.

Grifﬁth, J. (1983). Relationship between acculturation and psychological impairment in
adult Mexican-Americans. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 5, 431-459.

Greene, R.L. (1987). Ethnicity and MMPI performance: A review. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 497-512.

Hines, A. M., & Caetano, R. (in press). Alcohol and AIDS-related sexual behavior among
Hispanics: Acculturation and gender differences. Journal of AIDS Education and
Prevention.

Heurtin-Roberts, S., Snowden, L., R., & Miller, L. (1997). Expressions of anxiety in
African Americans: Ethnography and the epidemiological catchment area studies.
Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry, 21, 337-363.

Hocoy, D. (1996). Empirical distinctiveness between cognitive and affective elements of
Ethnic identity and scales for their measurement. In H. Grad, A. Blanco, & J.
Georgas (Eds), Key issues in cross cultural psychology (pp. 128-137). Lisse, The
Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Hofﬁnan, T., Dana, R.H., & Bolton, B. (1985). Measured acculturation and MMP-Il68
performance of Native American adults. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
16, 243-256.

72

Holloway, J ., & Vass, W.K. (1993). The African heritage of American English.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Holmes, T. H. & Rahe, R. H. (1967). The Social Readjustrnent Rating Scale. Journal of
Psychosomatic Research, 11, 213-218.

Jones, J. M. (1991). Psychological models of race: What have they been and what
should they be ? In J. D. Goodchilds (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on human
diversity in American (pp. 7-46). Washington DC: American Psychological
Association.

Joreskog, K.G., & Sorbom, D. (1986). LISREL VI: Analysis of linear structural
relationships by maximum likelihood, instrumental variables, and least squares
methods (4th ed.). Uppsula, Sweden: University of Uppsula Department of
Statistics.

Kim, J., & Muellar, CW. (1978). Introduction to factor analysis: What it is and how to

do it. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social
Sciences, Series No. 07-013. Beverly Holls, CA: Sage.

Knight, G. P., & Kagan, S. (1977). Acculturation of pro-social and competitive
behaviors among second- and third-generation Mexican-American children.
Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 8, 273-284.

Kochman, T. (1987). The ethnic component of Black language and culture. In J .S.

Kosmitzki, C. (1996). The reafﬁrrnation of cultural identity in cross-cultural encounters.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 238-248.

Phinney & M. J. Rotherarn (Eds), Children ’s ethnic socialization: Pluralism and
development (pp.219-238). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Pope-Davis, D., Liu, W., Ledesma-Jones, S., Nevitt, J. (2000). African American
Acculturation and Black Racial Identity : A Preliminary Investigation. Journal
of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 120-134.

LaFromboise, T., Coleman, H., & Gerton, J. (1993). Psychological impact of
biculturalism. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 395-412.

Lai, J., & Linden, W. (1993). The smile of Asia: Acculturation effects on symptom
reporting. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 25, 303-313.

Lambert, W. E., Moghaddam, F. M., Sorin, J., & Sorin, S. (1990). Assimilation versus
multiculturalism: Views from a community in France. Sociological Forum, 5,
387-41 1.

73

Landrine, H., & Klonoff, EA. (1992). Culture and health-related schema: Review and
proposal for interdisciplinary integration. Health Psychology, 11, 267-276.

Landrine, H., Klonoff, E.A., & Richardson, J.L. (1993). Cultural diversity in the
predictors of adolescent substance use. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the Association for Advancement of Behavior Therapy, Atlanta, GA.

Landrine H., Richardson, J .L., Klonoff, E.A., & Flay, B. (1994). Cultural diversity in
the predictors of adolescent cigarette smoking. Journal of Behavioral Medicine,
17(3), 331-346.

Landrine, H., & Klonoff, E. A. (1994). The African American Acculturation Scale:
Development, reliability, and validity. Journal of Black Psychology, 20, 104-127.

Landrine, H., & Klonoff, E. A. (1996). The Schedule of Racist Events: A measure of
racial discrimination and a study of its negative physical and mental
consequences. Journal of Black psychology, in press.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, coping and appraisal. New York:
Springer.

Leigh, J .W., & Green, J. W. (1982). The structure of the black community: The
knowledge base for social services. In J .W. Green (Ed.), Cultural awareness in
human services (pp.94-121). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Manly, J. J., Miller, S. W., Robert, K. R., Byrd D., Reilly, J ., Velasquez, R.J., &
Accuzzo, DP, (1998). The effect of African-American acculturation on
neuropsychological test performance in normal and HIV-positive individuals.
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 4, 291-302.

Marin, G., Sabogal, E, Marin, B., Otero-Sabogal, R., & Perez-Stable, EJ. (1987).
Development of a short acculturation scale for Hispanics. Hispanic Journal of
Behavioral Science, 2, 21-34.

Mavreas, V., Bebbington, P., & Der, G. (1989). The structure and validity of
acculturation: Analysis of an acculturation scale. Social Psychiatry and
Psychiatric Epidemiology, 24, 233-240.

McAdoo, HP. (1981). Black families, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Mendoza, R. H., & Martinez, J .L. (1981). The measurement of acculturation. In A.
Baron (Ed.), Explorations in Chicano psychology (pp.71-82). New York: Praeger.

74

Moghaddam, F.M., Taylor, D.M., & Lalonde, R. N. (1987). Individualistic and collective
integration strategies among Iranins in Canada. International Journal of
Psychology, 22, 301-313.

Montgomery, G.T., & Orozco, S. (1985). Mexican Americans’ performance on the
MMPI as a function of level of acculturation. Journal of Clinical Psychology,
41, 203-212.

Myers, H. F. (1982). Research on the Afro-American family: A critical review. In B. A.
Bass, G. E. Wyatt, & G.J. Powell (Eds), The Afro-American family: Assessment,
treatment, and research issues (pp.35-68). New York: Grune & Stratton.

Neff, J. A., Hoppe, S. K., Perea, P. (1987). Acculturation and alcohol use : drinking
patterns and problems among Anglo- and Mexican-American male drinkers.
Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 9, 151-181.

Negy, C., & Woods, D. J. (1992). The importance of acculturation in understanding
research with Hispanic Americans. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 12,
224-247.

Nobles, W. (1980). African philosophy; Foundations for Black psychology. In R. Jones
(Ed.), Black Psychology (pp.23-36). New York: Harper & Row.

Ohnedo, E. L., & Padilla, A.M. ( 1978). Empirical and construct validation of a measure
of acculturation for Mexican-Americans. Journal of Social Psychology, 105, 179-
187.

Olmedo, EL. (1979). Acculturation: A psychometric perspective. American
Psychologist, 34, 1061-1070.

Ostrowska, A., & Bochenska, D. (1996). Ethnic stereotypes among Polish and German
Silesians. In H. Grad, A. Blanco, & J. Georgas (Eds), Key issues in cross-
cultural psychology (pp. 102-113). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Seitlinger.

Padilla, A. (1980). Acculturation. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Pipes, W.H. (1981). Old-tirne religion. In H. McAdoo (Ed.), Black families (pp. 54-76).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Ramirez, MI. (1984). Assessing and understanding biculturalism-multiculturalism in
Mexican-American adults. In J. L. Martinez (Ed), Chicano psychology (2“d ed.,
pp. 77-94). New York: Academic Press.

Randell-David, E. (1989). Strategies for working with culturally diverse communities
and clients. Washington, DC: Association for the Care of Children’s Health.

75

Redﬁeld, R., Linton, R., & Herskovits, M.H. (1936). Memorandum on the study of
acculturation. American anthropologist, 38, 149-152.

Rogler, L.H., Cortes, D.E., & Malgady, R.G. (1991). Acculturation and mental health
status among Hispanics: Convergence and new directions for research. American
Psychologist, 46(6), 585-597.

Rosenthal, D., Bell, R., Demetriou, A., & Efklides, A. (1989). From collectivism to
individualism? The acculturation of Greek immigrants in Australia.
International Journal of Psychology, 24, 57-71.

Ryder, A. G., Alden, L. E., & Paulhus, D. L. (1999). Cultural identities in transition: A
comparison of two acculturation models. Poster presented at the 107th Annual
Convention of the American Psychological Association, Boston, MA.

Sabogal, F., Otero-Sabogal R., Marin, B., & Marin G. (1989). Perceived self-efﬁcacy to
avoid cigarette smoking and addiction: Differences between Hispanics and Non-
Hispanics Whites. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 11, 136-147.

Sheder, R., & LeVine, R. A. (1984). Culture theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.

Shore, B. (1991). Twice born, once conceived: Meaning construction and cultural
cognition. American Anthropologist, 93, 9-27.

Social Science Research Council Stunmer Seminar (1954). Acculturation: An
exploratory explanation. American Anthropologist, 56, 973-1002.

Sodowsky, G.R., Lai, J ., & Plake, BS. (1991). Psychometric properties of the American
International Relations Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51,
201 -2 1 5.

Snowden, L., R., Libby, A., & Thomas, K. (1997). Health-care related attitudes and
utilization among African American women. Women ’s Health: Research on

Gender, Behavior and Policy, 3, 301-314.

Snowden, L. R., & Hines, A. M.(1999). A scale to assess African American
Acculturation. Journal of Black Psychology, 25(1), 36-47.

Sowell, T. (1994). Race and culture: A worldview. New York: Basic Books.

Stonequist, E. V. (1935). The problem of the marginal man. American Journal of
Sociology, 41, 1-12.

Stricker, L. J ., (1980). “SES” indexes: What do they measure? Basic and Applied Social
Psychology, 1, 91-101.

76

Suinn, R.M., Rickard-Figueroa, K., Lew, S., & Vigil, P. (1987). The Suinn-Lew Asian
Self-Identity Acculturation Scale: An initial report. Education and Psychological
Measurement, 47, 401-402.

Stonequist, E.V. (1937). The marginal man: A study in personality and culture conﬂict,

Szapocznik, J ., & Kurtines, W. (1980). Acculturation, biculturalism, and adjustment
among Cuban Americans. In A.M. Padilla (Ed.), Acculturation: Theory, models,
and some new ﬁndings (pp. 139-159). Boulder, CO: Westview.

Szapocznik, J ., Scopetta, M.A., Kurtines, W.M., & Aranalde, M.A. (1978). Theory and
measurement of acculturation. Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 12, 113-
130.

Tajfel, H. (Ed.). (1978). Diﬁ’erentiation between social groups: Studies in the psychology
of inter-group relations. London: Academic Press.

Taj fel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Taylor, V. L., Hurley, E. C., & Riley, M. T. (1986). The inﬂuence of acculturation upon
the adjustment of preschool Mexican-American children of single-parent families.
Family Therapy, 13, 249-256.

Thomas, L., & Thompson, B. (1994, November). Perceptions of control over health: A
confirmatory LISREL construct validity study. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Nashville, TN.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 379 329).

Tinsley, H.E.A., & Tinsley, DJ. (1987). Uses of factor analysis in counseling
psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 414-424.

Triandis, H.C., Kashima, Y., Shirnada, E., & Villareal, M. (1986). Acculturation indices
as a means of conﬁrming cultural differences. International Journal of
Psychology, 21, 43-70.

Ullah, P. (1987). Self-deﬁnition and psychological group formation in an ethnic minority.
British Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 19-23.

Van den Berghe, PK. (1978). Race and racism: A comparative approach._New York:
John Wiley.

Ward, C. (1996). Before and after cross-cultural transition: A study of New Zealand
volunteers on ﬁeld assignments. In H. Grad, A. Blanco, & J. Georgas (Eds), Key
issues in cross-cultural psychology (pp.138-154). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets
& Zeitlinger.

77

Ward, C. (2001). The A, B, Cs, of Acculturation. In D. Matsumoto (Ed), The Handbook
of Culture & Psychology (pp. 411-445). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wells, K. B., Golding, J .M., Hough, R.L. Bumarn, M.A. & Karno, M. (1989).
Acculturation and the probability of use of health services by Mexican
Americans. Health Services Research, 24(2), 237-257.

Wong-Reiger, D., Quintana, D. (1987). Comparative acculturation of Southeast Asian
and Hispanic immigrants and sojoumers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
18, 345-362.

Wyatt, G. E. (1991). Examining ethnicity versus race in AIDS related sex research.
Social Science Medicine ,33(1), 37-45.

Yao, EL. (1979). The assimilation of contemporary Chinese immigrants. Journal of
Psychology, 101, 107-113.

Yee, A. H., Fairchild, H.H., Weizman, F., & Wyatt, GB. (193). Addressing
psychology’s problems with race. American Psychologist, 48, 1132-1140.

Zak, I. (1973). Dimensions of Jewish-American identity. Psychological Reports, 33,
891-900.

Zuckerman, M. (1990). Some dubious premises in research and theory on racial
differences. American Psychologist, 45, 1297-1303.

78

Appendix A
Consent Form
A Multidimensional Measure of A frican American Acculturation

You have been asked to participate in a study pertaining to African American culture
within the United States. Your participation in this study will add to the knowledge of
group differences, as they exist within the African American culture. The following
questions assess your feelings about your culture as well as that of the mainstream
culture. No one theme is emphasized in this study, rather we are attempting to use a
combination of themes to gain an understanding of African American culture as it relates
to life in the United States.

Your participation in this study is strictly conﬁdential. You will be identiﬁed by an
identiﬁcation number rather than your name, student identiﬁcation number, or social
secmity number.

If at any time you feel uncomfortable with the content of this study please be aware that
you can discontinue at any time.

No compensation will be given for your participation in this study.

It is estimated that the time required to complete the study is estimated to be from 30-45
minutes.

If you have any questions regarding this study please feel free to contact the investigator,
Aisha Smith by phone: (517)-353-9925, email: smithaisha@hotmail.com, or regular mail:
135 Snyder Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824. If you have questions or concerns regarding
your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisﬁed at any time with any aspect of this
study, you may contact-anonyrnously, if you wish-Ashir Kumar, M.D., Chair of the
University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) by phone:
(517)355-2180, fax: (517) 432-4503, email: ucrihs@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds
Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

If you are comfortable with your participation in the study please sign at the bottom of
this page, if not please turn the unsigned consent form in to the researcher.

Thank you for your participation!

Your signature below indicates your voluntary agreement to participate in this study.

Signature:

 

Date:

 

79

Appendix B
Demographic Sheet

Multidimensional Measure of African American Acculturation
For these questions please ﬁll in or circle'the appropriate information.
1. __ What is your present age?
2. What is your gender ?
1. Male

2. Female

3. What state have you lived the majority of your adult life in?

 

4. What is your marital status?
Never married
Married

Divorced
Widowed
Cohabitating
Other:

QMPPN!‘

5. Indicate the highest level of education you received:

1. 8th grade of Less

2. Some High School

3. High School Graduate

4. Some College/Vocational Training
5. College Graduate

6. Graduate School

6. Which of the following best describes your current annual (yearly) income?

Less than $14,000
$14,000 - $24,999
$25,000 - $34,999
$35,000 - $44,999
$45,000 - $54,999
$55,000 — and Higher

9999!”?

7. What do you consider your racial or ethnic background to be?
1. African American
2. White American
3. Hispanic American

80

4. Native American

5. Other

(If you identify with any racial background other than African American
please inform the researcher at this time).

 

8. What is the ethnicity (race) of your neighbors on your left hand side?

 

1. African American

2. White American

3. Hispanic American

4. Asian American

5. Other

6. You are not sure of your neighbor’s race.

9. What is the ethnicity (race) of your neighbors on your right hand side?
1. African American

 

2. White American

3. Hispanic American

4. Asian American

5. Other

6. You are not sure of your neighbor’s race.

10. What is the majority racial group represented by the individuals living on your
street?
1. Mostly Aﬁican American Street
2. Mostly White American Street

3. Ethnically Mixed Street (street representing a variety of racial groups)

For the following questions please use the given choices. Circle the answer that is
most appropriate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

None Less Than Half About Half More Than Half All
1 2 3 4 5
11. How many of your friends are African American? 1 2 3 4 5
12. How many of your friends are White American? 1 2 3 4 5
13. How many of your best-friends are African American? 1 2 3 4 5
14. How many of your best-friends are White American? 1 2 3 4 5

 

 

 

 

 

81

 

 

 

Appendix C

The following section asks questions pertaining to your participation in religious or

spiritual activity.

For each one please tell me whether you do the following: never, rarely, usually, often or

always.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Never Rarely Usually Often Always
1 2 3 4 5
a. How often do you usually attend religious services? 1 2 3 4 5
b. Do you belong to or participate in church clubs or organizations? 1 2 3 4 5
c. Besides regular service, how often do you take part in other 1 2 3 4 5
activities at your place of worship?
(1. How often do you read religious books or other religious materials? 1 2 3 4 5
c. How often do you watch or listen to religious programs on 1 2 3 4 5
TV or radio?
f. How often do you pray? I 2 3 4 5
_g. How often do you ask someone to pray for you? 1 2 3 4 5
h. How reliiious would you say you are? 1 2 3 4 5
i. When you were growmg up how often was religion talked 1 2 3 4 5
about in your home?

 

82

 

 

Appendix D
Multidimensional Measure of African American Acculturation

The following questions assess your feelings about your culture as well as that of other
cultures. No one theme is emphasized in this study, rather we are attempting to use a
combination of themes to gain an understanding of African American culture as it relates
to life in the United States. In this section we are interested in your cultural beliefs.

Please choose the answer that best describes how often you do or feel each statement.
Please try to answer all questions, but if any one question makes you uncomfortable
please feel free to skip to the next item.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Strongly Disagree Slightly Disagree Slightly Agree Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6
1. If I had a problem, I would discuss it with a family 1 2 3 4 5 6
member or a close personal friend.
2. I consider my parents, siblings, grandparents, 1 2 3 4 5 6
aunts, uncles and cousins all to be a
part of my immediate family.
3. I like reading books that are written by White Americans. 1 2 3 4 5 6
4. I am married to/would marry a White American. 1 2 3 4 5 6
5. I have difﬁculty identifying with the culture of 1 2 3 4 5 6
Aﬁican American people.
6. Ifeel uncomfortable around African Americans. 1 2 3 4 5 6
7. I like listening to music that is created by White American artists. 1 2 3 4 5 6
8. I believe that older African Americans are wise. I 2 3 4 5 6
9. I like to work with White Americans. 1 2 3 4 5 6
10. I belreve that I should not be held responsible for the l 2 3 4 5 6
JIODICIIIS of my family members.
11. I like to date other African Americans. 1 2 3 4 5 6
12. I have changed my lifestyle to ﬁt my beliefs about 1 2 3 4 5 6
White Americans.
13. I believe that African Americans use racism as an 1 2 3 4 5 6
excuse for their failures.
14. I like/would like for my children to attend school 1 2 3 4 5 6
with mostly White Americans.
15. I celebrate Kwanzaa. 1 2 3 4 5 6
l6. Ibelieve prayer “changes things.” 1 2 3 4 5 6
17. I would rearrange my life to accommodate an aging family 1 2 3 4 5 6
member.
18. I feel uncomfortable around White Americans. 1 2 3 4 5 6

 

83

 

 

 

Strongly Disagree Slightly Disagree Slightly Agree Agree

Disagree
1 2 3 4 5

 

 

 

 

 

Strongly

Agree

 

 

19.

I only consider my parents and siblings as a part of my immediate
family.

N
U)
&

 

20.

I feel annoyed when other people do better than me.

 

21.

My successes can be attributed to the contributions of my family.

 

22.

I believe in miracles.

 

23.

I believe that disciplining children, stiﬂes their creative expression.

 

24.

I enjoy being part of a group.

 

25.

I like going to movies or seeing plays that have an Aﬁican
American cast.

paHH—a—ap—a

NNNNNN
UJUJUJUJUJUJ
nb-b-hh-h-b

UtkltUtt/tkltklt
O\C\O\O\O\O\

 

26.

I ﬁnd it hard to trust most White Americans.

 

27.

I believe that God was created to help people not fear death.

 

28.

I participate in July 4th activities (marches, picnics, festivals, etc.).

 

29.

I would sacriﬁce my self-interest for the beneﬁt of my family.

 

30.

I celebrate St. Patrick’s Day.

 

31.

I believe that it is disrespectful for a child to interrupt an adults’
conversation.

r—ar—sr—or—ar—or—t
NNNNNN

wwwwww
h-h-b-h-h-h

LthtJtUtklIUt
O\O\O\O\O\O\

 

32.

I keep my personal life private from my family.

 

33.

I feel that some African Americans are just as racist as Whites.

 

34.

I like reading books that are written by Aﬁican Americans.

 

35.

I believe that my happiness depends on the happiness of those
around me.

p—Ip—Ap—tp—L

NNNN
wwww
h-ﬁh-h

MMML’I

O\O\O\O\

 

36.

I take pride in the accomplishments of other African Americans.

 

37.

My successes are attributed mainly to my own abilities.

 

38.

I believe that religion can hglp me solve my problems.

 

39.

I would rather place an aging family member in a nursing home,
rather than keeping them in my home.

papa—aha

NNNN
murmur
##h-ﬁ

LII'JIMUI
O\O\O\O\

 

40.

I believe that education, not age, is a measure of wisdom.

N
DJ
h

LII
ON

 

41.

I am more concerned with my status in life (i.e. educational,
ﬁnancial, social) rather than the accomplishments of other African
Americans.

N
b.)
.h

kit

 

42.

I believe that a child should be free to speak whenever they have
something to add to the conversation.

 

43.

There is no one force in control of the things going on in the
world.

 

44.

I would rather be on my own.

 

45.

I pray before I make a major life decision.

 

46.

I believe that I have my own, and it is up to others to get theirs.

N
b»)
h

0'1

 

47.

I believe that “time out” is a sufﬁcient method for disciplining a
child.

N
b)
A

05

 

 

48.

I feel pride in the successes of other African Americans.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

84

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Strongly Disagree Slightly Disagree Slightly Agree Agree Strongly

Disagree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6

49. I identify with the Aﬁican American culture. 1 2 3 4 5 6

50. I believe that White people are intellectually superior to African 1 2 3 4 5 6
Americans

51. I believe in the existence of a Supreme Force. 1 2 3 4 5 6

52. I believe that if I work hard I can improve my status in life. 1 2 3 4 5 6

53. In this country, all African Americans regardless of income or 1 2 3 4 5 6
education are affected by racism.

54. I believe that African American parents should surround their 1 2 3 4 5 6
children with Black art, music, and literature.

55. I believe that religion provides personal closeness with God. 1 2 3 4 5 6

56. I believe that I am responsible for creating my own meaning and 1 2 3 4 5 6
purpose in life.

58. If a family member were in need, it would be up to them to deal 1 2 3 4 5 6
with it.

59. I believe that because of racial differences, African Americans and 1 2 3 4 5 6
White Americans cannot live in harmony.

60. The person I respect the most is an African American. 1 2 3 4 5 6

61. I believe that science can explain life’s deepest mysteries. l 2 3 4 5 6

62. If a family member were in need, I would help within my means. 1 2 3 4 5 6

63. I believe that if a child is misbehaving, there is nothing wrong with 1 2 3 4 5 6
whipping/spanking them.

64. I believe that if I have a problem it can be solved through prayer.

65. I am married to/would marry another Aﬁican American. 2 3 4 5 6

66. I believe that African Americans are just as intellectually capable 2 3 4 5 6
as White Americans.

67. I believe that if I work hard I can improve my family’s status in 1 2 3 4 5 6
life.

68. I share my personal life with my family. 2 3 4 5 6

69. The African American culture is no different than any other culture 2 3 4 5 6
within this country.

70. I believe that African Americans and White Americans are 1 2 3 4 5 6
currently living harmoniously.

71. I have changed my lifestyle to ﬁt my beliefs about Blacks. 2 3 4 5 6

72. I believe that African Americans continue to use past injustices as 2 3 4 5 6
an excuse for their current failures.

73. The person I respect the most is an White American. 1 2 3 4 5 6

74. I enjoy social settings exclusive to mostly White Americans. 1 2 3 4 5 6

75. Ifeel obligated to assist my family members. 1 2 3 4 5 6

76. I like to work with other African Americans. 1 2 3 4 5 6

77. Ilike/would like for my children to attend school with mostly I 2 3 4 5 6
Aﬁican Americans.

 

 

 

 

 

 

85

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Strongly Disagree Slightly Disagree Slightly Agree Agree Strongly

Disagree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6

78. I feel that African Americans are not capable of being racist. I 2 3 4 5 6

79. I participate in Juneteenth Day activities (i.e. marches, picnics, 1 2 3 4 5 6
festivals etc.).

80. I believe that the sharing of resources to others less fortunate is l 2 3 4 5 6
important.

81. I enjoy social settings exclusive to mostly African Americans. 1 2 3 4 5 6

82. What I want is more important than the desires of anyone else. 1 2 3 4 5 6

83. I prefer to date White Americans. 1 2 3 4 5 6

84. I believe that we are responsible for our own destiny. 1 2 3 4 5 6

85. I think that African American culture is comprised of certain I 2 3 4 5 6
elements that give individuals strength to withstand certain
hardships.

86. I ﬁnd it hard to trust most African Americans. 1 2 3 4 5 6

87. I believe in the values of White Americans. 1 2 3 4 5 6

88. I believe that African American parents should surround their 1 2 3 4 5 6
children with White/traditional art, music, and literature.

89. I believe that I am the only person who can solve my problems. 1 2 3 4 5 6

90. I believe that White Americans should feel guilty about the way 1 2 3 4 5 6
their ancestors have treated African Americans in the past.

91. I like going to movies or seeing plays that have a White American 1 2 3 4 5 6
cast.

92. Regardless of their interests, educational background and social 1 2 3 4 5 6
achievements I like to be ﬁiends with other African Americans.

93. I like listening to music that is created by African American artists. 1 2 3 4 5 6

94. I believe in the values of African American culture. 1 2 3 4 5 6

95. Regardless of their interests, educational background and social 1 2 3 4 5 6
achievements I like to be friends with White Americans.

96. I believe that I should live my life independently of others 1 2 3 4 5 6

97. I believe that if a child is not whipped/spanked with misbehaving, 1 2 3 4 5 6
they will only continue to misbehave.

98. I believe that if I have a problem the best resolution is to work it 1 2 3 4 5 6
out myself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

86

 

 

23.
27.
28.
32.
37.
40.
41.

43.

46.
56.

58.
61.
82.
84.
89.
96.
98.

Appendix E
White American Behavior Scale

I believe that disciplining children, stiﬂes their creative expression.

I believe that God was created to help people not fear death.

I participate in July 4th activities (marches, picnics, festivals, etc.).

I believe that it is disrespectful for a child to interrupt an adults’ conversation.
My successes are attributed mainly to my own abilities.

I believe that education, not age, is a measure of wisdom.

I am more concerned with my status in life (i.e. educational, ﬁnancial, social)
rather than the accomplishments of other African Americans.

There is no one force in control of the things going on in the world.

I would rather be on my own.

I believe that I have my own, and it is up to others to get theirs.

I believe that I am responsible for creating my own meaning and purpose in
life.

If a family member were in need, it would be up to them to deal with it.

I believe that science can explain life’s deepest mysteries.

What I want is more important than the desires of anyone else.

I believe that we are responsible for our own destiny.

I believe that I am the only person who can solve my problems.

I believe that I should live my life independently of others.

I believe that if I have a problem the best resolution is to work it out myself

87

16.
17.
21.
22.
24.
29.
31.
36.
38.
45.
48.
55.
62.
63.

64.
67.
68.
75 .
80.

Appendix F
African American Behavior

If I had a problem, I would discuss it with a family member or a close
personal friend.

I consider my parents, siblings, grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins all to
be a part of my immediate family.

I believe that older African Americans are wise.

I believe prayer “changes things”.

I would rearrange my life to accommodate an aging family member.

My successes can be attributed to the contributions of my family.

I believe in miracles.

I enjoy being part of a group.

I would sacriﬁce my self-interest for the beneﬁt of my family.

I believe that it is disrespectful for a child to interrupt an adults’ conversation.
I take pride in the accomplishments of other African Americans.

I believe that religion can help me solve my problems.

I pray before I make a major life decision.

I feel pride in the successes of other African Americans.

I believe that religion provides personal closeness with God.

If a family member were in need, I would help within my means.

I believe that if a child is misbehaving, there is nothing wrong with
whipping/spanking them. '

I believe that if a problem it can be solved through prayer.

I believe that I work hard I can improve my family’s status in life.

I share my personal life with my family.

I feel obligated to assist my family.

I believe that the sharing of resources to others less fortunate is important.

88

Appendix G
White American Intra-racial/Interracial Attitudes

50. I believe that White people are intellectually superior to African Americans
69. The African American culture is no different than any other culture within this

country.

70. I believe that African Americans and White Americans are currently living
harmoniously.

72. I believe that Aﬁican Americans continue to use past injustices as an excuse for

their current failures.

73. The person I respect the most is a White American.

86. I frnd it hard to trust most African Americans.

87. I believe in the values of White Americans.

88. I believe that Aﬁican American parents should surround their children with
White/traditional art, music, and literature.

89

l 1.
25.
34.
65.
76.
77.
81.
92.

Appendix H
African American Preference Scale

I like to date other African Americans.

I like going to movies or seeing plays that have an African American cast.

I like reading books that are written by African Americans.

I am married to/would marry another Aﬁican American.

I like to work with other African Americans.

I like/would like for my children to attend school with mostly African Americans.
I enjoy social settings exclusive to mostly African Americans.

Regardless of their interests, educational background and social achievements I
like to be friends with other African Americans.

90

Appendix 1
White American Preference Scale

I like reading books that are written by White Americans.

I am manied to/ would marry a White American.

I like listening to music that is created by White American artists.
I like to work with White Americans.

I like/would like for my children to attend school with mostly White Americans.
I enjoy social settings exclusive to mostly White Americans.

I prefer to date White Americans.

I like going to movies or seeing plays that have a White American cast.
Regardless of their interests, educational background and social achievements I
like to be friends with White Americans. '

91

Table 1: Demographic Information of Participants

Mean Age

Gender
Male
Female

Race
African American

Level of Education
8th grade or less
Some High School
High School Graduate
Some College/Vocational
College Graduate
Graduate School

Income
Less than $14,000
$14,000 - $24,999
$25,000 - $34,999
$35,000 - $44,999
$45,000 - $54,999
$55,000 — and Higher

Marital Status
Never Married
Manied
Divorced
Widowed
Cohabitating

Number

25

73
193

266

56
133
35
40

154
42
29
16

17

211
35
11

92

Percentage

27%
73%

1 00%

.4%
.8%
21%
50%
13%
16%

58%
16%
11%
6%
3%
6%

79%
13%
4%
1%
2%

Table 2

Behavioral Component: Varimax Rotated Component Matrix — 2 Components White
American and Aﬁ'ican American

 

 

 

Component Eigenvalue % of Vaﬂnce Cmulaﬁve %
White American Behavior 6.487 12.014 12.014
African American Behavior 4.799 8.888 20.901
Scale Items White American African American h
Behavior Behavior

 

N1. If I had a problem I would discuss it with a

family member or a close personal friend. -.00 .36 .13
N2. I consider my parents, siblings, grandparents,
aunts, uncles and cousins all to be .00 .30 .10
a part of my immediate family.
N8. I believe that older African Americans are wise. .00 .34 .12
N10. I believe that I should not be held responsible for the .15 -.OO .02
problems of my family.
N15. I celebrate Kwanzaa. -.17 .11 .04
N16. I believe prayer “changes things”. -.25 .34 .18
N17. I would rearrange my life to accommodate an aging family -.22 .39 .20
member.
N19. I only consider my parents and siblings as a part of .13 -.00 .01
my immediate family.
N20. I feel annoyed when other people do better than me. .26 -. 13 .08
N21. My successes can be attributed to the contributions .00 .31 .10
of my family.
N22. I believe in miracles. -.27 .43 .26
N23. I believe that disciplining children, stiﬂes their creative .41 -.00 .17
expression.
N24. I enjoy being part of a group. .00 .38 .15
N27. I believe that God was created to help people not fear death. .33 .23 .16
N28. I participate in July 4th activities. .31 .21 .14
N29. 1 would sacriﬁce my self-interest for the -.00 .33 .11
beneﬁt of my family.
N30. I keep my personal life private from my family. .20 -.11 .05
N31. I believe that it is disrespectful for a child to .11 .38 .16
interrupt an adults’ conversation.
N32. 1 celebrate St. Patrick’s Day. .36 .00 .13
N35. I believe that my happiness depends on the .27 .00 .07
happiness of those around me.
N36. I take pride in the accomplishments of other -.00 .63 .40
African Americans.

93

N37.
N38.
N39.

N40.
N41.

N42.
N43.
N44.
N45.
N46.
N47.
N48.
N51.
N52.
N55.
N56.
N57.
N58.

N61 .
N62.

N63.
N64.
N67.
N68.
N75.
N79.
N80.
N82.

N84.
N89.

My successes are attributed mainly to my own ability. .67

I believe that religion can help me solve my problems. -.14
I would rather place an aging family member in a .23
nursing home, rather than keeping them in my home.

I believe education, not age, is a measure of wisdom. .45

I am more concerned with my status in life rather than the .51
accomplishments of other African Americans.

I believe that a child should be free to speak .20
whenever they have something to add to the conversation.
There is no one force in control of the things going on in .58
the world.

I would rather be on my own. .35
I pray before I make a major life decision. -. 16
I believe that I have my own, and it is up to others to .58
get theirs.

I believe that time out is a sufﬁcient method for disciplining.29

a child.

I feel pride in the successes of other Aﬁican Americans. -.00
I believe in the existence of a Supreme Force. -.38
I believe that if I work hard I can improve my status in life. .00
I believe that religion provides personal closeness with God..00
I believe that I am responsible for creating my own meaning .62

purpose in life.

I look at the pros and cons of a situation before making .00
a major life decision.

If a family member were in need, it would be up to .40

them to deal with it.
I believe that science can explain life’s deepest mysteries. .54

If a family member were in need, I would help -.00
within my means.

I believe that if a child is misbehaving, there is .00
nothing wrong with spanking/whipping them.

I believe that if I have a problem it can be solved -.27
through prayer.

I believe that if I work hard I can improve .00
my family’s status in life.

I share my personal life with my family. -.00
I feel obligated to assist my family members. -.00
I participate in Juneteenth Day activities. .00
I believe that the sharing of resources to others -.24
less fortunate is important.

What I want is more important than the desires .54
of anyone else.

I believe that we are responsible for our own destiny. .54
I believe that I am the only person who can solve .64
my problems.

94

.00
.54
-.22

.00
-.00

-.00
-.18
-.00
.61
-.16
.15
.59
.14
.54
.51
.22
.51
-.13

-.1 1
.57

.41
.63
.58
.35
.38
.00
.40
-.15

.19
-.ll

.45
.31
.10

.20
.27

.04
.33
.12
.40
.36
.11
.35
.16
.30
.26
.43
.26
.17

.30
.32

.17
.47
.33
.13
.15
.01
.22
.32

.32
.41

N96.
N97.

N98.

I believe that I should live my life independently of others. .49
I believe that if a child is not whipped/spanked while .32
misbehaving, they will only continue to misbehave.

I believe that if I have a problem the best resolution .63
is to work it out myself.

Component one = White American behavioral items
Component two = African American behavioral items

95

.00
.13

-.00

.24
.17

.42

Table 3

 

Reliability Analysis of Behavioral Components

 

White American Reliability An_alysis

Item-total Statistics

Scale Scale Corrected Squared Alpha
Mean Variance Item- Multiple If
If Item If Item Total Correlation Item
Deleted Deleted Correlation Deleted
MMAA23 61.00 162.13 .32 .17 .80
MMAA27 62.38 161.05 .27 .20 .80
MMAA28 63.04 165.63 .25 .20 .80
MMAA30 61.19 160.92 .33 .22 .80
MMAA32 62.13 168.97 .18 .13 .81
MMAA4O 62.19 161.94 .36 .20 .79
MMAA41 62.34 161.74 .41 .28 .79
MMAA43 61.33 153.71 .49 .31 .79
MMAA44 62.00 164.27 .28 .17 .80
MMAA46 61.83 157.38 .48 .34 .79
MMAA56 63.16 155.79 .50 .37 .79
MMAA58 61.16 163.73 .31 .20 .80
MMAA61 61.42 159.43 .44 .23 .80
MMAA82 61.69 160.98 .43 .27 .79
MMAA84 62.91 158.93 .45 .37 .79
MMAA89 61.38 154.83 .53 .43 .78
MMAA96 62.18 159.43 .43 .24 .79
WAA98 62.19 157.35 .52 .41 .79

Reliability Coefﬁcients 18 items

Alpha = .80 Standardized item alpha = .81

96

Table 4

 

Reliability Analysis of Behavioral Component

 

African Americﬁ Behgvior component Reliaﬁilify Analysis

Scale Scale Corrected

Mean Variance Item- Squared Alpha

if Item if Item Total Multiple if Item

Deleted Deleted Correlation Correlation Deleted
MMAAl 104.61 124.96 .33 .28 .81
MMAA2 105.02 124.17 .24 .14 .81
MMAA8 104.98 125.26 .30 .18 .81
MMAA16 104.38 127.39 .30 .33 .81
MMAA17 105.01 124.99 .34 .21 .81
MMAA21 105.20 125.49 .28 .16 .81
MMAA22 104.57 124.03 .40 .29 .80
MMAA24 105.23 124.95 .30 .17 .81
MMAA29 105.32 124.14 .30 .21 .81
MMAA31 105.09 124.97 .28 .19 .81
MMAA36 104.59 123.38 .52 .49 .80
MMAA38 104.79 121.93 .44 .50 .80
MMAA45 104.90 119.13 .53 .51 .80
MMAA48 104.74 123.61 .46 .46 .80
MMAA55 104.61 123.30 .38 .41 .80
MMAA62 104.69 123.80 .48 .35 .80
MMAA63 104.76 126.12 .31 .24 .81
MMAA64 104.71 120.84 .54 .59 .81
MMAA67 104.91 122.32 .43 .35 .80
MMAA68 105.82 122.91 .31 .23 .81
MMAA75 105.53 123.41 .33 .23 .81
MMAA80 105.01 .33 .24 .81

124.89

Reliability Coefﬁcients 22 items

Alpha = .81

Standardized item alpha = .82

97

Table 5

Cognitive Component: Varimax Rotated Component Matrix — 2 Components White
American Preference and A ﬁican American Preference

 

 

 

 

Component Eigenvalue % of Valance Cumulative %

African American Preference 3.760 22.115 22.1 15

White American Preference 2.713 15.960 38.075

Scale Items African American White American n

Preference Preference

N3. I like reading books that are written by White Americans. .45 .63 .59

N4. I am married to/would marry a White American. -.30 .58 .43

N7. I like listening to music that is created by White American -.00 .51 .27
artists.

N9. I like to work with White Americans. .19 .60 .39

N11. I like to date African Americans. .57 -.00 .34

N14. I like/would like for my children to attend school with -.10 .48 .24
mostly White Americans.

N25. I like going to movies or seeing plays that have an African .63 .16 .42
American cast.

N34. I like reading books that are written by African Americans. .60 .12 .38

N65. I am manied to/would marry another African American. .65 -.11 .43

N74. I enjoy social settings exclusive to mostly White -.26 .58 .43
Americans.

N76. I like to work with other African Americans. .54 .12 .30

N77. I like/would like for my children to attend school .50 -.20 .29
with mostly African American children.

N81. I enjoy social settings exclusive to mostly African .54 -. 17 .32
Americans.

N83. I prefer to date White Americans. -.43 .47 .41

N91. 1 like going to movies or seeing plays that have a .18 .55 .34
White American cast.

N92. Regardless of their interests, educational background and .55 .24 .37
social achievements I like to be ﬁiends with other African
Americans.

N93. 1 like listening to music that is created by African American .72 .00 .53
artists.

N95. Regardless of their interests, educational background and .02 .60 .35

social achievements I like to be ﬁiends with White Americans.

98

Table 6

 

Reliability analysis of Cognitive Component

 

White American Preference Component Reliability Analysis

Scale Scale Corrected

Mean Variance Item- Squared Alpha

if Item if Item Total Multiple if Item

Deleted Deleted Correlation Correlation Deleted
MMAA3 24.49 35.98 .44 .23 .69
MMAA4 25.94 28.37 .44 .28 .66
MMAA7 24.79 30.27 .35 .16 .68
MMAA9 24.50 30.94 .40 .27 .67
MMAA14 25.86 32.25 .31 .11 .67
MMAA74 26.18 29.91 .45 .30 .66
MMAA83 26.46 31.21 .34 .35 .68
MMAA9] 24.61 31.01 .37 .24 .67
MMAA95 24.58 30.06 .39 .19 .67
Reliability Coefﬁcients 9 items

Alpha = .70

Standardized item alpha = .73

99

Table 7

 

Reliability analysis of Cognitive Component

AﬁicagAmerrﬂ Preference Component Reliabilijr Analysis

Scale Scale Corrected

Mean Variance Item- Squared Alpha

if Item if Item Total Multiple if Item

Deleted Deleted Correlation Correlation Deleted
MMAAll 39.51 28.05 .43 .23 .75
MMAA25 39.59 28.95 .47 .27 .75
MMAA34 39.79 27.99 .44 .28 .7 5
MMAA65 39.54 28.10 .45 .32 .75
MMAA76 40.09 29.00 .42 . 19 .75
MMAA77 40.79 27.61 .41 .28 .76
MMAA81 40.53 26.65 .44 .27 .75
MMAA92 40.30 27.35 .42 .26 .75
MMAA93 39.71 27.30 .59 .40 .73

Reliability Coefﬁcients 9 items

Alpha = .77 Standardized item alpha = .78

100

Table 8

Aﬂective Component: Varimax Rotated Component Matrix - 2 Components White
American Interracial/Intra-racial Attitude and African American Interracial/Intra-racial
Attitude

 

 

 

Component Eisnnvalgue % of Vaﬁmce Cumulative %
White American Attitude 4.017 15.451 15.451
African American Attitude 2.391 9.196 24.647
Scale Items White American African American h2

Attitude Attitude

N5. I have difﬁculty identifying with the culture of .21 -.00 .05
Aﬁican American people.

N6. I feel uncomfortable around African Americans. .25 -.00 .06

N12. I have changed my lifestyle to ﬁt my beliefs about White .19 .00 .04
Americans.

N13. I believe that African Americans use racism as an .25 -.51 .32
excuse for their failures.

N18. I feel uncomfortable around White Americans. .24 .18 .01

N33. I feel that some African Americans are just as -.1 l -.42 .19
racist as Whites.

N26. I ﬁnd it hard to trust most White Americans. -.11 .50 .26

N49. I identify with the African American culture. -.48 .17 .26

N50. I believe that White people are intellectually superior to .63 .18 .44
Aﬁican Americans.

N53. In this country, all Aﬁican Americans regardless of -.36 .39 .28
income or education are affected by racism.

N54. I believe that African American parents should -.31 .46 .31
surround their children with Black art, music, and literature.

N59. I believe that because of racial differences, .31 .45 .30

African Americans and White Americans can not
live in harmony.

N60. The person I respect the most is an African American. -.42 .27 .26
N66. I believe that African Americans are just as intellectually -.56 -.00 .34
capable as White Americans.

N69. The African American culture is no different than any .43 -.00 .18
other culture within this country.

N70. I believe that African Americans and White Americans are .50 -.00 .25
currently living harmoniously.

N71. 1 have changed my lifestyle to ﬁt my beliefs about Aﬁican .19 .31 .13
Americans.

N72. I believe that African Americans continue to use past .31 -.49 .33
injustices as an excuse for their current failures.

N73. The person I respect the most is a White American. .72 .00 .52

101

N78.
N85.
N86.
N87.
N88.

N90.

N94.

I feel that African Americans are not capable of .35
being racist.

I think that the African American culture is comprised of -.33
certain elements that give individuals strength to withstand

certain hardships.
I ﬁnd it hard to trust most African Americans. .43
I believe in the values of White Americans. .53

I believe that African American parents should surround .45
their children with White/traditional art, music and literature.

I believe that White Americans should feel guilty about the .00
way their ancestors have treated African Americans in the

past.

I believe in the values of the African American culture. -.41

102

.56
.32
.00
-.00
-.00

.46

.31

.43
.21
.18
.29
.21

.22

.26

Table 9

 

Reliability analysis of Aﬂective Component

Aﬁican American Interracial/Intra-racial Attitude Component Reliability Analysis

Scale Scale Corrected '
Mean Variance Item- Squared Alpha
if Item if Item Total Multiple if Item
Deleted Deleted Correlation Correlation Deleted
MMAA26 31.04 26.59 .30 .14 .53
MMAA53 29.00 27.18 .34 .20 .52
MMAA54 29.55 26.40 .35 .26 .52
MMAA59 31.60 26.48 .25 .16 .55
MMAA71 31.29 28.81 .13 .03 .58
MMAA78 31.89 26.38 .20 .14 .56
MMAA85 29.29 28.02 .28 .26 .54
MMAA9O 31.04 26.08 .29 .11 .53
MMAA94 28.99 29.03 .26 .25 .54

Reliability Coefﬁcients 9 items

Alpha = .57

Standardized item alpha = .59

103

Table 10

Reliability analysis of Aﬂective Component

White American Interracial/Intra-racial Attitude Component Reliability Analysis

Scale Scale Corrected

Mean Variance Item- Squared Alpha

if Item if Item Total Multiple if Item

Deleted Deleted Correlation Correlation Deleted
MMAASO 19.09 31.56 .44 .23 .67
MMAA69 17.68 29.79 .34 .22 .69
MMAA70 18.02 30.45 .46 .30 .66
MMAA73 18.84 30.76 .49 .31 .66
MMAA86 17.97 33.04 .33 .16 .69
MMAA87 18.04 31.09 .45 .28 .67
MMAA88 17.98 31.15 .39 .23 .68
MMAA72 17.33 31.79 .31 .13 .70

Reliability Coefﬁcients 8 items

Alpha = .71 Standardized item alpha = .72

104

Table 11

 

Intercorrelations between all subscales

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

African White White African White
American American American American American
Behavior Behavior Interracial , Preference Preference

African American

Behavior 1, -.14"‘ -.18* .51“ .10
Sig. (2-tailed) . .02 .00 .00 .1 1
N 266 266 266 266 266

White American

Behavior -.14"' 1 .53” -.04 .25"
Sig. (2-tailed) .02 . . .55 .00
N 266 266 266 266 266

White American

Interracial Attitude -.18"‘ .53" l -.28** .39"
Sig. (2-tailed) .00 . . .00 .00
N 266 266 266 266 266

African American

Preference .51" -.04 -.28** 1 -.06
Sig. (2-tailed) .00 .55 .00 . .33
N 266 266 266 266 266

White American

Preference .10 .25" .39" -.06 l
Sig. (2-tailed) .1 1 .00 .00 .33 .
N 266 266 266 266 266

 

 

 

 

 

 

105

 

Table 12

Correlations between all scales and measures of validity

 

 

 

 

 

 

African White White African White
American American American American American
Behavior Behavior Interracial Preference Preference
Attitude
Black
Friends
Correlation .1 1 .03 -.04 .27" -.22**
Sig. .07 .61 .52 .00 .00
N 266 266 266 266 266
White
Friends
Correlation -.O6 .11 .07 -.19"'* .32"
Sig. .37 .86 .28 .00 .00
N 266 266 266 266 266
Income
Correlation .1 1 -.23** .02 .02 -.09
Sig. .09 .00 .77 .77 .17
N 266 266 266 266 266
Spirituality
Correlation .46" -.14* .03 .03 .08
Sig. .00 .02 .62 .62 .20
N 266 266 266 266 266

 

 

 

 

 

 

106

 

Table 13

 

Rational for Multidirectional Scales

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aﬁican American Preference Aﬁican American Behavior
Vs. Vs.
White American Preference White American Behavior
African American Behavior Statistically & Conceptually
White American Behavior Statistically & Conceptually
White American Statistically & Conceptually Statistically
Interracial/Intra-racial & Conceptually
Attitude
Aﬁican American Statistically
Preference & Conceptually
White American Preference Statistically
& Conceptually
Black Friends Statistically Different Only No differences
White Friends Statistically Different Only No differences
Income No differences Statistically
& Conceptually
Spirit No differences Statistically
& Concqrtually

 

 

 

 

107

Table 14

 

Rationale for Multidimensional Scales

 

African American Behavior White American White American Behavior White American

 

 

 

 

Behavior Preference
Vs. Vs. Vs. Vs.
African American Preference White American White American Interracial/ White American
Preference Inna-racial Attitude Attitude
Black Statically & Statically & Statistically
Friends Conceptually Conceptually Different Only
White Statically & Statically & Statistically
Friends Conceptually Conceptually Different Only
Income No differences Statically & Statically &
Conceptually Conceptually
Religion/ Statically & Statically & Statically &
Spirit Conceptually Conceptually Conceptually

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

108

Mil