! WHITE LIKE (OR NOT LIKE) ME: CREATING A WHITE RACIAL IDENTITY SCALE AND EXAMINING HOW IT DIFFERS BY SOCIO -DEMOGRAPHIC INDICATORS By Paula K. Miller A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Sociology ÑDoctor of Philosophy 2015 !ABSTRACT WHITE LIKE (OR NOT LIKE) ME: CREATING A WHITE RACIAL IDENTITY SCALE AND EXAMINING HOW IT DIFFERS BY SOCIO -DEMOGRAPHIC INDICATORS By Paula K. Miller Previous research on white racial identity (WRI) has typically relied on questions that have asked whites questions that measure their self awareness of themselves as white, their feelings of bel onging to a white racial group, and their attitudes towards racialized ethnic others. These measures equate white racial identity exclusively with group membership, which only captures the structural components of whites racial identities. Group membership serves as one proxy of racial identity, but white racial identities also have important interactional and cultural components that cannot be captured by measuring group membership alone. In this research, this goal is achieved by the creation of a White R acial Identity Scale (WRIS) which includes traditional questions that ask whites about their group membership but includes new questions that measure whites American, Cross -Racial, Ethnic, Racial and Institutional attitudes, behaviors and preferences. Expl oratory factor ana lysis was conducted, revealing 8 factors that contribute to WRI. These factors supported and expanded upon the factors that were hypothesized. These factors were then subjected to linear regression to determine the ways socio -demographic factors impact WRI. Findings show that the factors that contribute to WRI do differ by religion, racial composition of networks and neighborhood , gender, income, Michigan residency and family prejudice . Adding in these items allow for a measure of white racial identity that goes beyond group membership to measure how respondents perform and present these identities in social interactions. ! Copyright by PAULA K. MILLER 2015 "#! To E ric . Thank you for being my rock. #!ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are a countless number of people who have provided learning lessons on this journey that have brought me to the place I am today. First, I honor the memory of those who came before , especially my paternal grandparents, Harvey and Dorothy Miller and my maternal grandfather, Peter Ellena. I also honor my mother , Mary C. Wicker, who instilled in me a love of reading and a sense of intellectual curiosity. I was also blessed with a maternal grandmother in Marilyn Ellena that along with her selfless dedication to others, stimulated me by sharing her love of music and all things outdoors. I am sure that these early childhood experiences are the reason I ended up with a college education, when so many of those I grew up with did not. I also acknowledge my father, Roger L. Miller, who always worked hard to ensure we had a roof over our heads and enough food in our bellies. I know now that like many men of your generation, meeting our physical needs was the way that you were most comfortable expressing your love. IÕve been fortunate to be blessed with a number of friends who have become family along the way . Many of these, including Jos hua Gleason, Brandon Henderson and Sulema Medrano have been a part of my support system since I was an adolescent. I am so happy that they saw something valuable in me during those years, which were marked with a lot of attitude and bad decisions. It was t hrough Angela NurseÕs cajoling that I ended up in graduate school in the first place, at a time when I didnÕt even have any idea what it meant to pursue a terminal degree. She challenges me like only a sister could and helps me see the areas where I need a little stretching. For that, I am forever grateful. I also thank her parents, Esrold and Patti Nurse for raising such a fantastic daughter and for letting me borrow her from time to time. I also am grat eful to friends Joanne Ellena, Baranda J. Fermin , and Kuana M. School for providing me with much needed #"!spiritual and emotional support throughout graduate school. Whether it was a soothing word, a listening ear, or love and positive energy sent from afar, the three of you always provided me with much needed grounding in spite of all of the craziness of graduate school. Graduate school allowed me with opportunities to meet even more kind and supportive souls, including Diane Doberneck, Dawn Hazelton and Carmel M artin -Fairey. The three of you were always there with a funny story and an encouraging word that helped put things in perspective. Finally I would like to thank Kamahra Ewing and Ashley Sanderlin, who started off as study buddies but who I am now lucky enough to consider friends. In addition to friends , I have been supported by a number of academic mentors that were willing to take me under their wing including Isabel Ayala, Maxine Baca Zinn, Abby Ferber, Steven Gold, Ray Jussaume, and Toby Ten Eyck. Your intellectual support and willingness to treat me as a colleague and friend has never gone without appreciation. I was also fortunate enough to be have Clifford Broman as a Chair , who saw potential in me when no one else did and who brought out the scholar within that I didnÕt even know was there. Thank you for your guidance and for stepping in to become a second father to me. John Schweitzer also filled an important mentor role bo th academically and spiritually, through his unconditional regard and compassion for all beings. Last, but certainly not least, I would like to thank my partner, Eric C. Buckner. I know it is clich”, but the statement is true - words cannot express all that you mean to me. You give me just the right amount of space to be me, while making sure that I kn ow I always have your love to fall back on. #"" !TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES INTRODUCTION Psychological Research on White Racial Identities Sociological Research on White Racial Identities Theoretical Framework Research Questions Key Definitions Contribution Dissertation Outline LITERATURE REVIEW Identities Race and Ethnicity White Racial Identities Research Questions Rationale for White Racial Identities through Attitudes, Behaviors and Preference s WRI and American attitudes, behaviors, and preferences WRI and attitudes, behaviors, and preferences concerning cross -racial interaction WRI and ethnic attitudes, behaviors, and preferences WRI and racial attitudes WRI and institutional att itudes, behaviors, and preferences Rationale for Measuring White Racial Identities through Demographics WRI and racial and ethnic self identification WRI and education WRI and neighborhoods and networks WRI and gender WRI and class status WRI and urbanicity METHODS Introduction Research Rationale Participants Instrument Previous Acculturation Measures and Psychometric Properties Measuring American Attitudes, Behaviors, and Preferences Measuring Attitudes, Behaviors, and Preferences Concerning Cross -Racial Interaction ix x 1 1 3 6 7 11 16 17 19 19 26 31 32 32 33 35 36 38 39 41 42 42 43 43 45 47 49 49 51 52 60 63 71 75 #""" ! Measuring Ethnic Attitudes, Behaviors, and Preferences Measuring Racial Attitudes Measuring Institutional Attitudes, Behaviors, and Preferences Analytic St rategy Exploratory factor analysis Limitations of EFA Normality for variables subjected to EFA Missing data for variables subjected to EFA Validity of variables subjected to EFA Recoding variables utilized in the EFA Linear regression Missing data for variables subjected to linear regression Recodes of linear regression variables Regression assumptions Conclusion FINDINGS Introduction Exploratory Factor Analysis Linear Regression DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION Introduction American Attitudes, Behaviors, and Preferences as Proxy Measures of WRI Cross -Racial Attitudes, Behaviors, and Preferences as Proxy Measures of WRI Ethnic Attitudes, Behaviors, and Preferences as Proxy Measures of WRI Racial Attitudes as Proxy Measures for WRI Institutional Attitudes, Behaviors, and Preferences as Proxy Measures of WRI How WRI Differ by Key Socio -Demographic Indicators Open -ended racial/ethnic identification Gender Class Religion Neighborhood and network Family prejudice Key Theme s for Consideration WRI and white hegemony Beyond group membership WRI as more than awareness or identification Limitations and Future Research Conclusion APPENDIX REFERENCES !77 79 80 81 82 84 87 87 89 90 91 92 94 97 105 106 106 106 113 135 135 136 137 139 141 142 143 143 144 145 147 148 149 150 150 152 153 153 156 157 161! "$!LIST OF TABLES Table 1: List of Dropped Questions Table 2: Demographic Information (n=220 Table 3: Survey Items Used to Measure Each Hypothesis Table 4: Missing Data for Items Subjected to EFA Table 5: Missing Data for Socio -Demographic Items Table 6: Durbin Watson Statistics for Dependent Varia bles Table 7: Cooks Values for Dependent Variables (n=220) Table 8: Collinearity Statistics for Independent Variables Table 9: Factor Loadings for White Racial Identity Table 10: Alpha Values for Each White Racial Identity Sub -Scale Table 11: Alpha Value if Item Deleted for American Scale Table 12: Alpha Value if Item Deleted for Cross - Racial Scale Table 13: Alpha Value if Item Deleted for Ethnic Scale Table 14: White Attitudes, Behaviors and Preferences by Basic Demographics Table 15: White Attitudes, Be haviors and Preferences by Race, Class, Gender, Urbanicity and Religion Table 16: White Attitudes, Behaviors and Preferences by Race, Class, Gender, Religion, Neighborhood, Network and Family Prejudice Table 17: White Attitudes, Behaviors and Preference s with all Independent Variables Table 18: White Attitudes, Behaviors and Preferences with Variables that Significant in All Previous Models Table A.1: White Racial Identity Scale Instrument 56 58 60 88 92 99 104 104 107 110 111 111 112 114 117 120 125 130 158 $!LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Normal P -Plot of Regression Standardized Residual for Dependent Variables Figure 2: Scatterplots of Regression Standardized Residual and Regression Standardized Predicte d Value for Dependent Variables Figure 3: Histograms for Dependent Variables 98 100 102 ! %!INTRODUCTION The goal of this di ssertation is to create a White Racial Identity Scale (WRIS) and to examine how this scale differs by socio -demographic factors such as gender, class, education and urbanicity . In particular , I will investigate white racial identities through American, Cross Racial, Ethnic, Racial and Institutional attitudes, behaviors and preferences . It is important to study white racial identities, as they are integral to the maintenance of racism. White racial identities invest whites into the larger system of white supremacy by cultivating an us versus them mentality that presupposes w hitesÕ success and access to resources as being contingent on the oppression of racialized ethnic others (Bobo and Hutchings, 1996; Ferber, 1998; Lipsitz, 1998; Wellman, 1977). This kind of boundary maintenance is central to the preservation of inequalitie s, as it determines where the lines of privileged and not pr ivileged are drawn (Schwalbe et al , 2000:430) and justifies why whites should maintain their ideological and material privileges. White racial identities have been examined from both psychologic al (Behrens, 1997; Croll. 2007; Helms, 1990; Helms, 1997; Know les and Peng, 2005; Rowe, Bennett and Atkinson, 1994) and sociological perspectives (Bettie, 2000; McDermott and Samson, 2005), neither of which has succeeded at developing a generalizable measu re of white racial identity that interrogates the predictors of white racial identity, how white identities are performed at multiple levels of society and how these identities manifest in a Òpost -racialÓ era. Psychological Research on White Racial Identi ties Psychological research has measured white racial identities by asking white respondents about whether they identified as white (Helms, 1990) and whether they felt that their fate was tied in to the fate of other whites (Bobo and Johnson, 2000) . The White Racial Identity Attitude &!Scale was the first to explore the contours of white racial identity (Helms, 1990; Helms and Carter, 1990) . The scale constructs white racial identity as a developmental process, wher ein whites move from racist and largely unaware of their status as racial beings to non -racist and more aware of themselves as white. HelmÕ s conception of the model was heavily based on nigrescence models that argued that black identities develop in relation to their contact with African American attitudes, orientations and values (Cross, 1991). Such theoretical linkages are problematic for a number of reasons, the first of which being that the model assumes that the process of racial identity development is congruous for whites and blacks (Behrens, 1997; Behrens and Rowe, 1997; Rowe, Bennett and Atkinson , 1994). Whites occupy a uniquely privileged position in American society, which allows them to deny the relevance of their racial identity if they so choose (Brander Rasmussen et al, 2001; Frankenburg, 1997). Racialized ethnic minorities on the other h and are typically forced to grapple with their racial identity (Allen and Richard, 2001). These different trajectories are salient factors in determining individual self -concept. In addition, such a focus examines white racial identities through the lens o f whites acceptance of racialized ethnic others. These measures tell us more about white racial attitudes than they do about the content of whites own identities (Rowe, Bennett and Atkinson, 1994). Finally, the White Racial Identity Attitude Scale conceptu alizes white racial identity as a thing, not a process (Rowe, Bennett, and Atkinson, 1994) which ignores the ways in which white racial identities shift over time and context. More recent measures of white racial identity have surfaced (Knowles and Peng, 2005) . Yet, these psychological measures continue to be problematic for two primary reasons. First, they rely too heavily on respondentÕs own self -identification and awareness of being white, which only measures an individualsÕ personal identity and ignores the fact that individualÕs also '!have social identities (Berger and Luckmann, 1966; Tajfel, 1982) . Identities are Òthe sets of meanings people hold for themselves that define Òwhat it meansÓ to be who they are as persons, as role occupants, and as group members, Ó (Burke, 2004:5). This expanded definition of identity highlights the need to research identity through measurements that continue to questions about an individualÕs self perception and attitudes, but also ask respondentÕs questions about how they actuall y interact with others and enact their identity through concrete behaviors and preferences. Second, these measures of white racial identity rely too heavily on whitesÕ awareness of themselves as racial beings and whitesÕ willingness to vocalize this awar eness to researchers. It is likely that many respondentsÕ answers to questions about their white racial awareness contradict how respondents actually enact their racial identity. These presumptions become especially problematic in a Òcolor -blindÓ and Òpost -racialÓ society that encourages whites to deny the relevance of their membership in a white community leading them to declare that race has any significance in shaping their lives or the lives of those around them (Bonilla -Silva, 2006; Feagin, 2006). Give n these complexities, it is more important to ask how an individual chooses which identity to perform in particular spaces, and how their performance is shaped by larger structural forces, than to ask the more simple question of whether one has a white ide ntity or not. Sociological Rese arch on White Racial Identities On the other hand, whiteness studies has researched white racial identity through historical accounts that study how the boundaries of whiteness shifted over time; deconstructions of white privilege that focus on the institutional benefits of whiteness; or analyses of the fragmented nature of white identities (Hartigan, 1999; McDermott, 2006; Morris, 2005; Sweetland, 2002; Wray, 2006). The first of these strands of whiteness studies historicized (!whiteness by showing how its boundaries have shifted over time to encompass a range of ethnicit ies (Foley, 1997; Ignatiev, 2009; Jacobson, 1999 ). Such an approach points to the socially constructed nature of racial categories and the identities that are possible within them. It also highlights the ways that whiteness has worked as a mechanism for boundary maintenance to keep whites in while raci alizing and disenfranchising other Ònon -whiteÓ ethnic minorities. These approaches are important because they simultaneously demonstrate how individuals and groups experience whiteness as well as how racial projects guide these experiences (Omi and Winant , 1994). However, they often place too much emphasis on the ways white racial identities are temporally grounded, without relating these identities to the larger system of white hegemony. The second line of inquiry has been lodged largely within the anti -racist movement, and has attempted to interrogate and dismantle white privilege (Ferber, 1998; McIntosh, 1988; Wise, 2008), which is a key component of white racial identity on a structural level. These studies are the most politically grounded, as they make explicit calls for whites to become aware of and Ògive upÓ their white privilege as a means of overthrowing the larger racial order (Ignatiev and Garvey, 1996) . Whiteness, and the privileges that come along with it are often invisible (Doane and Bonilla -Silva, 2003; Frankenberg, 1997) and this type of work is important to help uncloak whiteness, which is especially necessary during a time when racial systems of domination are often concealed through color blind and egalitari an rhetoric (Bonilla Silva 2014 ; Sears et. al., 2000). However, too often, these approaches focus on Òwhite privilegeÓ as a benefit that all whites experience eq ually. Correspondingly, studies within this area do not give enough emphasis to how white privilege and white identities may be fragmented by diverse social positions, such as class, or local physical space. Examining whiteness and white privilege in thi s )!way obfuscate the complexity inherent in whiteness and subsequently reifies the polarized racial binary of black versus white. In addition, the rhetoric about white privilege often provides whites a way out of racism, by operationalizing whiteness at the individual level, and not connecting it to larger structures of power. Encouraging whites to give up their privilege, in the fight against racism, is a worthy task. However, it is not sufficient to dismantle the larger system of white supremacy that fee ds whiteness (Andersen, 2003) . The final line of inquiry, rooted largely in post -modern thought, exami nes how white identities are fragmented by a number of social positions, including class, gender, sexuality, and local physical space. These studies build upon historical accounts that document the shifting nature of white racial identities and reinforce a rguments that white racial identities are not biological, nor are they determined solely by skin color or other physical attributes. Instead, white identities are socially constructed, a product of micro and macro social forces and interactions across tim e and space. In this way, there is not a singular way to perform whiteness. Instead, white performances encompass a variety of standpoints and epistemologies that coalesce into a multitude of white individual and group identities. Therefore, our understa nding of whiteness as a uniform category that one either is or isnÕt inadequately captures the intricate nature of how race is constructed and enacted in local physical spaces (Hartigan, 1999; Morris, 2005). These non -normative performances of whiteness ca n sometimes create a space of resistance where hegemonic notions of whiteness can be challenged, although they often reinforce it. In contrast to psychological studies on white racial identity, these studies interrogate identities from a more sociologica l perspective and examine how they are created and maintained at performative, interactive, and structural levels of society. They have done this by *!interviewing respondentÕs about their own self -perceptions and how they negotiate and enact their own ident ities, interviewing others to see how they view the respondent, and by theorizing about how these identities are influenced by the multiple and sometimes contradictory factors of race, class, gender, and local space (Bettie, 2000; Candelario, 2000; Foley, 1997; Frankenberg, 1993; Hartigan, 1999; McDermott, 2006; Morris, 2005; Roediger, 2007; Sweetland, 2002; Wray, 2006). These studies have provided important qualitative data about the nature of white racial identities . However, the small scale of these studies means that their conclusions are not generalizable outside of the particular local context that was researched. In addition, although these studies on white identities open up a number of new possibilities that c an problematize whiteness, they do not incorporate analyses of how these identities are constructed in relation to the larger system of white supremacy, and how whiteness, as an ideological construct serves to construct and maintain the border between whit e and racialized ethnic other. In conjunction with these omissions, studies of whiteness that are too heavily focused on identity ignore the particular socio -historical processes, or racial projects that guide the range of white identities that are possib le (Omi and Winant, 1994). Examinations of non -normative white identities must not only analyze the distinctive performances that are possible, but must also look at which performances of whiteness are valued and which are not, and in what spaces. Such a nalyses would provide further insight into where the boundaries of normative whiteness begins and ends, and how these boundaries shift over time and space. Given these gaps, it is clear that new measures for white racial identity are necessary. Theoretical Framework To remedy these issues, I propose that the study of white racial identity should be moved into the field of Social Psychology. Situating white racial identity in this way allows for an +!examination of how identities are outcomes of both psychological and so cial processes. Consequently, identities are more than self -identification, but also cannot be determined by strict, linear relationships between social group memberships . Instead, identities are constructed and maintained by a reciprocal relationship betw een internal and external forces that are fluid and contextual (Blumer, 1969; Burke and Reitzes, 1981; Burke, 2004; Stryker, 1980) . This research study attempts to examine these the cultural and interactive componen ts of white racial identity by building on previous acculturation measures that have largely been developed by and distributed to multi -racial (Phinney and Devich -Navarro, 1997; Phinney, 1992; Phinney and Ong, 2007) , black (Klonoff and Landrine, 2000; Landrine and Klonoff, 1994; Landrine and Klonoff, 1995; Landrine and Klonoff, 1996) and immigrant (Birman and Tyler, 1994; Birman and Trickett, 2001; Birman, Trickett and Vinokurov, 2002; Campisi, 1948; Campisi, 1947b; Chung, Kim and Abreu, 2004; Cortes et al., 2003; Lim et al., 2002; Persky and Birman, 2005; Tsai, Ying and Lee, 2000; Ward and Kennedy, 1994; Weinstock, 1964) populations. These measures have not ever been distributed to white American populations, largely because white identities are often taken for granted as invisible, normative (Brander -Rasmussen, 2001; Frankenburg, Hartmann, Ger treis and Croll, 2009) , and culture -less (Perry, 2002; Perry, 2007) , particularly for those that identify as white. Research Questions Six primary research questions were utilized to explore these relationships: RQ1: What American attitudes, behaviors and preferences are proxy measures for WRI? RQ2: What attitudes, behaviors and preferences regarding cross racial interactions are proxy measures for WRI? ,!RQ3: What ethnic attitudes, behaviors and preferences are proxy measures for WRI? RQ4: What racial attitudes are proxy measures for WRI? RQ5: What institutional attitudes, behaviors and preferences are proxy measures for WRI? RQ6: How do these attitudes, behaviors and preferences differ by key socio -demographic factors including age, education, religion, ethnic identification, bilingual ability, gender, class, urbanicity, neighborhood and network racial composition and family prejudi ce? I hypothesize that together , respondentsÕ American, cross racial, ethnic, racial, a nd institutional attitudes, behaviors and preferences serve as a measurable representation of their white racial iden tity. White respondents from different socio -demographic backgrounds will exhibit different configurations of these attitudes, behaviors an d preferences and therefore, it can be hypothesized that they have distinct white racial identities. This model examines white racial identity through five different categories of attitudes, behaviors and preferences . The relationships between white raci al identities and white attitudes have been well established in the literature (Croll, 2007; Helms, 1990; Rowe, Bennett and Atkinson, 1994; Wellman, 1977). Individuals are likely to develop attitudes that are similar to those they were socialized around (R owe, Bennett, and Atkinson, 1994). These attitudes, in turn, serve as proxies for the types of identities individualÕs possess and enact (Broman, 1989; Landrine and Klonoff, 1996; Wellman, 1977). Behavior (Burke and Reitzes, 1981; Goffman, 1959) and pr eferences (Bourdieu, 1984) have been theorized to be proxies for identity. Finally , this model explores the ways thes e factors are influenced by whiteÕs varied social positions and demographics. This analysis builds on the sociological studies mentioned earlier -!that have examined how white racial identities differ based on factors such as class, gender, and urbanicity. S uch an analysis also connects individual white racial identities to larger systems of stratification and shows how whites may have identities that are simultaneously privileged and oppressed. RespondentÕs attitudes, behaviors and preferences are empirically testable representations of their own self -concept, which includes how they understand themselves as role occupants and group members. There is a reciprocal relationship between identity, attitude and behavior. Individuals subscribe to ide ntities, attitudes and behaviors that have meanings that are consistent with their Òcommon underlying frame of referenceÓ (Burke and Reitzes, 1981:84). Attitudes and behaviors are not only guided by performances and identities that align with a particular role, but are also constructed to ensure that it does not signify performances and identities that are associated with roles that are counter to that identity (Burke and Reitzes, 1981; Fine, 1991; Fine, 1993; Hall, 1987 ; McCall, 2003; Schwalbe et al., 2000) . Measuring respondentÕs behaviors and preferences is of particular importance as they may actually may be a more accurate indicator of identity than respondentÕs own self identification, which is likely to be inacc urate and idealized (Robinson and Smith -Lovin, 1992; Rosenberg and Turner, 1990; Wellman, 1977) . Measuring white racial identities through these cultural proxies are especially necessary as a key facet of white racia l identities is that they are built on discourse of racial normativity (Delgado and Stefancic, 1997) invisibility (Frankenburg, 1997, Brander -Rasmussen, 2001) and unawareness (Hartmann, Gerteis and Croll, 2009). RespondentÕs attitudes, behaviors and pre ferences also serve as performative cues that signify identity to others (Goffman, 1959; Goffman, 1967) . These interactions highlight the fact that identities are products of forces other than group membership alone. Instead, identities %.!emerge through Òsituated accompli shment[s] of societal members (West and Fenstermaker, 1995:21; West and Zimmerman, 1987)Ó. These accomplishments serve to either affirm or deny the performed identity through social interaction as the individual and those they interact with pick up these c ues and respond to them through the process of ÒdoingÓ identity (Markus and Moya, 2010; West and Don, 1987; West and Fenstermaker, 1995) . Finally, respondentÕs attitudes, behaviors and preferences provide informati on about where the respondent is positioned in the larger social structure. Individuals arrive at particular attitudes, behavioral patterns and preferences through social encounters that are highly stratified and typically determined by their social positi on and cultural community (Bourdieu, 1984). Including questions that measure identity at these levels allows for complex racial performances and identities, but still connects these performances and identities to larger structural forces. Such a measure al so has the potential to deconstruct whitesÕ proclamations that all identities are created equally by empirically examining how whitesÕ conceive of and enact their own racial identities in their everyday lives through avenues such as music and food preferen ces and cross -racial interactions. To investigate these relationships between white demographics, attitudes, behaviors and white racial identity, I conducted a study 311 college students using survey instruments that asked students questions about their attitudes, behaviors, practices and preferences. I used these variables to create a White Racial Identity Scale (WRIS) and then examined how this scale differed based on respondentÕs socio -demographic backgrounds. %%!Key Definitions Too often, in the lite rature the term whiteness has been used inscrutably and interchangeably to represent white supremacy, white privilege, white hegemony, white identities /white racial identities (WRI) , and white performances. Consequently, it is unclear whether whiteness is a structural system of domination, a set of privileges, an ideology, or an identity (Andersen, 2003). Like any other system that structures society, whiteness operates on multiple levels, hence the difficulty in categorization. For conceptual clarity, I ty pically rely on the latter, more particularized terms instead of referring to the more vague term of whiteness throughout the rest of the paper. In my theoretical frame, white supremacy denotes a system that emphasizes a political, social, and cultural sy stem of white dominance (Almaguer , 1994; Bonilla Silva , 2001). In this system, whites are allocated power and privilege at the expense of racialized ethnic others (Lipsitz, 1998) . This term often too general to be helpful, as it does not describe how whites gain their power, how they utilize it in different contexts, or how their relationship to power is complicated by t heir other social positions. For this reason, I use it sparingly. The particular privileges whites receive from the social arrangement of white supremacy, whether they be material, or ideological are represented by the concept of white pri vilege (McIntosh, 1988; McIntosh, 1989) . Hegemonic whiteness is a much more useful concept when thinking about how whites are situated in relation to power, and what these arrangements mean as it examines the boundaries that divide w hites from racialized ethnic others and from other subordinated whites. The boundaries of hegemonic whiteness rely heavily on particular spatial, sexual, economic, and cultural arrangements that foster racial segregation, idealize whiteness, and devalue ra cial ethnic others. Its particular manifestations shift to accommodate changing cultural and political systems %&!(Essed, 1991), but its goal is always the same; to maintain the larger system of white supremacy. White racial identities are constructed in rela tion to this larger system of hegemonic whiteness and the identity of racialized ethnic others, but occupy a range of positions in relation to this larger system. The construction and performance of these identities are influenced not just by race, but als o by social positions such as gender, class, local space, and sexuality (Baca Zinn and Thornton Dill, 1996; Bettie, 2000; Candalario, 2000; Frankenburg, 1993; Foley, 1997; Hartigan, 1999; Hill -Collins, 2004; McDermott, 2006; Morris, 2006; Roediger, 2007; S weetland, 2002; Wray, 2006;). White performances include the ways that whites enact particular attitudes, behaviors, preferences that serve as representations to others of their white racial identities. Adequate compliance with expected attitudes, behavior s, and preferences are also performative proxies that indicate to others where they are positioned in relation to white hegemony. In the next section, I will define hegemony and hegemonic whiteness, and relate the concept of hegemonic whiteness to white pe rformances and white racial identities in more detail. The idea of hegemony emerged from the ideas of Antonio Gramsci who argued that domination often occurs indirectly through culture and discourse, not by force. Such an arrangement fosters consent from the masses and legitimates those that are in power (Gramsci and Buttigieg, 1992) . Yet, despite the comprehensive nature of hegemony as a means for structuring our society, there is no one set of unified values, beliefs, and behaviors that maintain it. Instead, its perpetuation relies on interlocking systems of social stratification that dictate different values, beliefs, and behaviors according to oneÕs position in the larger system. GramsciÕs theories have been applied b oth to systems of gender relations (Connell and Messerschmidt, 2005; Connell, 1987) and race relations (Hughey, 2010; Morris, 2006). %'! Hegemonic whiteness relies o n the same processes of consent and ideological and discursive legitimation to maintain a racial hierarchy that stratifies whites in relation to their ability to achieve the hegemonic ideal (Hughey, 2010; Morris, 2006). These legitimations utilize cultural mechanisms, interactive expectations, institutional limitations and norms to determine the range of what types of white racial identities are valued. At a structural level, hegemonic notions of whiteness set forth certain standards for performance, that i nclude expectations for behavior, practices, and preferences that and are not representative of the cultural and behavioral patterns of all whites. These hegemonic expectations, unquestioned in our society, often become the basis for controlling images tha t guide white performances a nd thought (Hill Collins, 2000; Hill Collins, 2004) . These idealized, stereotypical norms of whiteness exclude all people who are perceived to be non -white on the basis of phenotype alone, along with many people who are phenotypically deemed ÒwhiteÓ if they are un able to adequately achieve these forms of hegemonic whiteness. Together, these create racialized identity standards that are used to shape white behavior. However, white actors can and do respond to these limitations in a number of ways. White hegemony is enacted and maintained by a number of signifiers, yet, the exact contours for what constitutes ideal hegemonic performances are not clear. This is because hegemonic whiteness relies heavily on indirect and proscriptive means of domination. Consequently, t he most important determining factor of white racial identity is avoiding any performance that can be associated with the Òth reatening spectre (Pascoe, 2005) Ó of blackness (Dyer, 1997; Morrison, 1993; Nelson, 1992) . Whites who are unable to perform some of the more popular signifiers of whiteness, either because of their working class status (McDermott, 2006), their proximity to people of color (Hartigan, 1999; Morris, 2006) or their inability to %(!speak ÒproperÓ English (Sweetland, 2002) are subordinated. On a structural level, the importance given to these signifiers highlights the fact that whites that can achieve an upper class, suburban performance are typically more valued th an others, although white hegemony is supported by a number of different configurations of white performance. Although these signifiers are important markers of white racial identity, they are not exhaustive of all of the ways hegemonic whiteness is signif ied, especially in local spaces. Exactly which whites are subordinated and how varies across global, regional, and local contexts (Connell and Messerschmit , 2005) and social positions (Baca Zinn and Thornton Dill, 1996; Hill Collins, 2004). These processes create a hierarchy of racialization (Connell and Messerschmit, 2005; Hughey, 2010; Morris, 2006) in which whites are stratified according to their ability to maintain their distance from ÒblacknessÓ, however conceptualized. Whites who are subordinated wi thin the larger system of white hegemony, for whatever reason, exist at the margins of whiteness, where they occupy a space that is Ònot quite whiteÓ (Wray, 2006), yet not quite black. They may not reap the same benefits as other whites that are more adept at negotiating the terrains of hegemonic whiteness, but those at the margins still often subscribe to oppressive forms of hegemonic whiteness by perceiving whites as superior on some levels to people of color (Morris, 2006:25) even when it may be against their economic interests to do s o. In fact, whites that are not able to meet hegemonic expectations for white performance often have to prove their investment in white hegemony through a Òhegemonic bargainÓ wherein they prove their dedication to white hege mony by emphasizing the signifiers that they do have access to (Chen, 1999) . On the other end of the white performance spectrum are liberal, well educated whites are often aware of systems of racial oppression and can live up to hegemonic ideals about what it %)!means to be white, but choose identities and performances that counter these expectations as a means of showing that they are Òcolor blindÓ or not racist. However, these whites too often reinforce hegemonic whiteness through paternaliz ing disco urse and behavior (Winant, 1997) . What this shows is that although the particular perfo rmances of white identities vary, larger socio -historical forces work to ensure the continuation of white hegemony as the guiding force behind expectations about what it means to be white (Coates, 2003; Doane, 1997; Hug hey, 2010). Despite the fact that both of these groups of whites may engage in attitudes, behaviors, practices, and preferences that reflect a distance from hegemonic ideals of white performance, they often continue to perpetuate the larger system of he gemonic whiteness and to reinforce whiteness as a mechanism for constructing boundaries between whites and racialized ethnic others that affords and legitimizes privileges to those whites at the expense of these ÒothersÓ. These iterations of white identi ties are the result of hegemonic ideology that fosters a Òwhite racial frameÓ and guides all white performances and thought, despite the nuances of whitesÕ unique social positions. The white racial frame Òis a centuries -old worldview and has constantly inv olved a racial construction of reality by white and other Americans, an emotion -laden construction process that shapes everyday relationships and institutions in fundamental and racialized ways ( Feagin, 2010 :ix)Ó. It is grounded in individual and collecti ve memories that often perpetuate a Òcollective forgettingÓ of the racial and ethnic subordination that has been so central to AmericaÕs history ( Feagin, 2010 :16). This frame also provides a toolkit that is used to dictate how individuals and groups perce ive and operate within the world ( Feagin, 2010 ; Swidler, 1986). It advocates particular behaviors that are rooted in European, Protestant culture, such as hard work, individualism, and manifest destiny ( Feagin, 2010 :13) and implicitly criticizes those wit h different cultures or frames. The ideology cultivated by the white racial %*!frame is so strong that class and education do not mediate its effects --although whites of varying social positions may utilize it in different ways ( Feagin, 2010 :13 -15). This fr ame presupposes that whites are inherently better and harder working than black Americans, and therefore deserve to be privileged ( Feagin, 2010 ). It also underscores the pervasive nature of hegemonic whiteness as it is continually made and remade in all so cial contexts, no matter how diverse, in order to remain relevant and yet stay invisible (Martinot, 2007) . The high value placed on oneÕs ability to meet these hegemonic standards serve as representations of our individual and collective investment in the larger system of white supremacy and immersion wi thin white culture. Contribution This dissertation contributes to the literature on identity, race, and whiteness studies. This research is important for identity research because it highlights the fact that identities are formed at the crux of performat ive, interactional, and structural processes and teases out how individuals navigate these multi -level processes to produce and maintain a diverse range of identities. In addition, it provides an empirical study of the links between identity and behavior. This research also contributes to the literature on race. Our country is undergoing an Òidentity crisisÓ spurred by the increase of multiracial individuals and the shifting and increasingly ambiguous definitions of race (Fernandez, 1992; Kivisto, 2002; Root, 1992) . The racial landscape of the United States has drastically changed, largely due to an increase in interracial marriages, immigration, and multiracial identification. Due to these changes, racial identities c an no longer be derived from skin color or other physical characteristics alone. Diverse articulations of racial identity performances abound, yet these identities are still guided by structural hegemonic forces that have remained relatively stable over ti me. Although these racial identities are constantly in flux, the structural boundaries and hegemonic ideals we use to categorize racial membership remain %+!extremely rigid. It is unclear whether racial boundaries are being transgressed through these fluid a nd frequent racial border crossings or are being reified, albeit fragmented (Lee and Bean, 2004). This research examines these how this tension between hegemonic racial structures and localized racial performances lead to unique configurations of racial identities . Finally, this research makes an important contribution to the field of whiteness studies. The field of whiteness studies has been critiqued for its lack of empirical research (Doane and Bonilla Silva, 2003; McDermott and Samson, 2005). In parti cular, very few larger scale quantitative studies of white racial identity have been done and the few studies that are available rely too heavily on measures that equate white racial identity with white racial awareness (Croll, 2007). Dissertation Outline In chapter two, I review the literature on identity, race, and white identities and performances. Much of the work on identity is grounded in a social -psychological perspective that highlights the specific processes that influence identity formation at the levels of self -concept, interaction, and structure. The section on race emphasizes how the current racial projects at play are a product of larger racial formations, and the idea that race is a socially constructed system that is used to maintain bound aries between whites and racialized ethnic others. The final section on white identities and performances investigates the particular ways whites internalize and navigate these larger systems of stratification through diverse performances that are highly c ontingent on racial and ethnic group self identification, age, education, local space, religious background, gender, class status, urbanicity, and political views. Together, these three strands of literature set the backdrop for a study of white racial ide ntities. In chapter three, I provide an overview of the questions that I included on the quantitative %,!survey that I collected from 311 undergraduate students in Sociology classes at a Midwestern Research 1 university and provide the rationale for why I inc luded each grouping of questions. The survey questions measured the five different factors that I hypothesize contribute to white racial identity: (1) American attitudes, behaviors and preferences (2) cross racial attitudes, behaviors and preferences (3) ethnic attitudes, behaviors and preferences (4) racial attitudes (5) institutional attitudes, behaviors and preferences . I also explain my methodology, which includes linear regression and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) . In chapter four, I discuss the fi ndings of this EFA, which indicate that 8 factors including American, Cross Racial, Ethnic, Intimate, Racial, Institutional, Music and Food attitudes, behaviors and preferences are all proxy measures for WRI. In addition, regression indicated that these at titudes, behaviors and preferences shifted based on religion, racial neighborhood and network composition, income, gender, and family prejudice. In chapter five, I discuss the significance of these findings, particularly that this research indicates that w hites do have cultural preferences and practices and that these preferences and practices differ by key socio -demographic indicators. I conclude by discussing the broader implications of this research, along with its limitations and suggestions for future research. %-!LITERATURE REVIEW Identities Identities are representations of who people perceive themselves to be, how others perceive them, and where they are situated in the larger social structure (Burke, 2004). I outline how identities are influenced by these individual, interpersonal, and structural factors below. In addition, I include a discussion of the key arguments that examine how individuals arrive at their identities, especially when there are so many co ntending forces influencing identity choice. Identities are influenced by structural forces that operate at the macro level. These structural forces are a culmination of patterned relationships (Blumer, 1969; Stryker, 1980) that create boundaries of what w e are up against (Connell, 1987) and determine the types of identities that are available to us to construct and perform (Blumer, 1969; Stets and Burke, 2000; Stryker, 1980). Hegemonic ideals of what identities are acceptable and how these identities shoul d be performed are often manifested through control of discourse or ideologies (Denzin, 1987; Fine, 1993; Foucault, 1995) that determine what behavior is acceptable and why. Identities are also comprised of our own self -concept and are a representation of where we see ourselves fitting in society. Together, all of our identities comprise our ÒselvesÓ (Stets and Burke, 2000) . This self -concept shifts and is reinforced through micro level interactions with others. However, ide ntities are not just a composite of internal and external forces ( Mead and Morris , 1967). Individuals also interpret these forces subjectively through the self through a system of meaning making and interpreting (Berge r and Luckmann, 1966; Maines, 2000; Mead and Morris, 1967; Stryker, 1980; Stryker, 1981) . Selves interpret gestures and symbols that materialize in their worlds and use these interpretations as a foundation for their own self -&.!concept, identity performan ce, and interactions with others. Identities are always guided by structure, interpretation, and personality ( Mead and Morris , 1967), however, the extent to which each of these influence interactions varies across space and time (Berger and Luckmann, 1966; Hacking, 1999) . Historical and spatial contexts create identities that are nuanced and fragmented, which leads to the creation and performance of multiple identities for each individual self (Holstein and Gubrium, 2000) . The fact that our selves are influenced by multiple factors lead to a self that is fragmented and contingent upon the particular social situations in which we find ourselves. It is rare, if not impossible that we bring our whole selves to the table. Instead, our selves are dictated by the particulars of the social experience we are engaging in, wherein we highlight the useful aspects of our selves and do not engage the others. This is true even in our relationship with ourselves ( Mead and Morris , 1967). These nuances led Goffman to conclude that we have social identities and per sonal identities (Goffman, 1986) . Social identities are often ascribed by others, who read an individualÕs performance and link it with particular types of identities. These identities are social in the sense that the meanings th at we make of these presentations, and the types of identities we attribute to them arise out of socially agreed upon symbols and criterion. Personal identities highlight the unique nuances that arise out of each individualÕs particular Òlife historyÓ. Soc ial forces guide these identities , however, they reveal how identities may differ from our societal expectations due to individual factors that we are not aware of upon our first reading of someone. Although everyone has multiple identities, some identiti es are more probable than others. People "choose" from a toolkit (Swidler, 1986) of identities to make a determination about which one should be performed. The macro and micro connect through the process of negotiation, &%!which uses the concept of roles to remedy the disjuncture between the individual and s ocial structure (Strauss, 1978; Stryker, 1981). These negotiations are often instantaneous and determined by the limitations of the situation (Howard, 2000). Most of the time, individuals are not aware or conscious of this choice. Each identity also comes with a unique identity standard (Burke, 2006; Burke an d Rietzes, 1981 ) that determines the particular performance that is expected of that identity. Individuals execute these expectations through role performances and continually compare their interpretation of the identity standard with their role performance to ensure that the performance represents the identity (Burke, 2006). Individuals also make determinations about their identity based on their desire to define the situation and to maintain an identity that is consistent with others interpretations of them (Robinson and Smith Lovin, 1992). Individuals internaliz e and interpret structure through these processes, as they evaluate hegemonic understandings of their identity performance and compare it with their own understanding of that identity. Cultural naming, meaning making, resources, and consistency all serve as mediators that allow individuals to interpret the restraints of the larger social structure and the dominant discourse that accompanies it, and to construct an identity in relation to these larger forces. Cultural naming indicates that macro level cultural categories exist that assist in determining expectations for particular identities. These expectations shape how individuals perform particular identities and how these identities a re verified through interaction (Burke, 2004:6). Societies often cultivate shared meanings that tie individuals together and link them to the social structure. However, local meanings do exist that may not be directly tied to larger structures (Burke, 20 04:7). The perception and value of a resource in human interaction is often influenced by broader understandings of the meaning of these resources. In this way, controlling the &&!meanings of particular resources can also lead to control over their perceptio n and distribution (Burke, 2004:8). Objects are key in identity maintenance and consistency. ÒOnce an object becomes a symbolic representation of meaning for a person, it becomes important to maintain that meaning in order to sustain a coherent, cohesive view of the worldÉPeople perceive, seek out, and create events to sustain the meanings which they hold about themselves and their social worlds,Ó (Robinson and Smith -Lovin, 1992:14). The structured, patterned nature of society makes social relationships durable and highly resistant to change (Stryker, Owens and White, 2000) . However, this does not mean that identities are simply automatons that develop in direct relation to societal structures. Identities are as complex and multifaceted as the societies in which they emerge (Stryker, Owens and White, 2000) . The self dictates identity p erformance through the use of Òcognitive schemasÓ which serve as frameworks for Òinternally stored information and meaningsÓ. These cognitive schemas dictate human behavior by delineating potential interpretive conclusions (Stryker and Burke, 2000) . As such, they become cognitive bases for defining situations and determining role choice, by increasing sensitivity and receptivity to certain behavioral cues ( Stryker and Burke, 2000). The role individuals take comes with a certain set of expectations, wh ich they perform and is then labeled as action. In this way, cognitive schemas help to determine identity salience and identity commitments in any given situation, which then shapes role choice behavior (Robinson and Smith -Lovin, 1 992; Stryker and Burke, 2000). Identity theorists build on these frames to argue that identities are relatively stable over time, and their manifestations are directly related to the social structures they occupy Ñtherefore identities may change as the structures they inhabit chan ge. In particular, individuals may choose or default to a particular identity based on the salience of that identity, which again is &'!largely determined by structure (Serpe, 1987) . These decisions are often based on which identity holds most prominence in the identity salience hierarchy (Serpe, 1987:45). The identities that are most prominent are often those the individual has the greatest commitment to. Commitment is often dictated by interaction or affect. Inter actional commitment arises to secure identities that are necessary to the maintenance of other identities. Affective commitments arise to maintain identities that increase an individualÕs status and social relationships (Serpe, 1987; Stryker and Serpe, 1994) . Identity choice is also influenced by group membership and reference group membership. Group membership is determined by external ascription of what group an individual belongs to and the corresponding cultural and behavioral expectations that accompany that groups performance. However, the particular identity standards dictated by group membership may not always fit with individual attitudes and behavior (Rosenberg and Turner, 1981). It is often more important t o examine how identities are shaped by an individual's reference group (Cross ,1991). A reference group Òdesignates the group to which an individual orients himself, regardless of actual membership,Ó(Rosenberg and Turner, 1981:66). Consequently, an indivi dualÕs sense of self was contingent upon how they positioned themselves within the larger social framework, not just the position the larger soc iety put them into (Hyman, 1968) . In this way, reference groups and roles both serve as intermediaries between individual actions and beliefs and larger social structures, making them necessary tools for social -psycho logical examinations. Reference group orientations are more helpful when analyzing self concept than group identity because they create a conceptual space that allows the individual more agency in choosing which group is most significant to their identity in particular spaces and times. &(!This does not mean that there is a one to one relationship between an individualÕs identity and their behavior. Identities and the roles that accompany them are shaped by both norms and counter norms, which provide some po ssibility for self change (Heiss, 1981) . Although dominant societal norms are internalized and in this way shape roles, often a social actor Õs commitment to these internalized norms is fleeting and contingent upon the situated interactions they find themselves in (Heiss, 1981:98). Consequently, processes of role taking and interactions are somewhat flexible as actors can choose to follow or op pose normative behavioral expectations. Shifting the analysis from social behavior to role choice behavior indicates that social behavior is determined by an individual choosing which role is most appropriate for any given situation, not by individual Òch oiceÓ or interpretation (Stryker and Burke, 2000:285), therefore lodging the process of identity negotiation firmly in structural limitations. We come to know who we are and what behavior is expected of the role we play through role taking and socializatio n (Stryker, 1980:62). Socialization and role taking occur in every social interaction (Stryker, 1980:63 -64). In this way, our identities are never static (Stryker, 1980:64). Shared behavioral expectations are key to social interaction and social positions or roles are expressed and represented by particular symbols. Once these symbols are made visible, behavioral expectations that are consistent with the societal expectations of what it means to be in that role ensue. In this way, our position in the soc ial structure limits the kinds of interactions we have and the type of roles and selves we develop. Our reactions to these limitations shape interaction and interaction shapes social structure (Stryker, 1980:66). Our relationships with others and our own self-identity comprise a dialectic process, with each relationship helping to constitute the other (Robinson and Smith -Lovin, 1992:13). &)!Flexibility to act on these roles is influenced by how much power a person has in the system. Societies are composed of multiple subuniverses, each of which has its own body of knowledge and institutional structure (Berger and Luckmann, 1966:87). Power determines which subuniverseÕs meanings and goals become more dominant in any given social order. However, power does no t only determine which subuniverse wins out, but also determines which realities will be created in the first place (Berger and Luckmann, 1966:119). Individuals do resist the expectations of others that are imposed upon them and persist with their own defi nitions of the situation. Individuals with more power are more able to resist definitions that are imposed on them and more often attempt to change others definitions of the situation than conforming themselves (Cast, 2003) . Groups who are stigmatized on a structural level also engage in Òidentity workÓ t o create a space that allows them to feel valued and to negotiate the stigma that has been placed upon them (Anderson and Snow, 2001) . Key to this argument is the point that inequa lities that manifest themselves in individualÕs everyday realities extend beyond the direct effects of structural inequalities such as race, class and gender (Anderson and Snow, 2001:397). Consequently, it is important to examine who has the power to cont rol and define spaces and interactions, who gets attention and who does not, and who is expected to perform work that may be invisible or emotion based. These micro level inequalities can sometimes be more significant determinants of identity, and role be havior, as they influence non-verbal communication and interpersonal interactions (Anderson and Snow, 2001; Karp and Yoels, 1986) . Cumulatively, these micro -aggressions can have dire consequences, affecting socia l actors self -perceptions and self-expectations. &*! Such an analysis highlights the structural significance of the self, while not ignoring the complex, multi -layered processes that often shape the self in social interactions. This directly contradicts SSIÕ s notion that Òrole taking is a stable, background process (Cast, 2004:296)Ó. Cast contends that role taking is instead a Òsocial processÓ that changes over time and through hum an interaction (Cast, 2004) . Race and Ethnicity These theories show that identities are not just the outcome of individual or interactional phenom enon. Instead, they arise out of structural processes, and are influenced by factors that are often beyond our control. In this way, structure is Òmore than another term for patternÓ but instead Òreflects the experience of being up against something, of li mits on freedom, and also the experience of being able to operate by proxy (Connell, 1987:92)Ó. Factors that determine which identity is most salient, has the highest rewards, and is most consistent with what is expected are limited by structures and situa ted in particular temporal historical moments. Racial formations in the United States are one of the most important patterns that determines which identities are available and how they can be performed. Consequently, identities are not just created by what they are, but what they are not. IdentitiesÕ are constructed through difference (Fine, 1993; Hall and Open University., 1997; Schwalbe et al., 2000; Tajfel, 1982) as boundary mechanisms that emerge in particular rac ial formations. Racial orders are always products of structure and interaction (Bonilla -Silva, 1997; Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Essed, 1991; West and Fenstermaker, 1995) . Iterative processes that incorporate both the ins titutional and the interactive guide racial and ethnic boundary construction and maintenance (Essed, 1991 ). Both rac e and ethnicity must be a part of any &+!adequate analysis of how inequality structures our society (Gold, 2004). The racial model is helpful because of its articulations of whiteness as a mechanism for power, through which other ethnicities are othered, raci alized and subjugated (Ferber, 1998). However, this model does not go far enough because too often, it categorizes ÒwhiteÓ and ÒblackÓ as European and African American. In reality, white and black are metaphors for axes of power that may or may not have anything to do with phenotype. Theorists who advocate for a more nuanced perspective criticize the racial model for not adequately theorizing about racialized ethnic groups that fall outside of white or black (Foner and Fredrickson, 2004) . However, in their attempt to articulate the unique experiences of each individual racialized ethnic group, ethnicity theorists too often fall back on pluralistic models that ignore the fact that Ògroups with disparate phenotypes, histories, contexts, and origins sometimes encounter remarkably simi lar patterns of oppression (Kivisto, 2002, Sidanius and Pratto 1999, Winant 2001, as summarized in Gold, 2004 :951)Ó. Omi and WinantÕs (1986) articulation of racial projects and EssedÕs (1991) conceptualization of everyday racism are helpful to create a model that addresses both of these concerns. Racial projects serve as systems of representation and organizati on that serve as intermediaries between structure, ideology, and interaction (Bonilla Silva, 1997:60; Omi and Winant, 1986). Racial projects are also simultaneously structural and temporal, maintaining rigid hierarchies while at the same time being ground ed in the social and historical (Omi and Winant, 1986). In this way, the concept of racial projects can illuminate how racial and ethnic boundaries are constructed and maintained at all levels of society, and come together to form particular ÒprojectsÓ. E ssedÕs (1991) model also incorporates an analysis of how interactive and institutional processes work together to structure racial and ethnic relationships. Everyday racism is based on a system of Òsocialized meanings making practices immediately definabl e and &,!uncontested so that, in principle, these practices can be managed according to (sub)cultural norms and expectations,Ó (Essed, 1991:48). In this way, the everyday becomes a locus for social control as it normalizes and reproduces social hierarchies. Using these models, we can see how race is Òan unstable and ÒdecenteredÓ complex of social meanings constantly being transformed by political struggleÉ race is a concept which signifies and symbolizes social conflicts and interests by referring to differen t types of human bodies (Omi and Winant, 1994:55)Ó. Racial and ethnic definitions are Òcreated, inhabited, transformed and destroyed (Omi and Winant, 1994:55)Ó through a series of racial projects that organize and link racial ideologies, representations, and structure (Omi and Winant, 1994:56). What racial or ethnic category an individual is placed into and what this categorization means is contingent upon the particular racial projects that are at play. Racial and ethnic categories both serve as tools fo r constructing and maintaining rigid hierarchical boundaries (Cornell and Hartmann, 2006; Ferber, 1998; Rumbaut, 2009; Spickard, 1992) that distribute power and resources to some (Cornell and Hartmann, 2006:31), and exclude and oppress others (Cornell and Hartmann, Ferber, 1998; Rumbaut, 2009; Spickard, 1992:12; Wray, 2006). These boundaries are constructed to ensure that white hegemony and its accompanying system of white supremacy can be maintained and can continue to serve as a bastion of privilege and power for those included within its ranks. Martinot argues that whites fight vehemently to maintain this border because they are aware of the Òfragility of white identity, and the thinness of its hegemony (Martinot, 2007:21)Ó. This kind of boundary maintenance is central to the preservation of inequalities, as it determines where the lines of privileged and not privileged are drawn (Blau, Blum, and Schwartz, 1982; Ferber, 1998; Perry; Schwalbe et. al., 2000:430; van den Berghe, 1967). &-!Having the ability to determine who can identify as what within this larger social system is a representation of power in and of itself, as it provides the ability to keep certain people in, and others out (Bonilla -Silva, 1997; Cornell and Hartmann, 2006; Espiritu, 1992) . However, the group power afforded by these boundaries comes with a cost. It is contingent on both intragroup cohesion and on intergroup exclusion (Arendt, 1974; Blau, Blum and Schwartz, 1982; Van den Berghe, 1967) that homogenizes members of the in -group and stigmatizes members of the out -group. These racial and ethnic boundaries are also imbued with meanings (Omi and Winant, 1986) that justify existing power relationships and provide a rationale for why those deemed white are deserving of their ideological and material privileges. (Bonilla Silva, 2014 ; Omi and Winant, 1986:62). However, upon interrogation of these concepts, it is clear that the boundaries that they carve out are socially and temporally constructed, indicating that who is allowed a white identity and what type of a performance is expec ted of the white identity they have expands and contracts to include some and exclude others based on what is necessary to maintain the larger system of white supremacy at any particular moment. Furthermore, these boundaries are complicated by a slew of f actors, including skin tone, class, gender, citizenship, local space and religion (Andersen and Hill Collins, 2007; Gold, 2004; Zinn and Dill, 1996) . The politicization of AmericaÕs racial and ethnic identities in o rder to maintain the boundaries of white supremacy can be seen in the shifting nature of these delineations. Before AmericaÕs founding individuals were often classified as ÒwhiteÓ and ÒblackÓ based on their particular religious affiliations, regardl ess of skin color (Jordan and Jordan, 1974) . At the turn of the century, many who would be contemporarily deemed white, including Je ws, Irish and Italians, were labeled and stigmatized as Black, due to their beliefs in non -Protestant religions, '.!and because of their working class status (Brodkin, 1998; Ignatiev, 2009; Jacobson, 1999) . In the earl y 1940Õs, in Texas, and other parts of the Southwest, race was also largely dictated by class status. Individuals of Mexican descent could be classified as white if they were property owners, while whites that were sharecroppers were often classified as b lack (Almaguer, 1994; Foley, 1997; Glenn, 2004) . This system of racial classification was further compromised by gender, as Mexican women were sometimes allowed to marry white men of a similar class status, and to b ecome ÒwhiteÓ by doing so (Foley, 1997). Racial and ethnic identity and membership continues to shift for Hispanics and Latinos today. Contemporarily, some Hispanics and Latinos are considered white, some as in between black and white, and others as black . Which category they are placed within is contingent on factors including skin color, class, citizenship and nationality (Candalario, 2000; Rumbaut, 2009). Asians experience similar processes of racialization. Markers of ÒforeignnessÓ such as the inabi lity to speak English fluently without an accent and to be indoctrinated within American culture automatically disqualifies Asian Americans from being classified as white. However, achieving a good education and a ÒnormalÓ middle class American lifestyle can place Asians in the running for whiteness Ñpositioning them as one of ÒusÓ instead of as one of ÒthemÓ Ña ÒrealÓ American (Tuan, 2001:2, 155). Since the attacks on America on September 11 th, many Arab Americans who have historically been considered (and considered themselves) to be white, are now finding that their whiteness is in question. Arabs are suspected to be Muslims, which for some, automatically qualifies them to be Ònon -whiteÓ and terrorists (Bakalian and Bozorgmehr, 2009) . On the other hand, whites that do not achieve middle class status, live in all white suburbs, or associate primarily with whites can be stripped of some of the privileges that come with being complicit with white hegemony (McDermott, 2006; Sweetland, 2002; Wray, 2006). Of course, '%!despite this flexibility, this is not to say that the boundary between white and b lack is a porous one. Many within American society, including African and Caribbean immigrants have never been allowed to cross the boundary over to whiteness (Foner and Fredrickson, 2004; Verkuyten, 2005; Waters, 1990 ; Waters, 1999) . Even Asian Americans and Hispanics who are able to achieve some of the cultural markers of whiteness are often not fully accepted as white (Rumbaut, 2009; Tuan, 1998) . Reports have shown that whit es are more comfortable living with Asians and Hispanics than blacks, but despite this, white segregation from Asians and Hispanics has been on the rise (Charles, 2003:167; Gotham, 2000). These distinctions highlight how racial formations and race as a bou ndary construction mechanism guide our lives, but still allow for a wide array of racial identities and performances. White Racial Identities White racial identity emerges through the same patterns of interaction. White racial identity emerges through a Òdynamic equilibriaÓ (White, 2008) that is a response to national and local racial formations. These racial formations guide the types of white racia l identities that are available and ensure that these identities are held together, ranked, created in relation to the ideals of white supremacy and hegemony . However, particular manifestations of white racial identities vary by demographics, attitudes and values, and behaviors, practices and preferences. Together, this interaction between structural and cultural forces determines the type of WRI particular whites exhibit. In this research, I examine the specific processes that lead to WRI and how WRI diffe rs by demographics through the following six research questions. '&!Research Questions This study addresses six research questions to examine these issues. These questions examine white attitudes, behaviors and preferences as proxies, or indirect measures o f WRI as racial identities are complex processes that cannot be measured directly. RQ1: What American attitudes, behaviors and preferences are proxy measures for WRI? RQ2: What attitudes, behaviors and preferences regarding cross racial interactions are proxy measures for WRI? RQ3: What ethnic attitudes, behaviors and preferences are proxy measures for WRI? RQ4: What racial attitudes are proxy measures for WRI? RQ5: What institutional attitudes, behaviors and preferences are proxy measures for WRI? RQ6: Ho w do these attitudes, values, behaviors, cultural practices and preferences differ by key socio -demographic factors, including age, education, religion, ethnic identification, bilingual ability, gender, class, urbanicity, neighborhood and network racial co mposition and family prejudice? The rationale for each of these research questions is listed below. Rationale for Measuring White Racial Identities through Attitudes, Behaviors and Preferences White racial identities can be measured through behaviors, practices and preferences as these outlets provide indicators of the individuals self perception, how they are perceived by others, and where they are positioned in the larger social structure (Wellman, 1997) . In particular, this study argues that white ra cial identities can be measured by five categories of ''!attitudes, behaviors and preferences including American, Cross Racial, Ethnic, Racial and Institutional. The relevance of each topic area to white racial identity measurement and categorization is discu ssed below. WRI and American attitudes, behaviors, and preferences Asking respondents questions about their American attitudes directly measures their own perceptions of who they are and how they fit into the US community (Landrine and Klonoff, 1996; Phinne y, 1992; Tsai, Ying, and Lee, 2000 ). American culture is imbued with many European characteristics, including Òthe values and practices derived from the European Enlightenment, Anglican Protestantism, and Western colonialism, namely individualism, personal responsibility, a strong work ethnic, deferred gratification, self -effacement, mind over body, self -control, and the mastery of nature,Ó (Perry, 2002:23). These factors also shape what it means to be white, as many whites identify primarily as ÒAme ricansÓ. High levels of identification with an American or human identity indicate increased levels of investment in a white racial frame that perpetuates Eurocentric ideals and behaviors and denies the relevance of race (Feagin, 2013) . Although the boundaries between American culture and white culture are fuzzy and have yet to be st udied systematically, research points to the fact that white culture is guided by similar discourses about the invisibility of race, denial of white privilege, and colorblind and individualistic attitudes (Hartmann, Gerteis and Croll, 2009). Ideologies of colorblindness and race -neutrality are also central to white culture (Perry, 2002:23). Often these discourses of Americanism are also imbued with conservative ideals. White respondentÕs political views are another key indicator of their white racial iden tity. Conservatives are more likely to possess identities that exhibit clear and direct racial animosity '(!toward blacks (Bonilla Silva 2014 ). Conservatism also fosters ideologies of symbolic racism, whereby racial inequalities are attributed to blacks inabi lity to work hard, not participate in crime, and to become a generally sound Ame rican citizen (Tarman and Sears, 2005) . It is more difficult to explicate the relationship between liberal political views and white racial identities, since liberals are often just as likely to possess racist attitudes, but couch these attitudes in Òcolor -blindÓ non -racist vernacular (Bonilla Silva, 2014 ). Attitudes concerning what Òproper EnglishÓ is and the particular ways that the English language is utilized is another performative proxy for WRI. Language use has traditionally been used as a measure of acculturation (Anderson et. al. 1993; Barona and Mil ler 1994; Barry 2001) and serves as one of the performative proxies that individuals use to express their identity to others (Sweetland, 2002). Hegemonic American whiteness presupposes a certain adeptness with ÒproperÓ American English, and an awareness of particular cultural contexts in which certain words are appropriate and ot hers arenÕt (Bettie , 2000; McDermott , 2006). Hegemonic whiteness idealizes proper Americanized English as the official language of the United States and expects that ÒothersÓ who l ive here should be required to learn and execute this particular form of English. Ebonics, accents, or use of other non -Engligh languages are often frowned down upon (Sweetland, 2002). Hegemonic whiteness guide what language is expected in professional settings and therefore whites who have more access to hegemonic whiteness are less likely than racialized ethnic others to have to code switch in these settings (Cross, 1991). In sociolinguistic theory, language use is often essentialized as a representation of cultural membership in a particular racial or ethnic group. All African Americans are expected to use African American Vernacular English (AAVE), and all Whites are expected to use more ÒnormativeÓ forms of English (Sweetland, 2002:514). Speech, manne risms and dress are all ')!aspects of performativity used to express social position (Bettie, 2000:11). Authenticity is accomplished through the piecing together of different culturally specific performances to achieve a particular ideal (Bettie, 2000). Alt hough these performances are imbued with meaning given to them by the performer, and meant to accomplish the actorÕs goals, they are also interpreted in larger structural frameworks in ways that may not fall in line with the actorÕs intentions (Bettie, 200 0:17). Such generalizations do not take into account the complex and unique social positions that are created through mitigated experiences of race, class, gender, sexuality, and local physical space (Sweetland, 2002:514) and reinforce white and black as distinct ideological and material spaces. Expectations for whites to speak ÒnormativeÓ forms of English arise out of ideologies that position whiteness as middle class and suburban, with little to no real contact with people of color (Sweetland, 2002). Ho wever, SweetlandÕs case study tells the story of Delilah, a white woman who is immersed in the culture, class, and local physical space of her working class black peers. Unlike the white suburban youth who use AAVE with no actual exposure to black culture or contact with black people, DelilahÕs use of AAVE mimics actual black usage, and therefore more authentic (Sweetland, 2002:515). Ultimately, DelilahÕs crossing of the local physical space and class expectations that align with whiteness allows her to t ransform her white racial identity through the use of an Òindividual racia l project (Omi and Winant, 1994) Ó that exists counter to the hegemonic racial projects that are at play at any given historical moment. WRI and attitudes, behaviors and preferences concerning cross -racial interaction Cross -racial interactions and comfort have long been used as a measure of how acculturated an individual is within a culture (Barona and Miller, 1994; Barry, 2001; Benet -'*!Martinez, 2006; Broman, 1989; Campisi, 1947; Phinney, 1992) and have also been used as indicators of identity (Broman, 1989; Landrine and Klonoff, 1996). Traditionally, whites have been asked about their attitudes about cross racial interactions as a measure of white racial identity (Helms, 1990). It is necessary to go beyond this by asking whites to report their actual attitudes and behaviors concerning cross racial interactions . These behaviors often indicate practices that often times supersedes their articulated ideologies of racial egalitarianism. Whites who have high levels of cross -cultural interaction are also less likely to exhibit racist attitudes and to be as acculturated into hegemonic white culture as those whose only cultural reference point is hegemonic white culture (Helms, 1990; Helms, 199 7). Although cross -racial interactions are becoming much more frequent in public spaces (Anderson, 2011) , our private spaces are becoming increasingly stratified by race (Charles, 2003; Farley et al., 1978; Kivisto and Rundblad, 2000; Krysan and Bader, 2007; Massey and Denton, 1993; Swaroop and Krysan, 2011). Many whites publically proclaim racial equality and intermixing, while preserving racial segregation in the privacy of their own homes, romantic relationships, families and close friendships. This type of marginalization is a building block for white raci al identities that deny the significance of racism and perpetuate ideologies of the white racial frame. WRI and ethnic atti tudes, behaviors and preferences Ethnic attitudes, behaviors and preferences have traditionally been measured through holiday and f ood practices as well as feelings of belonging and investment in a particular ethnic group. For the purposes of this research, ethnic attitudes, behaviors, and preferences were measured through participation in ethnic rituals, including holidays, cultural practices, and food. Holidays are times of celebration, rite, and ritual that hold immense significance in all '+!cultural communities (Campisi, 1947; Cortes et. al. 2003; Chung, Kim, and Abreu 2004 ). These traditions influence have been used to measure raci alized ethnic otherÕs immersion into dominant American culture, but no systematic studies have been done about the relationship between white racial identities and holiday practices. Consequently, it is unclear whether whiteÕs that participate in holidays that emerge from their ancestral ethnic traditions have white identities that are guided by their ancestral ethnic traditions, or whether these practices are simply superficial markers of a more generic American identity. Familiarity with the cultural pra ctices and knowledge of ones ethnic ancestors also can serve as a representation of white racial identity (Broman, 1989; Landrine and Klonoff, 1996; Phinney, 1992). Although whiteÕs cultural attitudes have been relatively well examined in the literature, t heir actual cultural behaviors are less clear. However, Perry (2002) hypothesizes that white material culture includes Òtypes of food, like hamburgers, hot dogs, spaghetti, and cupcakesÉ social activities, like line dancing, ceremonial parades, and state a nd county fairsÉ[and cultural products like] country music, modern (post -sixties) rock and roll, certain slang terms or ways of talking, and outdoor activities like backpacking,Ó (Perry, 2002:23 -24). Food is another important component of culture and ther efore, particular food preferences signify level of acculturation into a group (Landrine and Klonoff, 1996). Food preferences are also performative indicators of identity (Lu and Fine, 1995) . However, because of the invisibility of whiteness, it is often assumed that there are no measurable food preferences and practices that are associated with white culture . Part of this complication derives from the fact that white culture is hegemonic and has appropriated other cultural foods as its own, including spaghetti and Mexican food (Perry, 2002). Although white cultural foods have not been explored, it is likely that whites, just like any other cultural group have patterned and systemic food ',!prefe rences, preparation processes, and aesthetic preferences. However, these preferences are likely to be mitigated by other social positions, such as class and gender. WRI and racial attitudes White respondentÕs implicit and explicit attitudes both serve as measures of their white racial identities. Explicit racist attitudes are no longer politically correct. However, many whites continue to be immersed in attitudes that are implicitly racist, such as color blind racism (Bonilla -Silva, 2006), laissez -faire r acism (Bobo and Charles, 2009; Sears, Sidanius and Bobo, 2000), an ti-racist racisms (Wina nt, 2001) , or Òproblematizations (Essed, 1991) that point to the existence of a contemporary American ideology that simultaneously denies and perpetuates racial and ethnic inequalities. All of these concepts signify white attitudes that justify inequal ity by stigmatizing and blaming racialized ethnic minorities for their inability to be ÒsuccessfulÓ while ignoring the larger structural barriers created by white supremacy that limit their mobility. These ideologies further reproduce racial a nd ethnic abs tractions that serve as a means of legitimating the marginalization of racialized ethnic minorities (Blumer, 1958; Bobo and Hutchings, 1996) . Legitimating ideologies are key to boundary construction between whites and racialized ethnic others, as successful systems of oppression (including white supremacy) are not only achieved through coercion and social dominance orientations (Sidanius and Pratto, 1999) , but also through consent (Gramsci , 1992; Omi and Winant, 1986). Most people want to maintain a positive self -image (Robinson and Smith Lovin, 1992), and cannot do so while consciously oppressing others Ñunless this oppression is justified through ideology. '-! WRI and institutional atti tudes, behaviors and preferences Institutional attitudes, behaviors and preferences have previously been used as indicators of acculturation and identity. In this research, institutional attitudes, behaviors, and preferences were measured through questions that asked respondents about the ir religious practices, media preferences and institutional trust. Religion is a key institution of any society, and therefore religious preferences represent the larger culture the individual identifies with and has been socialized within (Dodson, 2002; Durkheim, 2012) . The white racial frame that guides white identities an d performances is infused with P rotestant ideologies that idealize indiv idualism and meritocracy (Feagin, 2006; Weber, 2001). Religion also influences white racial identities through the proxy of politics, especially with the recent growth in white evangelical membership Ñwhose congregants are much more likely to exhibit conservative values and behaviors (Emerson and Smith, 2000) . Media is a mechanism for distributing, creating and refining existing images, tropes, and beliefs in any given society. The proliferation of new media forms in the U nited States offer seemingly expansive choices throug h a multitude of media outlets , however, these outlets are still owned and operated by a few small conglomerations (Compaine and Gomery, 2000; Noam, 2009). Many of these conglomerations are invested in showing controlling images (Hill Collins, 2004) that perpetuate hegemonic whiteness, through the idealization of images of white supremacy and purity, and obfuscate the varied and meaningful experiences of racialized ethnic minorities. These images create idealized standards that whites use to filter their own identities. Media preferences often align with the cultural community one is a part of (Barry, 2001; Birman and Trickett, 2001; Broman, 1989; Chung, Kim, and Abr eu 2004 ; Landrine and Klonoff, 1996) (.!and serve as a representation of identity. However, because whites occupy a privileged position in American society, they are also able to appropriate media facets of other cultures as their own, while still retai ning a white racial identity (Johnson, 2003) . Many of the studies on whitesÕ immersion into black culture has focused on white youths who participate in hip hop culture, since hip hop culture is one of the most conte mporary and accessible black cultural forms available to white youth (Johnson, 2003). Oftentimes, whitesÕ attempts to position themselves within hip -hop culture negatively caricaturizes superficial aspects of African American and hip hop culture. Many wh ites subscribe to commercialized versions of blackness without having any i dea about the actual historical and political experiences of blacks in the United States. These whites often try to negate racial differences by aligning themselves with colorblind ideologies and discourse, although the racial tropes they are playing out clearly suggest that racial differences have meaning in the larger social context. On the other hand, there are a minority of white hip -hoppers that seem to be more authentically positioned within black hip -hop culture and media forms . These whites are more aware of racial differences, the discriminations associated with white supremacy, and of their position as someone who is racialized as white. Acknowledgement of this whitene ss actual increases cultural capital, as it recognizes the divergent and unequal historical trajectories of whites and blacks in America. In this way, being aware of a white racial identity is actually ÒkeepinÕ it realÓ (Cutler, 2003; Hess, 2005) . Hip hop also serves as in interesting context through which white racial identities can be examined, as it perpetuates larger social ideologies that equate whiteness with privilege, thereby removing its invisibility. In t his context, white rap (%!artists must vie for credibility by highlighting their experiences with social struggles despite the racial privilege bequeathed to them (Hess, 2005:372). Finally, institutional trust has also been shown to be a proxy for white rac ial identity, as whites are much more likely than blacks to put their faith in American institutions (LaVeist, Nickerson and Bowie, 2000; Tyler, 2005) . Rationale for Measuring White Racial Identities through Demographics The above features set up a baseline of attitudes, behaviors and preferences that serve as proxy measures for WRI, however these identities are likely to differ by socio -demographic position and ea rly socializ ation experiences. Socialization is key to how acculturated individualÕs are into thei r ascribed racial group (Broman 1989; La ndrine and Klonoff 1996; Rosenbe rg and Turner 1990). Our childhood socialization experiences are also key to our later identity development. Being socialized in schools, neighborhoods, and family and friend groups that are primarily white influence an individualÕs white racial identity, as does whether or not they were socialized around whites who exhibit ed prejudicial behaviors (Cro ll 2007; Helms 1990). RespondentÕs racial and ethnic self identification, education, state and city of residence, religious background, gender, class status, urbanicity, and political views mitigate their white racial identities in a number of ways (Hartig an 1999; McDermott 2006; Morris 2005; Sweetland 2002; Wray 2006). Whites must possess some configuration of ÒwhiteÓ demographic markers, such as well-educated, suburban, or middle or upper class, or both their self -conception and otherÕs perception of the ir white racial identity may be questioned. The impact each of these categories has on WRI is discussed in more detail below. (&! WRI and racial and ethnic self identification The categories whites use to define their racial and ethnic identities are reflective of the particular racial formation that they are engaged in (Omi and Winant, 1994) and are representations of where they see ourselves positioned in the larger racialized structure. Racial identities vary for whites who categorize themselves as ethnic (Alba, 1990; Riesman and Gans, 1979; Waters, 1990) , white (Croll, 2007; McDermott and Samson, 2005), American, or human. White ethnic identification is often an indicator of a racial identity that is looking for distinction, and a connection to some lon g forgotten ancestral past (Perry, 2002). Identifying as white on the other hand is a representation of subscribing to a more generalized racial identity, one under which ethnic identity has often all but disappeared. On the other hand, identifying as ÒAme ricanÓ or ÒhumanÓ often represents possessing an identity that normalizes whiteness and equates it as the standard that all other racia lized ethnic others should be measured against (McDermott and Samson, 2005). WRI and education White racial identity is also determi ned by education (Jackman, 1994). Whites who are uneducated are more likely hold politically conservative identities also likely to exhibit racist attitudes (Sears, et. al., 2000). However, this relationship between education and white racial identity is complicated by the fact t hat educated whites are more likely to be aware of normative expectations of political correctness and be fluent in neutral language that allows them to portray racially egalitarian identities, despite their actual racial attitudes. ('! WRI and neighborhoo ds and networks The place a person grew up in is a material realm that is delineated by very real ph ysical boundaries (Gieryn, 2000) . These boundaries are often imbued with meanings that guide the identities, behavioral expectations, and interactions that develop in a particular space (Howard, 2000). Maintaining hegemonic whiteness is contingent upon clear lines of demarcation between ÒwhiteÓ and ÒblackÓ spaces . Local physical space can al so serve as an ideological construction, imbued with expectations of particular raced, classed, and gendered performances that guide racial identity. Place of birth, residency, and frequenting Òserve as tangible markers of symbolic racial [and classed] bo undaries (Sweetland, 2002:526)Ó. The ÒghettoÓ serves as a stand in for black and lower or working class, and suburbia as white and middle or upper class (Sweetland, 2002:526). Together, these raced symbol s influence an individuals self -perception, how the y interact with others , and where others position them in the larger social structure. Whites who were immersed within white communities, with little to no cross cultural contact, are more likely to be unaware of the ways race influences their identity, ei ther through group membership or cultural markers. WRI and gender White womenÕs racial identity is often different than that of white men (Frankenburg 1993). The identities that are made available to white women are greatly influenced by systems of hegemonic whiteness that attempt to subjugate white women and the control of white womenÕs sexuality (Bettie 2000; Ferber 1998; Frankenburg 1993; Wilkins 2004). Although white women retain a general level of white privilege, it is often at the cost of making themselves valuable to white men through sexual and reproductive relationships (Frank, 1998) . As a ((!consequence, white women are the key to maintaining the boundaries of whiteness by breeding and socializing their children into the normative behavioral expectations of whiteness. Because of this, the cost for transgressing these boundaries has been high. Historically, white women who partic ipated in interracial relationships lost many, though not all of the privileges associated with whiteness. In some extreme cases, when marrying an Òillegal alien,Ó white women could even be stripped of their citizenship rights (Frank , 1998:86 -88). These legal repercussions are now a thing of the past, but white women who participate in interracial relationships are often stigmatized and stripped of the ideological privileges of whiteness. White women who are in relationships with men of color are often s een as Ò super sexual Ó beings in ways they would not have been if they were a white man choosing to dat e a woman of color (Frankenburg , 1993; Wilkins , 2004). At times, these interracial relationships can racialize women as being something other than white , clearly placing their identities outside the bounds of whiteness. White women who participate in interracial sexual relationships are often labeled as ÒwannabesÓ (Wilkins, 2004:103). The ÒwannabesÓ willingness to participate in sexual behaviors from me n outside of their racial group pushes them across the border from white to Òwanting to beÓ black. Such behaviors are blatantly disrespectful to idealized notions of the purity of white femininity and to the idea that white womenÕs sexuality is the posses sion of white men (Bettie, 2000; Wilkins, 2004:104). This phenomenon of using sexuality as a marker of racial membership is not new (Loewen, 1988; Roediger, 2007) . Interestingly enough, their sexual behavior also serves as a marker of their class status. ÒWannabes are alternatively imagined as fallen middle -class white girls or as poor white girls,Ó (Wilkins, 2004:104) regardless of their actual access to economic resources. This process highlights the power of hegemonic whiteness to strip women from both ()!their racial and class membership based on their sexual practices. White girls who do not participate in interracial relationships are also affected by these tropes, as they use the wannabes behavior to define their own identities and performances as mor e authentically white (Wilkins, 2004:111). Despite these consequences, white women are still more likely to have more egalitarian white racial identities than white men. Young, working class women who frequently interact in interracial networks are the most likely individuals to exhibit white identities that are racially progressive (Bonilla Silva, 2006) . It is likely that womenÕs own experience s of discrimination along with their high er likelihood to interact with people of color increases their capacity to understand the struggles of other oppressed groups, especially those who share similar class status. White men, on the other hand only have to deal with class discrimination and ofte n reap benefits from supporting the racial status quo such as increased sense of control and access to material and symbolic resources (Bonilla -Silva, 2006). WRI and class status Class status is not one of the traditional variables that has been used in creating measures of white racial identity, although the impact of class status on white racial identity has been explored through smaller scale ethnographic studies (Hartigan, 1999; McDermott, 2006; Morris, 2005; Sweetland, 2002; Wray, 2006) and in scales that measure racialized ethnic others identities (Benet -Martinez, 2006). Systems of social stratification work together ( Baca Zinn and Thornton Dill, 1996; Bettie, 2000; Candalario, 2000; Frankenburg, 1993; Hill -Collins, 2004 ) and racial identification ca nnot be analyzed without taking class identification into account. On a structural level, whiteness is conflated with material and financial success (Bettie, 2000; McDermott, 2006; (*!Morris, 2005; Sweetland, 2002; Wilkins, 2004) and blackness is conflated wi th poor or working class status (Bettie, 2000; Feagin, 1991; Kirschenman and Neckerman, 1991; Wilkins, 2004)(Bettie, 2000; Feagin, 1991; Kirschenman and Neckerman, 1991, Wilkins, 2004). Whites that are not able to obtain upper class status are often stigmatized and shunned from normative whiteness, regardless of phenotype (Morris, 2005; Wray, 2006) . WhiteÕs class identity often mitigates their experiences of privilege in local physical spaces (Hartigan, 1999; McDe rmott, 2006; Morris, 2005). Whites are often labeled as failures if they are not able to obtain enough economic success to buy their way out of black working class neighborhoods (McDermott, 2006). Although these whites sometimes exhibited high levels of backlash and anger toward people of color that lived in their neighborhood, they rarely performed the typical displays of entitlement and privilege that are associated with having white skin (McDermott, 2006). Since American society indoctrinates its citize ns with narratives that equate whiteness with success, there are no broad cultural narratives that exist to explain whites who are poor, uneducated, or perform other non -white tropes. In light of this gap, narratives emerge that place harsh critiques and blame white individuals for their inability or unwillingness to live up to these idealized notions of what it means to be white (McDermott, 2006:43). One of the most visible ideologies perpetuating stigmas about poor whites is the label of Òwhite trashÓ. ÒWhite trash names a kind of disturbing liminality: a monstrous, transgressive identity of mutually violating boundary terms, a dangerous threshold state of being neither one nor the otherÉ White trash names a people whose very existence seems to threaten the symbolic and social order,Ó (Wray, 2006:2). The label of white trash has been used throughout history as a way of punishing whites that transgress the moral, social, or political bounds of hegemonic whiteness. These transgressions typically included fraternizing with people of color and not (+!achieving the class status expected of whites (Wray, 2006:17 -20). Such behaviors were often attributed to a clear lack of morals, biological inferiority, and/or mental illness. These whites were then stigmatized as dirty, insane, and inferior to other more ÒrespectableÓ whites (Wray, 2006). Stigmatization of working class whites continues to this day, through d iscourse that labels non-normative whites as ÒwiggersÓ, ÒhillbilliesÓ and ÒhicksÓ (Hartigan, 1999; Hartigan, 2003; Sartwell, 2005; Wray and Newitz, 1997) . However, this does not mean that working class whites have no access to white privilege. White working class men, although not having access to the privileges of the upper class, often are still able to utilize white privilege to their benefit. Roediger (2006) argues that constructions of whiteness are at the heart of the establishment of the working class. White workers used race to separate themselves from workers of color and to rally other white workers, including white ethnics. This gave them enough power to receive certain benefits as a group including higher wages and better jobs that were not accessible t o other workers (Roediger, 200 6; Roediger, 2007). Whites continue to cleave to a white racial identity and ideology, in spite of their shared class status with blacks, even if it means a loss of material privileges. WRI and urbanicity The type of communit y whites live in also inf luence their white racial identities . Urban whites exhibit very different white racial identities tha n rural whites (Croll, 2007) . This is largely because of the stigma that is associat ed with residing in urban or non -white communities. WhitesÕ who reside outside of predominately white, suburban neighborhoods fail to perform whiteness in a way that is in line with hegemonic expectations on two counts. Their fraternization with racialize d ethnic others blurs the boundary between white and racialized (,!ethnic other, and in doing so, depletes it from some of its power. In addition, whitesÕ inability to reside in predominately white neighborhoods symbolizes their failure to achieve the class status expected of them as whites, which contests hegemonic associations between whiteness and material success. Often, these whites are more likely to feel the need to define their whiteness , which is often done by clinging to an ethnically situated ances tral thread, and claiming that ancestral culture as their own (Perry, 2002: 97). However, whites in these environments sometimes also adapt by immersing themselves in the culture of the ÒotherÓ. This is especially true if they live in urban communities tha t are dominated by racialized ethnic minorities (Hartigan, 1999; Morris, 2006). Together, these variables approach WRI from a holistic perspective, measuring it through the proxies of self -concept, attitudes, interactions , and group membership. The method ology utilized in this research to provide an empirical examination of how these variables influence white racial identities is the topic of the next chapter. (-!METHODS Introduction This chapter details the rationale, design, data, and instrument associated with this research . This research is based on a questionnaire that was distributed to three hundred and eleven college students, responses from which will be analyzed using linear regression and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) . The goal of th is research was to create a measure of white racial identity and to categorize different types of white racial identities. I examine d white racial identities through white attitudes, behaviors and preferences. Previous research on WRI has typically measure d whether whites are aware of themselves as racial beings and how strongly they identify with other whites (Bobo and Hutchings, 1996; Bobo and Smith, 1998; Bobo, 1999; Helms, 1990; Helms, 2007) . These measures quantify whites group membership but do not adequately measure the cultural practices and preferences that contribute to WRI. The purpose of this research is to combine the more traditional questions utilized on previous measures of WRI with modified questions from acculturation measures that have been used to measure the racial identities of blacks, Native Americans, Latinos and immigrants to create a more comprehensive measure of WRI. This combined measure includes questions about group m embership and about the cultural and behavioral practices of whites. My research design utilizes quantitative methods in order to measure and categorize the broader patterns that contribute to white racial identity development and performance. This initial research serves as a pilot study on a small, particularized segment of whites and its findings may not be generalizable to whites who do not fit the age range, educational background, or university context of respondents in this study. Even so, this resea rch is significant in that it provides new empirical research about the nature of WRI using a sample size that is larger than those utilized in previous qualitative studies (Bettie, ).!2000; Hartigan, 1999; Hughey, 2010; M orris, 2005; Morris, 2006; Perry, 2002; Sweetland, 2002). This is an important step in uncovering the contours of white racial identity in more diverse populations of whites, although additional research must be done on samples of whites that are truly generalizable. Future studies will utilize revised versions of the WRIS developed here and distribute them to a sampling of white respondents that are much more representative of the United States population as a whole. This study addresses six research q uestions to examine these issues . These questions examine white attitudes, beha viors and preferences as proxy measures of WRI as racial identities are complex processes that cannot be measured directly. RQ1: What American attitudes, behaviors and preferences are proxy measures for WRI? RQ2: What attitudes, behaviors and preferences regarding cross -racial interactions are proxy measures for WRI? RQ3: What ethnic attitudes, behaviors and preferences are proxy measures for WRI? RQ4: What racial attitudes are proxy measures for WRI? RQ5: What institutional attitudes, behaviors and preferences are proxy measures for WRI? RQ6: How do these attitudes, values, behaviors, cultural practices and preferences differ b y key socio -demographic factors, including age, education, religion, ethnic identification, bilingual ability, gender, class, urbanicity, neighborhood and network racial composition and family prejudice? )%!Research Rationale In this research, a White Raci al Identity Scale (WRIS) was created to answer these research questions and to create a measure of white racial identity. As discussed in more detail below, it was necessary to create a measure of WRI as it is a latent construct, and therefore it could not be measured through direct observation (Brown, 2006; Harrington, 2009; Kline, 2011) . Instead, this research measured WRI indirectly, through an examination of attitudinal and behavioral indicators. Together these indicators serve as manifestations of respondentÕs underlying WRI. Although all racial identities are latent, white racial identities are especially difficult to measure as they are often seeped in racial unawarene ss (Hartmann, Gerteis and Croll, 2009). Whit e supremacy and white privilege often allow whites to exist in unmarked cultural categories where their attitudes, behaviors, and practices are seen as being ÒnormalÓ and having no ethnic or racial implications (Alba, Rumbaut and Marotz, 2005; Brander Rasmussen et al., 2001; Delgado and Stefancic, 1997; Frankenberg, 1997) . The privileged s tatus whites occupy in American society, regardless of other social position , cultivates systematic and hegemonic patterns for identities and practices that are distinct from racialized ethnic others and often serve as the standard that other cultures are judged against. Yet, because of this normativity, there has been little research done delineating white cultural practices and how these practices relate to white racial identities . Therefore, the WRIS constructed here builds on previous research that detail s the attitudes, behaviors, and practices that are associated with blacks (Broman, Jackson and Neighbors, 1989; Klonoff and Landrine, 2000; Landrine and Klonoff, 1994; Landrine and Klonoff, 1995; Landrine and Klo noff, 1996) , Asians (Anderson et al., 1993; Chung, Kim and Abreu, 2004; Lim et al., 2002) Hispanics (Barona and Miller, 1994a; Batis et al., 2011; Benet -Martinez, 2006; Hoffman n, 1985; Mendoza, )&!1989; Michelson, 2003; Michelson, 2007; Olmedo and Padilla, 1978; Wenzel, 2006) and Native Americans (Hoffmann, 1985; Ponterotto, 2010) . The kinds of attitudinal and behavioral questions that wer e asked in these surveys were examined and then modified for the WRIS based on theories about what white cultural practices might look like (McDermott and Samson, 2005; Perry, 2002; Perry, 2007) . In this research, the WRIS operationalize s white racial identity as a combination of white attitudes, behaviors and preferences . It also accounts for how white racial identities differ by key soc io-demographic factors. Participants This survey was distributed to 31 1 mixed race college aged students during the Spring of 2013 (see appendix A for survey). 89 of these responses were from non -white students and were dropped for the purposes of this analysis, as there were not enough responses to create a control group. An additional respondent left their racial/ethnic identity blank as well as the ethnic identi ty of both of their parents. Therefore, their racial/ethnic identity could not be deduced and this case was also dropped from the dataset. The data was then analyzed by case to ensure that no respondents were missing more than 10% of responses through the use of the Missing Data tool in SPSS . Cases missing over 10% of data have be en shown to be unreliable (Bennett, 2001; Dong and Peng, 2013) . One white respondentÕs survey had more than 10% missing data and was dropped from the data. This respondent stopped filling out the survey halfway through and therefore their responses were not missing at random. Two more cases exhibited a high percentage of missing data. The first of these respondents had a survey with 10% missin g data. However, two -thirds of the missing data was derived from missing demographic data and only )'!two responses to the dependent variables were left blank. The second of these surveys had less than 10% missing data and the data that was missing showed no pattern. Therefore, it was determined that both surveys had data that could contribute to the analysis and their responses were retained. The remaining valid 220 responses from white students were retained for the purposes of this analysis. Greater than 20 0 is usually considered large enough for exploratory factor analysis . Such a large N is necessary for exploratory factor analysis to ensure statistically significant results and adequate model fit (Brown, 2006; Harrington, 2009; Kline, 2011) . Responses were from an Introduction to Sociology class, and two Race and Ethnicity classes to ensure respondents had some basic familiarity with sociological concepts. Sociology classes were selected based on class size to garner the largest amount of data. Two instructors for Introduction to Sociology and two instructors for Race and Ethnicity were contacted, and three out of the four professors agreed to allow surveys to be distributed during their class. Restricting the age and educational levels of respondents in this sample was intentional primarily because college aged students are at a crucial stage in their identity development where they are grappling with who they are and who they would like to beco me (Arnett and Tanner, 2006; Arnett, 2011) . However, due to the se specificities, respondents may not be representative of whites throughout the United States. In particular, my sample is more highly educated than many Americans, which may also indicate a more affluent class background, and also shows little diversity in age. Students were given the surveys at the beginning of class, with instructions to fill them out and to let me know if they had any questions. Two students asked questions. One international female student in the first class I surveyed asked how to fill in the state and city of origin questions on the survey. I instructed the class to fill out the country and city of origin if )(!they were raised outside of the United States. In the subsequent two classes, I included this instruction prior to distributi ng the survey to students. A female student in the second class I surveyed asked how she should answer the question about musical preferences, which ranged from mostly black, to racially mixed, to mostly white, as she primarily listened to Indian music. I instructed her to mark the racially mixed option and to write in Indian music in the open ended section of the survey. Twenty -one socio -demographic indicators were included on the WRIS . Eleven of these questions were open ended, including respondentÕs ra cial/ethnic classification , age, educ ational background , city and state of residence , religion, mother and fatherÕs ethnicity , bilingual ability , other languages spoken and music genre of choice . These questions were left open ended to allow respondents fl exibility in their answers. Most of these items, such as age, educational background, and racial/ethnic identification are often included on surveys intended to measure psychological o r sociological constructs (De Vaus, 2013; Phinney, 1992) . The additional questions regarding religion, music genre of choice , and language use were included as additional markers of the respondentÕs cultural background and have been used in previous acculturation surveys (Barona and Miller, 1994a; Birman and Trickett, 2001; Klonoff and Landrine, 2000) . Of particular importance for this research is the fact that race/ethnicity was left open ended (Phinney , 1992). This allowed respondents to write in the racial/ethnic definition that they identified with the most and reveals an integral underlying philosophy of this research Ñthe idea that racial and ethnic identification self identification are more tell ing than forcing respondents to answer based on a preordained existing categories. In particular, it allowed white respondents to list a racial and/or ethnic identity other than white, such as Caucasian, or particular combinations of European ethnicities, which may highlight differences in the way they ))!conceptualize their own racial and ethnic identity. All open - ended responses were then analyzed for patterns and inductively coded with similar responses grouped into the same categ ories (Boyatzis, 1998; De Vaus, 2013) . The resulting codes and their fr equencies can be seen later on in Table 2 . The remaining 10 questions had categorical responses, in which respondents were instructed to mark the option that most ma tched their socio -demographic experience. Many of these questions, i ncluding gender, class and well -being have been included on pr evious acculturation measures . Gender was measured through an item that had a three possible response options : male, female, or other (write in). Class status was measured through two questions that were intended to capture class as an ideologic al and income based construct (Lenski, 1966; Lenski, 1984; Levine, 2006) . The fi rst of these asked respondents to identify whether they were ÒpoorÓ, Òworking classÓ, Òmiddle classÓ, Òupper middle classÓ, or Òupper classÓ. The second of these asked respondents to approximate what their family income was growing up. The response categor ies were Òless than $19,999Ó, Ò$20,000 -$39,000Ó, Ò$40,000 -$59,000Ó, Ò$60,000 -$79,000Ó and Ò$80,000 or aboveÓ. The next question was created to measure respondentÕs urbanicity, which has been shown to be a key factor in the type of racial identities whites construct and exhibit (Hartigan, 1999; Hartigan, 2003; McDermott, 2006; Morris, 2005; Morris, 2006; Sweetland, 2002; Wray and Newitz, 1997; Wray, 2006) . Respondents were asked to circle whether they grew up in a Òrur al (country)Ó, ÒsuburbanÓ, Òurban (city)Ó or Òother (write in)Ó area. In addition, respondentÕs were asked three general questions about their psychological well being, including ÒGenerally, I find it diff icult to socialize with anybody Ó, ÒThere are time s I think no one understands meÓ a nd ÒGenerally, I fee l pretty satisfied with my life Ó. These questions have been used as controls in other psychological constructs and acculturation )*!measures (Broman, Jackson and Neighbor s, 1989) . Whites were also asked about the racial make -up of their school, neighborhood and family growing up as well as the racial makeup of their current neighborhood (Broman, Jackson and Neighbors, 1989; Landrine and Klonoff, 1994; Landrine and Klonoff, 1995) . Respondents could choose res ponses that were on a 5 -point L ikert scale that ranged from Òall whiteÓ to Òall blackÓ. These questions have been used on previous measures as early cross - racial socialization experiences and the current racial composition of respondents social environment has been shown to be a key indicator of racial attitudes, especial ly for whites (Hartigan, 1999; Hartigan, 2003) . Finally, respondents were asked to indicate how much they agreed with the phrase ÒSome members of my immediate family are prejudiced (Broman, Jackson and Neighbors, 1989; Landrine and Klonoff, 1994; Landrine and Klonoff, 1995) Ó on a 5 -point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree . This question was also intended to measure early childhood socialization experiences regarding race, racial attitudes, and racism. Eight of the socio -demographic indicators were dropped, including motherÕs and fatherÕs ethnicity, city of residence, preferred musical genre , language(s) they were fluent in and three questions that measured general psychological health. Each of these questions , and a discussion on wh y I did not use them is detailed below . Table 1 : List of Dropped Q uestions What ethnicity is your mother? What ethnicity is your father What city did you grow up in? The type of music I listen to most is: If you are fluent in another language, which one(s)? Generally, I find it difficult to socialize with anybody. There are times I think no one understands me. Generally, I feel pretty satisfied with my life. Questions about parental ethnicity were dropped because in most cases, they were representative )+!of the respondentÕs own self -listed racial or ethnic identity , which was retai ned. However, the particular terms used to describe their own racial ethnic identities in comparison with their parents ethnicity sometimes differed. In some of th ese retained cases, respondent s who detailed their parents as having one or more ethnicities that are currently categorized as white listed their own racial ethnic identity as white or Caucasian and in other cases, respondents chose to retain these separat e ethnic identities when describing their own racial ethnic identity. This is likely due to the different wording of each of the questions, in which the question about parental origins focuses exclusively on ethnicity and the question about self -identifica tion asks the respondent to identify their racial or ethnic group. There were five cases that were the exception to this rule, where respondents listed membership in a racial or ethnic group that differed from those they listed of their parent. In three of these cases, respondents listed that one of their parents had some Native American ancestry. In another case, a respondent listed that one of their parents was Òhalf Mexican and half whiteÓ. In the final case, a respondent listed ÒAmericanÓ as the ethnici ty for both of their parents, but labeled him or herself as white. In these cases, respondent s own listings of their racial and ethnic identities were retained as they provide more accurate information about how the respondent perceives him or herself and about the primary way they identify in social interactions . These responses are also indicative of phenotypes and ethnicities that are likely to fit social categorizations of white (Almaguer, 1994; Anagnostou, 2009) . Open -ended questions measuring city of residence, preferred musical genre and languages fluent in were dropped due to too much variation in responses. Theref ore, responses were grouped into too many categories and a pattern linking these responses to the dependent variables being measured was unlikely. Likert scale items measuring psychological health were dropped due to the limited variation in these answers. Therefore, both sets of responses exhibited small cell sizes and did ),!not meet the assumptions fo r normal distribution that are required to perform li near regression (Seber and Lee, 2003) . The retained 13 socio -demographic indicators that will be used in this analysis and their frequencies can be seen in Table 2 . Table 2 : Demographic Information (n=220) What is your racial/ethnic group? White Caucasian White Ethnic 63.1% 31.8 % 5.1% Age 18 19 20 21 22 23+ 15.0% 33.6% 22.7% 16.8% 6.8% 5.0% Education Freshman Sophomore Junior 4+ years of college 39.5% 25.9% 22.3% 12.3% Residency Michigan resident Non -Michigan resident 88.6% 11.4% Religion Christian Catholic Agnostic or Secular Jewish 38.3 % 37.3 % 17.7 % 6.7% Bilingual Yes No 91.3% 8.7% Gender Male Female Trans/Other 41.3% 58.7% 0% Class Poor Working class Middle class Upper middle class Upper class 0% 8.2% 46.1% 43.4% 2.3% Family Income Less than $19,999 $20,000 -$39,000 $40,000 -$59,000 $60,000 -$79,000 $80,000 and above 1.4% 8.1% 23.4% 21.1% 45.9% Urbanicity Rural/country Suburban Urban/City 22.4% 69.2% 8.4% Racial Composition of School, Neighborhood and Family While Growing Up All White Mostly White Racially Mixed Mostly Black All Black 9.5% 57.7% 31.4% 1.4% 0% Racial Composition of Current All White 10.6% )-!Table 2 (contÕd) Neighborhood Mostly White Racially Mixed 46.1% 41.5% Mostly Black All Black 1.4% .5% Some Members of my Immediate Family are Prejudiced Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree 11.8% 30.5% 9.1% 39.5% 9.1% Note: Based on valid %, self reported Almost two -thirds of the sample identified thei r racial/ethnic group as white. Another third identified as Caucasian. The remaining 5% the identified as one or more European ethnicities ranging from Finnish to Italian/German/Irish . More than 95% of the sample was of traditional college age. Respondents were slightly more likely to be first year students. An overwhelming majority (almost 90%) of students were Michigan residents. Almost 40% of respondents identified as Chri stian or Catholic , respectively. Although C atholics are members of the Christian faith, for the purposes of this research, they were treated as two distinct categories. This was largely due to the fact that respondents self identified as one, and not the other , which indicates that these affiliatio ns may produce dissimilar kinds of identities. Another fifth of the sample identified as Agnostic or Secular . Most students were not fluent in any language other than English. Respondents were slightly more likely to be female, with no respondents identify ing with non -traditional gender categories. Almost 90% of students identified as either middle class or upper middle class. RespondentÕs family income mirrored this identification, with almost 50% of students reporting that their families had yearly income s of $80,000 or more. Over two -thirds of respondents grew up in suburban communities, with another fifth growing up in rural areas. An overwhelming majority of respondents grew up in and currently live in areas that they identified as mostly white or racia lly mixed. About a tenth grew up and currently live in all white areas. Hardly any grew up or live in mostly black or all black areas. Responses about *.!family prejudice were almost split down the middle, with almost half disagreeing or strongly disagreeing that their family was prejudiced and the other half agreeing or strongl y agreeing with this statement. Instrument The White Racial Identity Scale (WRIS) created in this research was created to address key gaps in earlier research by combining more traditional measures of WRI with questions that examined the kinds of cultural practices exhibited by whites in the survey, which include attitudes, behaviors and prefe rences . White attitudes, behaviors, and preferences were operationalized through the use of 37 questions that were intended to measure their American, Cross Racial, Ethnic, Racial and Institutional attitudes, behaviors and preferences. These questions, along with citations for some of the surveys that have utilized a similar, or in some cases, the same question, are included in Table 3 . A more detailed discussion of the intellectual trajectory of each of the questions follows. Table 3: Survey I tems Used to Measure Each Hypothesis Item Included on WRIS Citation for Item RQ1: What American attitudes, behav iors and preferences are proxy measures for WRI? *I am proud to be an American. (Birman and Tyler, 1994; Birman and Trickett, 2001; Birman, Trickett and Vinokurov, 2002) *Most of the people I admire are white Americans. (Bonilla -Silva, 2014; Klonoff and Landrine, 2000; Landrine and Klonoff, 1995; Mendoza, 1989; Tsai, Ying and Lee, 2000) *It is important for me to celebrate American holidays and festivals. (Campisi, 1947a; Chung, Kim and Abreu, 2004; Cortes et al., 2003) English should be the official language of the United States. (Barona and Miller, 1994a; Barry, 2001; Benet -Martinez and Haritatos, 2005a; Birman and Tyler, 1994; Chung, Kim and Abreu, 2004; Cortes et al., 2003; Lim et al., 2002; Olmedo and Padilla, 1978) How important is it for people to sp eak ÒproperÓ English ? (Barona and Miller, 1994a; Barry, 2001; Benet -Martinez and Haritatos, 2005a; Birman and Tyler, 1994; Chung, Kim and Abreu, 2004; Cortes et al., 2003; Lim et al., 2002; Olmedo and Padilla, 1978) My political views are strongly conservative. (Bobo and Kluegel, 1997; Bonilla -Silva, 2014; Kluegel and Smith, 1986; Sears, Sidanius and Bobo, 2000; Ward and Kennedy, 1994; Ward and Rana -Deuba, 1999) *%!Table 3 (contÕd) RQ2: What attitudes, behaviors and preferences regarding cross -racial interactions are proxy measures for WRI? *Whites understand me better than people who are not white. (Barry, 2001) *I prefer going to social gatherings and parties where most of the people are white. (Barona and Miller, 1994b; Barry, 2001; Campisi, 1947a) *I prefer to go out on a date with someone who is white. (Barry, 2001) *My friends are white. (Barry, 2001; Benet -Martinez, 2006; Broman, Mavaddat and Hsu, 2000) *How often are your romantic partners the same race as you? (Benet -Martinez, 2006) *I feel it w ould be better if different ethnic groups didnÕt mix. (Phinney, 1992) *I rarely spend time with people from other ethnic groups. (Phinney, 1992) Growing up, my school, neighb orhood, and family were mostly white. (Broman, Mavaddat and Hsu, 2000; Landrine and Klonoff, 1994; Landrine and Klonoff, 1995) *I currently live in a mostly white neighborhood. (Broman, Mavaddat and Hsu, 2000; Landrine and Klonoff, 1994; Landrine and Klonoff, 1995) *Some members of my immediate family are prejudiced. (Broman, Jackson and Neighbors, 1989) RQ3: What ethnic attitudes, beh aviors and preferences are proxy measures for WRI? *I have a strong sense of belonging to my own ethnic group. (Phinney, 1992) *I think about how my life will be affected by my group membership. (Phinney, 1992) *I am happy I am a member of the racial/ethnic group I belong to. (Phinne y, 1992) *It is important for me to celebrate the ethnic holidays and festivals of my ancestors. (Campisi, 1947a; Chung, Kim and Abreu, 2004; Cortes et al., 2003) *I have spent time finding out more about my own ethnic group. (Phinney, 1992) I have different ways of speaking, depending on who I am around. (Bettie, 2000; Cross, 1991; Milroy and Muysken, 1995; Sweetland, 2002; Tsai, Ying and Lee, 2000) *I participate in the cultural practices of my ethnic group. (Phinney, 1992) *I usually add salt to my food to mak e it taste better. (Landrine and Klonoff, 1994; Landrine and Klonoff, 1996) Growing up, my family always served casseroles as a main dinner dish. (Batis et al., 2011; Birman and Tyler, 1994; Cortes et al., 2003; Perry, 2002) My family and friends always have potlucks. (Batis et al., 2011; Birman and Tyler, 1994; Cortes et al., 2003; Perry, 2002) RQ4: What racial attitudes are proxy meas ures for WRI? Race doesnÕt really matter. WeÕre all just humans . (Bonilla -Silva, 2001; Bonilla -Silva, 2014; Doberneck, Miller and Schweitzer, 2012) *Racial discrimination limits black employment. (Institute for Public Policy and S ocial Research, 2009) *Less in -born ability accounts for blacks lack of success. (Institute for Public Policy and Social Research, 2009) *Racial discrimination ac counts for blacks lack of success. (Institute for Public Policy and Social Research, 2009) *Lack of motivation accounts for blacks lack of success. (Institute for Public Policy and Social Research, 2009) RQ5: What institutional attitudes, behav iors and preferences are proxy measures for WRI? *Most of the music I listen to is by artists who are white. (Landrine and Klonoff, 1994; Landrine and Klonoff, 1996) *I never like black music more than white music. (Landrine and Klonoff, 1994; Landrine and Klonoff, 1996) *I watch TV shows and movies with mostly black characters. (Landrine and Klonoff, 1994; Landrine and Klonoff, 1996) *&!Table 3 (contÕd) *I have seen people Òget the spiritÓ or speak in tongues. (Landrine and Klonoff, 1994; Landrine and Klonoff, 1996) Doctors are trustworthy. (Hoffmann, 1985; Landrine and Klonoff, 1996) I trust the United States government. (Michelson, 2003; Michelson, 2007; Wenzel, 2006) *Questions exact replicate from one or more of the cited surveys, with the exception of racial/ethnic group listed. For example, ÒI prefer to go out on a date with someone who is AsianÓ was changed to ÒI prefer to go out on a date with someone who is whiteÓ for the purposes of this research . The other questions are not exact replicates, but measure similar categories to the ones hypoth esized to be important in the cited s urveys. For example, no acculturation surveys have included the item ÒMy family and friends have potlucksÓ. It is a unique question based on the theoretical understandings developed in this dissertation about the attitu des, behaviors, and preferences associated with white racial identity. However, the cited surveys next to this item included questions that were intended to determine the food preferences of the population included in their study. **Some of the items list ed here have been shortened or reworded for the sake of brevity and clarity. See Appendix A for a listing of the actual survey questions. All of these items were rated on a 5 -point scale, with 1 indicating disagreement, infrequency or limited importance a nd 5 indicating agreement, frequency or importance. In this resear ch, the L ikert scale items are treated as continuous as there are at least 5 response categories, which is allowable as long as the sample is relatively large and the data is normally distri buted (Cohen and Cohen, 2003) . This ensures that there is some data available in all cells. Together, these questions were intended to measure the 5 subscales hypothesized to measure the latent construct of WRI , including American, Cross -Racial, Ethnic, Intimate, and Institutional . Twenty -seven of these items were directly retained from previous survey s on the racial ethnic identities of people of color although the questions were modified for white American respondents, when appropriate . For example, a number of acculturation measures ask respon dents to indicate their level of agreement with the phrase ÒMost of my friends are (country of origin)Ó. In this case, this statement was modified to ÒMost of my friends are whiteÓ. Most acculturation surveys utilize similar constructs and items, and discu ssing them all is beyond the scope of this dissertation. Therefore, the review below is not comprehensive, nor does it include every survey that has ever included each item on the WRIS. For a more comprehensive listing of accult uration surveys , including the items they include and their psychometric properties see *'!Taras, 2008. Previous Acculturation Measures and Psychometric Properties A brief summary of the acculturation measures that were utilized in this research , including their psychometr ic properties, when available, is in alphabetical order below. Discussion of psychometric properties pertain to research conducted by the authors of the scale, not to the research conducted here as part of this dissertation. The Short Acculturation Scale for Hispanic Youth (SASH -Y) (Barona and Miller, 1994a) built on the Short Acculturation Scale (Marin et al., 1987) and the accultura tion scale developed by Martinez and Norman (1984) . The SASH -Y was distributed to 141 H ispanic youth to examine the factors that contribute to Hispanic Identity. In particular, researchers were interested in the kinds of language use and cultural practices respondents exhibited and whether these behaviors were different when respondents were in ethnic family contexts versus when they were in white American conte xts. Q uestions were included to measure these items on a 5-point L ikert scale that ranged from (1) only S panish/all H ispanic to (5) only Englis h/all white. Exploratory factor analysis revealed three factors : extra -familial language use, familial language use, and ethnic social relations. Alpha values were calculat ed for the entire sample to ensure survey reliability, but were not calculated for each of the factors. CronbachÕs reliability tests showed an alpha of .94 and together, these three factors accounted for 72.5% of the variance in the sample. Findings indica te that cultural behavior s, including language use and media preferences depend on whether respondents were in ethnic family contexts or white American contexts . Acculturated behaviors were more likely in American contexts. *(! The East Asian Acculturatio n Measure (EAAM) (Barry, 2001) surveyed 150 East Asian immigrants to measure their assimilation into American society through the use of ques tions that were measured on a 7 -point L ikert scale, ranging from (1) strong ly disagree to (7) strongly agree . Four possible trajectories were hypothesized: assimilation, separation, integration and marginalization. Assimilation was measured through the use of 8 items that examined East AsianÕs tendency to participate in American cultural practices . Separation was measured through 7 items that examined respondentÕs immersi on in Asian culture . Integration was measured through the use of 5 items that examined whether East Asians participated in American and Asian cultures equally. Fi nally, marginalization was measured through the use of 9 items that examined whether respondents did not feel comfortable in participating in either set of cultural practices . Assimilation had an alpha value of .77, separation had an alpha value of .76, integration had an alpha value of .74 and marginalization had an alpha value of .85. Findings indicate that assimilation and/or integration lead East Asians to be more content in America and to stay in the country longer . The Bicultural Id entity Integration Scale (BIIS ) (Benet -Martinez, 2003) was developed to measure how respondentÕs identities develop in bicultural contexts. The BIIS has been distributed to a number of populations, including 133 firs t-generation Chinese -Americans (Benet -Martinez and Haritatos, 2005b) . During this study, respondents were asked about five different components of their identity including language (factor loadings from .81 -85), discrimination (loadings from .61 -.87), relationships (factor loadings from .69 -81), isolation (loadings from .3 6-.86), and work (loadings from .54 -.75). The scale was also refined to include additional questions about language use, media preferences, cultural identity, and relationships, *)!some of which are included on the WRIS (Benet -Martinez and Haritatos, 2005b; Benet -Martinez, 2006) . The Language, Identity, and Acculturation Scale (Birman and Tyler, 1994; Birman and Trickett, 2001; Birman, Trickett and Vinokurov, 2002) was distribut ed to 144 Russian adolescents and 60 Russian parents to assess their identification with American versus Russian culture through the use of language, identity, and behavior. They assess these cultures separately by including separate questions about each c omponent for American culture and Russian culture. Each of these questions was measured on a 4 -point L ikert scale with 4 indicating increased frequency and/or familiarity. Behavior was measured through the use of 9 items that measured cross racial behavior s, food, and media through the use of questions such as through the use of questions such as ÓHow much time do you socialize with Russian/American friendsÓ, ÒHow much do you eat Russian/American foods? Ó, ÒHow much do you watch Russian/American movies?Ó The alpha value for American was .77 and .85 for Russian in the student sample. These questions grew out of previous research (Birman and Tyler, 1994; Szapocznik et al., 1978) that measured the bicultural acculturation in the United States. Language was measured through the use of items that asked Russian respondents about their preferences about speaking English vs. Russian a nd about their ability to understand English vs. Russian. Alpha values were .95 for questions about Russian attitudes, behaviors, and preferences and .90 for questions about English attitudes, behaviors, and preferences in the student sample. Many of these questions built on the previously developed Multidimensional Acculturation Scale for Latinos (Zea et al., 2003) . Finally, identity was measured through 7 items that measure inclusion in American culture versus the respondentÕs culture of origin, feelings of belonging, and pride in American culture versus their culture of origin. Alpha values were .92 for American identi ty and .93 for questions **!about R ussian identity. These questions also emerged from the Multidimensional Acculturation Scale for Latinos (Zea et al., 2003) as well as the American Identity Questionnaire (Phinney and Devich -Navarro, 1997) . Findings indicate that the more time these Russians spent in the U nited States the more likely the y were to take on American language, behavior, and identity. Campisi (1947b) developed the first known acculturat ion measure using two subscales. The first of these was intended to measure immigrantÕs incorporation of American cultural elements into their attitudes, behaviors and preferences . The second was created to measure how much respondents retained t heir native culture after arriving in the United States . There is no available discussion of the psychometric properties for this survey , but the questions utilized on CampisiÕs su rvey can be accessed here (Taras, 2008) . Despite the lack of psychometric properties, CampisiÕs survey, and the questions therein, continue to be an important p art of the intellectual trajectory of the questions later included in more contemporary acculturation surveys (Weinstock, 1964) . The Puerto Rican Bicultu rality Scale (Cortes et al., 2003) was distributed to 1200 respondents to examine Puerto Rican versus American cultural practices including food, values, holidays, sociali zation and media preferences. Twenty questions were used to measure these constructs on a 4-point Likert scale . Analysis showed a two -factor model that showed a distinct dichotomy between American cultu ral practices and Puerto Rican ones . To gether, these constructs explained 29.6% of the variance in CortesÕ sample. The Asian American Multidimensio nal Acculturation Scale (AAMAS) (Chung, Kim and Abreu, 2004) was distributed to 342 respondents to measure the multiple aspects of Asian acculturation. The scale included 1 5 items that were measured on 7 -point L ikert scales. Analysis revealed four factors: cultural knowledge, which included 6 questions about respondents *+!socialization, language, which included 4 items that measured language use and preferences and cultural knowledge that measured the frequency with whi ch respondents practiced the traditions of their country and 2 items that measured food practices and preferences. Alpha values for each scale ranged from .81 -.89, with a lpha values of .83 in the retest sample that was conducted two weeks later. The Rosebud Personal Opinion Survey (Green and Haymes, 1973; Howe, 1940; Jessor et al., 1968) has been distributed to a number of groups to measure Native American identity and Acculturation. Hoffmann (1985) distributed the scale to 69 respondents to measure their acculturation into full white versus Indian culture. The survey included 32 ques tions that were measured on a 5 -point L ikert scale ranging f rom full white to full Indi an. Five dimensions of acculturation were hypothesized: educ ational and occupational status, language preference and usage, social behavior, social membership and social activities, value ori entation and cultural attitudes, and blood quantum. Alpha values were not calculated for any of the scales, although correlations were performed. The Michigan State of the State Survey (Institute for Public Policy and Social Resear ch, 2009) is an quarterly survey conducted by the State of Michigan to measure residents social, political and economic attitudes and behaviors. The Fall 2009 questionnaire was distributed to 991 Michigan residents and included a section that included 6 questions intended to measure respondentÕs racial attitude s. These items were measured on a 5 -point L ikert scale with 5 indicating agreement. Alpha values for these six items indicated an internal reliability of .497. The Khmer Ac culturation Scale (Lim et al., 2002) was created to measure Khmer identity and cultural practices. The scale consisted of questions that measured KhmerÕs cognitive, *,!behavioral, emotional, and sensory aspects of identity including lang uage, gender roles, and political awareness of events . The cumulative alpha value for this scale was tested and retested and resulted in scores ranging from .82-.92. The individual subscales had alpha values that ranged from .78 -.88. The Africa n American Acculturation Scale (Landrine and Klonoff, 1994) was distributed to several groups of respondents to measure African American behaviors, attitudes and preferenc es. The scale consisted of 74 7 -point L ikert scale items that were intended to measure the following concepts: family structure and practices (12 items, alpha .7077), preferences for things African Americ an (11 items, alpha .9092 ), prep aration and consum ption of traditional foods (10 items, alpha .7870), interracial attitudes and cultural mistrust (7 items, alpha .787), African A merican healt h beliefs and practices (12 items, alpha .7814), Trad itional A frican American religious beliefs and pract ices (6 items, alpha .7555), trad itional African A merican childhood socialization (11 items, alpha .8118), superstitions (5 items, alpha .7235). The survey was revised and distributed to additional respondents (Klonoff and Landrine, 2000) . Internal reliability estimates we re re -calculated for each of the subscales, including I nstitutional trust, which had an alpha value of .87. Items from this sub -scale were utilized in the WRIS. Mendoza distributed an empirical scale to measure Mexican American cultural life styles to 185 Mexican American adolescents and adults (Mendoza, 1989) . This measure consisted of 29 items that measured 5 subscales : intra -fam ily language usage (7 items , alpha .87), extra -family language usage (6 items , alpha .91), social affiliations & activities (5 items , alpha .89), cultural familiarity & activities (5 items , alpha .84), & cultural identification and pride (6 items , alpha .89). *-! The Multigroup Mea sure of Ethnic Identity (MEIM) (Phinney, 1992) was created to measure cultural practices and identities across ethnic group. Respondents also completed the Rosenberg Self -Esteem Inventory and key socio -demographic questions. Four hundred and seventeen high school students & 136 college students attending ethnically diverse schools were surveyed . Four components were hypothesized as key indicators of ethnic identity: positive ethnic attitudes and sense of belonging , ethnic identity achievement, ethnic behaviors and practices , and other group orientatio n. Positive ethnic attitudes and a sense of belonging were measured through 5 items that had a . 75 alpha for the high school sample and a .86 alpha for the college sample. Ethnic identity achievement was measured through the use of 7 items that had alpha reliabilities of .69 and .80 for high school and college samples, respectively. Ethnic behaviors and practices were composed of two items. Alpha reliability estimates were not available for this subscale, since alphas cannot be ca lculated with certainty on scales that comprise less than three items. Other group orientation consisted of 6 items that had alphas of .71 and .74 for the high school and college samples, respectively. Internal consistency was also determined for the ent ire scale using CronbachÕs alpha. Alpha values were .81 for the high school sample and .90 for the college sample. Factor analysis was used to determine the underlying factor structure of the scale. Two factors resulted, the first of which included all the items in the ethnic identity subscale and the second of which included all the items in the o ther group orientation subscale . Ethnic identity accounted for 30.8% of the variance in multi -racial identity and other group orientation accounted for an additional 11.4%. The General Eth nicity Questionnaire (Tsai, Ying and Lee, 2000) was distributed to 353 respondents to examine respondents feelings of Òbeing ChineseÓ versus Òbeing American. Questions were included that measured these constructs on a 5 -point L ikert scale, ranging from +.!strongly disagree to strongly agree. Six factors emerged including , Chinese language use and proficiency, affiliation with Chinese people, participation in Chinese activities, pride in Chinese culture, exposure to Chinese culture and preference for Chinese food. Alpha values for both scales were high (al pha = .92 for the Chinese Questionnaire and alpha = .92 for the American Questionnaire ). Alpha reliability estimates were not calculated for each individual subscale . This research is s ignificant because it allow s for the possibility of mono -cultural acculturation, in which respondentÕs acculturation into one culture does not necessarily exclude their participation in other cultures . Findings indicate being Chinese and being American are n ot related except in immigrants. In this population, b eing Chinese and being American are at odds. For the other respondents in their survey, it was possible to be both, or neither. The Acculturation Index (Ward and Kennedy, 1994) measures New Zealanders cultural practices, relationships, identity, including political ideology when living and working abroad. In particular, this scale examines the relationship between national and ethnic identification and leve l of acculturation during cross -cultural transitions. This scale built on previous work that hypothesized four acculturation strategies, integration, separation, assimi lation and marginalizati on (Berry, Annis and Psychology, 1988; Berry, 1990) . Ninety -eight respondents were surveyed, including 60 employee s and 38 partners of employees through the use of 21 items that measured respondentÕs attitudes, behaviors, and preferences regarding the food, langu age, world -view, and social customs of the country they were transplanted to . Respondents were asked how similar th ese things were to typical New ZealandersÕ on a 7 -point scale tha t ranged f rom Ònot at all Ó to Òextremely Ó. Data analysis indicated two possible outcomes. The first of which was a co -national identity, in which respondentÕs immersed themselves in both the culture of N ew Zealand and their country of pla cement. The second outcome was that +%!respondents retained their New Zealander identity. Analysis of internal consistency indicated alpha values of .93 for co -national identification and .96 for host national identification. In addition to the questions garnered from these previous measures, I created an additional 7 questions for inclusion in the WRIS . The constructs these items are intended to measure, including language use, food practices, and feelings of institutional trust are often utilized as measures of racial and ethnic identity, but it was necessary to create new questions that were hypothesized to reflect white cultural practices in the United States . The seven questions that were created include (1) ÒEnglish should b e the official language of the U nited StatesÓ, (2) ÒHow important i s it that people speak Òproper Ó English Ó, (3 ) ÒI have different ways of speaking, d epending on who I am aroundÓ, (4 )ÒMy family often served casseroles as a main dish for din ner while I was growing up.Ó, (5 ) ÒMy family and f riends often have potlucks.Ó, (6 ) ÒI trust the government of the United StatesÓ and ( 7)ÒDoctors are trustworthyÓ . More information about the intellectual trajectory of each subset of questions is discussed below. Measuring American Attit udes, Behaviors and Preferences Four kinds of questions were used to measure American attitudes, behaviors and preferences. The first was language use. Language use has been a key measure of ethnic identity and respondentÕs acculturation into American society (Olmedo and Padilla, 1978) . In th ese surveys, increased familiarity and usage of the English language indicated higher levels of immersion into American society, and therefore str onger American identities (Barry, 2001; Benet -Martinez and Haritatos, 200 5b; Birman and Trickett, 2001; Cortes et al., 2003; Lim et al., 2002). RespondentÕs who reported continued comfort and frequency with their native tongue were seen as being less acculturated, and therefore having weaker American identities. Some of +&!thes e studies suggested bicultural acculturation (Birman and Trickett, 2001; Zea et al., 2003) where respondents are comfortable in more than one cultural context (Benet -Martinez and Haritatos, 2005a; Berry, 1997; Schwartz and Zamboanga, 2008; Schwartz and Unger, 2010) . Bicultural acculturation also suggests usage and familiarity with one or more languages. In these cases, individuals often switch between one lan guage and another based on the particular cultural conte xt they find themselves in (Tsai, Ying and Lee, 2000) . The process of switching between two or more forms of vernacular , depending on the social context, has be en labeled as code switching (Milroy and Muysken, 1995) In this survey, language use was measured through the use of three key questions: ÒEnglish should be the official language of the United StatesÓ, ÒHow important is it for people to speak ÒproperÓ English? Ó, and ÒI have different ways of speaking, depending on who I am aroundÓ . These questions have not been used in previous surveys, and therefore there is no existing information on their psychometric properties, however, as noted above a number of acculturat ion measures have included other items that measure language use . These instruments were shown to be valid and reliable through high alpha levels . The first two questions measure the extent to which whites buy in to mainstream American culture, which often proposes that dexterity with the English language should be a requirement for citizenship (Baron, 1992; Perea, 1992; Tatalovich, 1995) . These ideologies are indicative of very ethnocentric white racial identities . This question measures whether whites see English and European heritage as being key to an American identity, or whether they perceive a more pluralis tic definition of American society. The final language question asked whites ÒHow important is it for people to speak ÒproperÓ English?. All of these questions build on previous studies that sug gest native language use (Benet -Martinez and Haritatos, 2005b) and non -normative English language use may be +'!indicative of weaker American identities. Therefore, whites that are fluent in languages other than English may be less likely to have strong American identities. Part of these views arise through the development of an American identity that is imbued with an us (American) against them (racialized ethnic other) mentali ty. The third question measures whether whites possess language privilege, wherein the language and syntax they were socialized to use is seen as normative and therefore does not have to shift based on context. This question measures the concept of code s witching discussed above, which indicates that there is one set of vernacular used for play, and another in professional an d educational situations (Cross, 1991) . Since whites have historically been the dominant group in American society, most whites have the privilege of not having to code switch to the extent of racialized ethnic others. However, some whites that are immersed in communit ies of color consistently use language that is deemed as Ònon -whiteÓ in an effort to showcase their distance from traditional white cultural norms (Bettie, 2000; Sweetland, 2002) . Together, this research suggests that whiteÕs attitudes about and performances of American English signify the way they perceive their own racial and ethnic identities and how they want others to perceive their own racia l and ethnic identities . In addition whites American attitudes, behaviors, and preferences were measured through their political ideologies. Whites were asked how much they agreed with the statement ÒMy political views are strongly conservativeÓ. This qu estion emerged from Ward and KennedyÕs Acculturation index that measured political ideology on a scale of 1 -7 as an indication of how acculturated New ZealandersÕ were in their host society (Ward and Kennedy, 1994; Ward and Rana -Deuba, 1999) . Higher scores indicated increased accultu ration and the existence of a co - national identity. Lower scores indicated an identity that was still heavily tied to the host society. +(!Sociological research on the nature of race in the United States has suggested that more conservative ideologies are indicative of stronger white racial identities and more negative white racial attitudes (Bobo and Kluegel, 1997; Bonilla -Silva, 2014; Kluegel and Smith, 1986; Sears, Sidanius and Bobo, 2000) . Other acculturation measures have also equated acculturation and national ident ity with political kn owledge and behavior (Lim et al., 2002) . In these surveys, respondents who exhibited awareness of the national politics of the host country were seen as being more acculturated than those who wer e unaware, or more invested in the politics of their country of origin. In this study, it is hypothesized that white respondents who have more conservative political ideologies will have more hegemonic white racial identities . American pride and affect wa s used to measure identity through the use of two questions: ÒI am proud to be an AmericanÓ and ÒMost of the people I admire are white AmericansÓ. The first of these questions has been used on previous acculturation measures (Birman and Tyler, 1994; Birman and Trickett, 2001; Birman, Trickett and Vinokurov, 2002) to measure Russian and Latino identities. The second question also emerged from previous studies (Klonoff and Landrine, 2000; Landrine and Klonoff, 1995; Mendoza, 1989; Tsai, Ying and Lee, 2000) that examined Black, Latino and Chinese acculturation into American society. Higher responses in either of these categories indicated increased positive affect for American norms and customs. Consequently, higher scores represent stronger identification with the host culture and weaker identification with the culture of origin. Sociological studies have argued t hat American often serves as a synonym for a white identity that allows Americans to perpetuate color -blind racism and color -blind ideologies (Bonilla -Silva, 2001; Bonilla -Silva, 2014) . In this study, it is hypothesized that increased American affect indicates the presence of a white racial identity that is aligned more strongly with hegemonic ideals about what it means to be white . +)! Finally, celebration of American holidays were measured through the use of one question: ÒIt is important for me to celebrate American holidays and festivals Ó. Participation in holiday practices has been used as an item to measure cultural identity on a number of acculturation surveys (Campisi, 1947b; Chung, Kim and Abreu, 2004; Cortes et al., 2003; Lim et al., 2002) . In these surveys, participation in holidays of the host country showed stronger identification w ith the host culture and participation in holidays of native origin showed a continued identification with the country of origin. This suggests that whites who participate in the ethnic holidays and festivals of their ancestors may have more hegemonic whit e racial identities. However, it is unclear whether this hypothesis will hold true for whites that also are a part of the dominant, normative culture within American society . Some of theories about WRI suggest that white hegemony is associated with the celebration of ethnic holidays to idealize some kind of ethnic ancestral past and to set claim to an ethnic identity that makes their racial identity and the privileges that come with it invisible (Perry, 2002) . However, other research suggests that those with stro nger white racial identities may neglect ethnic identities and activities in favor of generic white Am erican racial identities (Devos and Banaji, 2005) . Therefore, it is unclear whether those who exhibit more hegemonic white racial identities will be more or less likely to celebrate American holidays. The relationship between these variables will be examined later using statistical analysis. Measuring Attitudes, Behaviors and Preferences Con cernin g Cross Racial Interaction Cross -cultural attitudes, behaviors, and preferences have regularly served as a measure of ethnic and racial identity (Barona and Miller, 1994a; Barry, 2001; Benet -Martinez and Haritatos, 2005b; Broman, Jackson and Neighbors, 1989; Campisi, 1947b; Phinney, 1992) . Increased cross -racial or cross ethnic contact has signified acculturation into the host culture and a movi ng awa y +*!fro m the native culture (Barry, 2001) . In addition, research on race has suggested that white racial identities are often reified through social networks, specifically intimate ones, that are largely or compl etely white (Farley et al., 1978; Farley et al., 1993; Krysan and Bader, 2007; Krysan, Farley and Couper, 2008; Oyserman and Yoon, 2009) . Racial isolation often leads to cultural misunderstandings and reification neg ative racial attitudes and lead to unquestioned views of white superiority (whether explicit or implicit) (Pettigrew, 1998; Sigelman and Welch, 1993). In this research, whites cross -racial attitudes, behaviors, and preferences we re measured through the use of seven questions that have been used before on previous surveys . The questions were slightly modified to reflect white cross -racial attitudes and behaviors, but the remainder of the question was left intact. White respondents were asked about their cross racial behaviors through questions that asked about the racial makeup of their friend groups (Barry, 2001; Benet -Martinez, 2003; Benet -Martinez, 2006; Broman, Jackson and Neighbors, 1989) and romantic partners (Benet -Martinez and Haritatos, 2005b; Benet -Martinez, 2006) . Respondents were also asked how often they spend time with ethnic groups othe r than their own (Phinney, 1992) . Attitudes about cross racial interactions were measured through questions that asked about whether whites felt that other whites understand them better than people who are not white (Barry 2001), whether they prefer to go to social gat herings where most of the peop le are white (Barona and Miller 1994; Barry 2001; Campi si 1947), whether they would prefer to go out with someone who was white than someone of another race (Barry 2001) and whether they feel that it is better if different eth nic groups don Õt try to mix together (Phinney 1992). These studies hypothes ize that less cross -racial contact leads to increased negative racial attitudes and more hegemonic white racial identities . ++! In this research, it is hypothesized that whit es that have more frequent cross -racial contact will have a more flexible and weaker WRI. Th is is especially true for cross -racial contact th at occurs in intimate settings with close friends and romantic partners. Many whites now interact with people of color superficially, in public settings, yet their WRI remains entrenched because they continue to keep people of color at a distance in their private lives (Farley et al., 1978; Farley et al., 1993; Krysan and Bader, 2007; Krysan, Farley and Couper, 2008; Oyserman and Yoon, 2009) . Measuring Ethnic Attit udes, Behaviors and Preferences Ethnic attitudes, behaviors, and preferences have served as the most consistent measure of ethnic and racial identity in the acculturation literature (Birman , 2001; Birman and Tyler , 1994; Campisi , 1947; Cortes et al , 2003; Chung, Kim, and Abreu , 2004; Landrine and Klonoff, 1996; Phinney , 1992; Szapocznik 1978). These questions have measured ethnic identity through a number of facets including food preferences, holiday preferences and cultural norms. For the purposes of my research, I measured ethnic attitudes, behaviors and preferences through respondents ethnic group affect, participation in holidays and consumption and preparation of ethnic food. Ethnic group affect was measured through the use of five questions that have been used on previous acculturation measures: (1) ÒI have a strong sense of belonging to my own ethnic group (Phinney , 1992)Ó; (2) ÒI think about how my life will be affected by my group membership (Phinney , 1992)Ó; (3) ÒI am happy I am a member of the racial/ethnic group I belong to (Phinney , 1992)Ó; ÒI have spent time trying to find out more about my own ethnic group, such as its history, t raditions, and customs (Phinney , 1992)Ó; and (5) ÒI participate in the cultural practices of my own group, such as special fo od, music, or customs. (Phinney , 1992)Ó. Higher scores on these questions indicate increased investment in the historical or contemporary +,!practices of respondentÕs ethnic group. In addition, they indicate stronger feelings of group membership. Phinney (1992) also used them as a measure of stronger ra cial or ethnic iden tities. Ethnic behaviors were also measured through the use the question ÒHow important is it for you to celebrate the ethnic festivals or holidays of your ancestors? (Campi si, 1947; Cortes et. al, 2003; Chung, Kim, and Abreu , 2004)Ó. In these surveys, researchers found that respondents who were more acculturated were more likely to celebrate American holidays, and respondents who were less acculturated were more likely to cleave to ancestral ethnic traditions and holidays. As mentioned previously, t he l iterature on the relationship between WRI and holiday celebrations is unclear . Those with more hegemonic WRIÕs may be more likely to participate in American holidays, ethnic holidays, or s ome combination of the two. Therefore, the direction of the relation ship between these variables and white racial identity is not hypothesized and will be further examined through the use of statistical analysis later in the paper. Finally, ethnic attitudes, behaviors and practices were measured through the use of three questions that asked white respondents about their food consumption and preferences. These questions were included as food preferences have traditionally served as a measure of ethnic identity (Birman , 2001; Birman and Tyler , 1994; Gim Chung et a l, 2004; Szapocznik et al , 1978). The first of these was directly retained from the African American Acculturation Scale (Landrine and Klonoff , 1996). Respondents were to indicate how strongly they agreed with the statement Ò I usually add salt to my food t o make it taste better (Landrine and Klonoff , 1996)Ó. Landrine and Klonoff found that African Americans were statistically more likely to agree with this statement than whites, and therefore maintained that this item was an indicator of African American ra cial identity. In this research, the opposite is presumed with lower scores indicating stronger white racial identities. Most other acculturation surveys have asked respondents whether +-!they eat foods particular to their culture of origin. Since no such sur veys have been created for whites, two questions were created for the purposes of this research to measure white American eating prefe rences. These two statements, ÒMy family served casseroles as a main dish for dinner while I was growing upÓ and ÒMy fami ly and friends have potlucks Ó were hypothesized to be two food preferences rooted in white American culture based on the minimal research that has been done to suggest what white cultural food preferences may be (Batis et al., 2011; Perry, 2002). It is hypothesized that whites that eat casseroles and participate in potlucks more frequently will have more hegemonic white racial identities. Measuring Racial Attitudes Attitudes towards ethnic or racial out groups are a less traditional measure of racial or ethnic identity, although questions measuring this concept have been used in so me acculturation measures (Landrine and Klonoff , 1994; Landrine and Klonoff , 2000). In this study, racial attitudes were measured through the use of five questions: (1) ÒRace doesnÕt really matter. WeÕre all just humans Ó; (2) Ò Racial discrimination limits black employmentÓ; (3) ÒLess in -born ability accounts for blacks lack of successÓ ; (4) ÒRacial discrimination accounts for blacks lack of successÓ; and (5) ÒLack of motivation accounts for blacks lack of successÓ. The first of these question s was created by the researcher to measure whites buy in to the ideology of color blind racism t hat purports the liberal ideas of equality as a way of ignoring the structural inequal ities that exist (Bonilla -Silva, 2001; Bonilla -Silva, 2014) . The question emerged from previous research conducted by the research er where respondents were asked to list their racial identity and a small percentage of white respondents wrote in ÒhumanÓ (Dober neck, Miller and Schweitzer, 2012 ). The remainders of these questions were intended to measure whites attitudes towards African Americans. In particular, these questions were worded to uncover color -blind ,.!racial attitudes that argue that individual, not structural forces are to blame for blackÕs lack of success (Kluegel and Smith, 1986; Sears, Sidanius and Bobo, 2000) . For the purposes of this research, i t was hypothesized that increased negative racial a ttitudes and/or increased color -blind racial attitudes signify a more hegemonic white racial identity. Measuring Institutional Attit udes, Behaviors and Preferences Institutional attitudes, behaviors and preferences have served as indicators of racial and ethnic identity, although they have often been grouped in with other questions used to measure the construct of cultural or ethnic practic es more generally (Landrine and Klonoff, 1994; Landrine and Klonoff, 1995) . Respondents who indicated more trust or participation in American -based institutions were seen as being more acculturated and possessing less of an ethnic identity (Landrine and Klonoff, 1994; Landrine and Klonoff, 19 95). In this research, institutional attitudes, behaviors and practices were measured through the use of questions that asked whites about their music and media preferences, their religious practices and their trust in mainstream American institutions. First, white respondents were asked whether they had ever seen people Òget the spiritÓ or speak in tongues (Landrine and Klonoff, 1996). On the African American Acculturation Scale (Landrine and Klonoff, 1996) on which this item was originally included, higher scores on this question indicated a stronger African American identity. Consequently, for the purposes of this research, lower scores indica te the presence of a stronger white racial identity. Respondents were also asked questions about the racial makeup of the musical artists they listen to and television actors they watch the m ost (Landrine and Klonoff, 1996) . They were also asked whether they liked black music more than white musi c (Landrine and Klonoff, 1996) . In previous research, Blacks who were asked these ,%!questions possessed stronger African American identities when listening to and watching black media forms. Therefore, in this research, it is hypothesized that increased participation in white musical forms is indicative of stronger white racial identities. Finally, r espondents were also asked about their institutional trust, using two questions that asked how much they trusted doctors and the political system through que stions developed in this research. Previous research has measured this construct through the use of numerous questions, including Ò When you are sick or have problems do you go to a medicine man? (yes or no) (Hoffmann, 1 985)Ó: and ÒWhat is your attitude toward the me dicine man vs. a White doctor? (Hoffmann, 1985) Ó, and ÒIf doctors canÔt cure you, you should try going to a r oot doctor or to your minister (Landrine and Klonoff 1996b)Ó. This research suggests that racial ethnic minorities that participate in non -traditional institutional practices are less likely to be acculturated into American society and more likely to identify strongly wit h their own racial ethnic group . However, additional research has shown that the effects of acculturation can be unexpected, at least for racial ethnic minorit ies. A recent study found that Mexican Americans who were more acculturated were also more likely to be cynical about U.S. institutions, especially political ones (Michelson, 2003; Michelson, 2007; Wenzel, 2006). In this research, it is hypothesized that increased institutional trust is indicative of a more hegemonic white racial identity . Analytic strategy The data garnered from the WRIS was subjected to a two -pronged analysis. First, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted on all of the items intended to measure whites attitudes, behaviors and preferences to determine which items were most closely related with WRI (Brown, 2006; Harrington, 2009) . These factors were turned into composite scale variables by computing the means of the items that loaded within each of the factors. These created ,&!composite scale variables became the dependent variables in subsequent analyses that utilized linear regression to examine the effects key socio -demographic variables such as gender and income hav e on the components of WRI. In this research, items hypothesized to be dependent variables were turned into scales in order to synthesize the large amount of data included on the WRIS and to detect the underlying patterns in the data. In addition, this str ategy increases the reliability of the measurement (Gliem and Gliem, 2003) , decreases measurement error, and allows for a more detailed and multi -dimensional understanding of each construct (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994) . Exploratory factor a nalysis Exploratory factor analysis is a theory driven statistical technique that is useful for researchers who do not have preexisting measurement models to examine the construct they are studying. This allows researchers to create measures of constructs that have been understudied and do not have str ong, comprehensive theories about which items should be part of the scale and how they are related. Researchers can impute large amounts of data into an EFA model to determine which items are not relevant to the phenomenon being measured. Items that are no t related to the underlying construct can be removed, leading to a more concentrated and concise measurement model. The data that remains is analyzed to determine the underlying factor structure of the data, or in other words, how the remaining items are r elated to each other and whether they should be grouped together as they are actually measuring a similar factor (Brown, 2006; Harrington, 2009) . Factor analysis developed as a technique to measure the latent construct of intelligence, which researchers argued could not be measured directly through observed data (Binet and ,'!Simon, 1916; Guilford, 1966; Guilford, 1967; Humphreys, Linn and University of Illinois at Urbana -Champaign Department of Psychology, 1989; Spearman, 1904; Wolman, 1985) . More recently, researchers have utilized both EFA and C FA as a means of examining the factors that contribute to ra cial and ethnic identity (Cortes et al., 2003) . Traditionally, researchers have conducted EFA when first attempting to construct a scale and after coming up with an initial model through EFA, distributed the same survey to a different group of respondents and conducted confirmatory factor analy sis (CFA) on that secondary data set. EFA works by examining the relationships among individual items and determines whether these items are correlated and to what extent. The theoretical underpinning of this statistical technique is based on the common factor model, which suggests that the correlations between the items in the measurement model can be attribu ted to a common factor, often referred to as a latent variable. Although this latent variable is not measured directly through observed data, its presence explains why respondents answer items in similar ways. EFA provides researchers with an analysis of h ow many of these factors exist in their dataset and how many items are correlated, and to what extent with each of these factors. The data is imputed into a measurement model and either the researcher or statistical software tests a number of different ways the data could be organized to measure the latent construct through the process of data rotation. Items that are highly correlated with each other typically load on one factor, showing that these items are all measuring slightly different aspects of the same construct. In EFA, these correlations are referred to as factor loadings, which provide the same information as regression coefficients or slopes in other forms of statistical analysis. These loadings provide us with information about two types of v ariance, (1) common variance, which is variance that can be accounted for by latent, underlying variables and affects all items in the ,(!model and (2) unique variance, which is not caused by the underlying construct and therefore must be explained by factors unknown to the resear cher such as additional items, the way the ques tion was worded or random error (Harrington, 2009) . Common variance is determined by squaring the factor loadings to come up with a variance percentage. For example, factor loadings of .7 show that approximately 50% of the variance in the item is caused by the hypothesized latent variable. Unique variance c an be determined by subtracting the common variance from 100%. In this research, SPSS and varimax rotation were utilized to determine the model that had the strongest correlations within each factor and explained the most variance of the underlying latent construct. Researchers can then review the generated measurement model s and make determinations about whether or not they wish to remove items that have low factor loadings and therefore cannot explain a significant amount of variation in the latent variab le, or that load on multiple factors, which signifies that the items may not possess divergent validity . It should be noted that although EFA allows for an analysis of the relationships between observed variables, it does not provide a statistical mean s for examining the direction of the relationship between these variables and the latent construct being studied. Here, researchers using EFA are required to rely on theory to connect the statistical patterns garnered through EFA to existing theories. Limitations of EFA There are three primary limitations to E FA, which are related to method effects, measurement invariance and its exploratory nature . First, EFA cannot test for method effects. Therefore, there is no way to analyze the way the constructed measurement model and the concurrent data analysis are affected by the measure that was used . Ideally, respondents would ,)!provide information about the construct being studied through a number of different methods to reduce these method effects. Respondents who provide information through only one method may experience fee lings of social desirability that can lead to response bias effects (Podsakoff et al., 2003; Podsakoff, MacKenzie and Podsakoff, 2012) . These feelings may have some influence on how the items in the model correlate with each other and the underlying factor(s) (Harrington, 2009). A second limitation of EFA is that it cannot test for measurement invariance, which examines how the results of the EFA may differ if the survey were distributed to different populations , even if it is only distributed to one group . For the purposes of EFA, measurement invariance can only be checked by distributing the survey to a number of different populations, to see if the resulting measurement model and factor structure are the same (Brown, 2006; Harrington, 2009) . The final limitation of EFA is that as the title implies, it is an exploratory technique. Therefore, the results must be interpreted with caution and may also be very context specific. To increase the reliability of the survey, the results garnered through EFA must be confirmed through CFA and structural equation modeling (SEM). Because of these limitations , CFA and SEM we re considered as alternative statistical techniques for this analysis. However, both techniques require that the researcher rely on existing measurement models to determine the items that should be used to measure the latent construct of interest and to hy pothesize how these items are related to each other . This is because b oth CFA and SEM require that all parameters in the measurement model be identified before conducting the data analysis, which means that all the relationships between the items included in the survey, the latent variable, item co -variances and errors, be specified in advance . In this research, no pre-existing measurement models for WRI exist. Although there is some theoretical knowledge about how the factors included in this research relate to each other, ,*!many of the items included on the WRIS are understudied, especially in relation ship to each other. T he theory about these items and their relationship to each other and WRI is often contradictory and context -specific . Due to the dearth of data in this area, it was necessary to utilize EFA to construct a preliminary model that could be subjected to rigorous statistical analysis to determine the construct validity of the WRIS . Unfortunately, conducting CFA on data that has already been subjected to EFA can only provide a weak test of model fit. In these cases, CFA will often replicate the results of the previous EFA. Some researchers circumvent this by splitting their data in two and conducting EFA on half of the data and CFA on the other half. The large sample size required by EFA and CFA prohibited both procedures being performed in this researc h. In addition, as will be discussed later, after subjecting the WRIS to EFA, the resulting scale had some factors that were composed of only two items, falling short of the statistical standard of three f or items subjected to CFA (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2013) . Since the WRIS is the first survey to measure white AmericanÕs racial and ethnic identity, many questions were included in an effort to ensure at least thr ee items loaded on each factor, but the items loaded in ways that were unexpected, leaving some factors with only two items. Due to these limitations, in this research, the goal was to create a preliminary measurement model that possesses strong const ruct validity that can be redistributed to different populations and subjected to CFA and SEM at a later date (Brown, 2006; Harrington, 2009) . In this research, EFA was used to create a baseline of the attitudes, behaviors and preferences that comprise white racial identity for all of the participants in the sample and to ,+!provide answe rs to RQ1 -RQ5. All of the items imputed into the measurement model were checked for normality, patterns in missing data and validity (Brown, 2006; Harrington, 2009) . Normality of variables subjected to EFA EFA assumes that each item that is entered into the measurement model is normally distributed. This assumption also requires that data be categorical, not binary, since binary data is often skewed. All of the items imputed into the measurement model were checked for normality through an assessment of kurtosis. Kurtosis scales above 1 indicate that the item responses may be skewed and have limited variation (Mardia, 1970) . All items showed kurtosis scores within the normal range and therefore exhibited patterns for normal distribution except: ÒMy friends are: (mostly white to mostly black)Ó, ÒHow often are y our romantic partners the same race as you?Ó, ÒMy race doesnÕt really matter, weÕre all just humansÓ and ÒDoctors are trustworthyÓ . Because these items had kurtosis scores above 1, it may indicate that these items have low commonality with other variables or may not load on other factors because of their limited variation. All items except ÒMy race doesnÕt really matterÓ did load in the concurrent exploratory factor analysis and were therefore retained in the final models. Missing data for variables subje cted to EFA These items were also examined for patterns in missing data that could impact the results of the data analysis. Missing data for items subjected to EFA was analyzed by item using the Missing Value analysis tool in SPSS. Each item was first che cked to see if it had more than 10% missing data. Data with this large of a percentage missing can be unreliable and are usually missing because of an underlying pattern that th e researcher must uncover (Bennett, 2001; Dong and Peng, 2013; Rubin, 1976) . Data missing less than 5% can be attributed to being missing at ,,!random and does not have an effect on the data analysis or results (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2013) . None of the items subjected to EFA for the purposes of this analysis had more than 5% missing data. The frequencies and percentages of missing data for each item included i n the EFA can be seen in Table 4. Table 4: Missing Data for Items Subjected to EFA Item: Frequency Missing: % Missing : What are your political views? 3 1.4% I feel that whites understand me better than people who are not white. 1 .5% I prefer going to social gatherings and parties where most of the people are white. 1 .5% I would prefer to go out on a date with someone who was white than someone of another race. 1 .5% My friends are: 0 0% How often are your romantic partners the same race as you? 6 2.7% I sometimes feel it would be better if different ethnic groups didnÕt try to mix together. 0 0% I spend time with people from ethnic groups other than my own. 0 0% I am proud to be an American. 1 .5% I have a strong sense of belonging to my own ethnic group. 0 0% I think a lot about how my life will be affected by my ethnic group membership. 1 .5% I am happy that I am a member of the racial/ethnic group I belong to. 0 0% Most of the people I admire are white Americans. 1 .5% My race doesnÕt really matter. WeÕre all just humans. 0 0% Racial Discrimination Limits Black Employment 1 .5% Less In -born Ability Accounts for Blacks Lack of Success 6 2.7% Racial Discrimination Accounts for Blacks Lack of Success 1 .5% Lack of Motivation Accounts for Blacks Lack of Success 2 .9% How important is it for you to celebrate the ethnic festivals or holidays of your ancestors? 0 0% How important is it for you to celebrate American holidays and festivals (eg. 4th of July)? 0 0% I have spent time trying to find out more about my own ethnic group, such as its history, traditions, and customs. 0 0% I participate in the cultural practices of my own group, such as special food, music, or customs. 0 0% English should be the official language of the United States. 0 0% How important is it for people to speak ÒproperÓ English? 1 .5% I have different ways of speaking, depending on who I am around. 0 0% I usually add salt to my food to make it taste better. 1 .5% My family served casseroles as a main dish for dinner while I was growing up. 1 .5% My family and friends have potlucks. 3 1.4% Most of the music I listen to is by artists who are: 1 .5% I like black music more than white music. 5 2.3% I regularly watch TV shows and/or movies where most of the characters are: 4 1.8% ,-!Table 4 (contÕd) I have seen people Òget the spiritÓ or speak in tongues. 8 3.6% Doctors are trustworthy. 2 .9% I trust the United States government. 0 0% Because of the minimal amount of missing data, Likert scale items with missing data were imputed using medians. EFA also has options to delete cases with missing data listwise, but in EFA, multiple imputation is always recommended over deletion (Bello, 1995; C okluk and Kayri, 2011; Harrington, 2009; Penn, 2007) to maintain the strongest sample size and reduce bias . Validity of variables subjected to EFA Factor matrices were utilized to determine convergent and divergent validity for all of the items entered into EFA . Convergent and discriminant validity provide useful information about constru ct validity (Koeske, 1994) . Convergent validity examines relationships tha t have high correlati ons. Loadings over .4 are indicative of high convergent validity. High convergent validity shows that the items being included are measuring the same t hing (Bagozzi, Yi and Phillips, 1991) . Discriminant validity examines relationships between items that have low correlations. Loadings of .85 or below indicate dis criminant validity (Brown, 2006) . Discrimina nt validity suggests that the items being included in the measurement model are distinct and are not measuring the same or overlapping phenomenon (Bagozzi, Yi and Phillips, 1991). Ideally, a scale should only include items that exhibit both convergent and discriminant validity, and therefore should be correlated with other factor loadings at the .4 to .85 range. All items included in the final EFA models showed both kinds of validity. Additionally, the items grouped together by factor in a way that confirms previous theoretical constructs and supports face validity. Theoretical or nomological validity was also sup ported, as the loadings that were -.!exhibited in the data aligned with underlying theories about white racial identities and the attitudes, behaviors, and preferences that are proxies for them (Bagozzi, Yi and Phillips, 1991; Koeske, 1994) . Recoding variables u tilized in the EFA None of the items measuring whites attitudes, behaviors and preferences that were imputed into SPSS for EFA were collapsed primarily because EFA requ ires that items be normally distributed, w hich demands that they also be Òapproximations to continuous variables (Gorsuch, 1983) Ó. Non -continuous variables exhibit smaller correlations and lead to inaccurate parameter estimates (Byrne, 2013; Kline, 2011; OÕConnor, Colder and Hawk J r, 2004). These difficulties are resolved if the item in question has at le ast five categories (Byrne, 2013; Kline, 2011; OÕConnor, Colder and Hawk Jr, 2004) . After the data was checked to ensure it met the basic assumptions for EFA, it was subjected to principal axis factoring and varimax rotation in SPSS . The resulting matrices demonstrated existing factors. Loadings above .71 show excellent relationships between variables , above .63 is very good, .55 good, .45 is fair and . 32 is poor (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2013). In this analysis, loadings less than .4 were dropped . Items were also dropped if they loaded on multiple fa ctors and exhibit ed less than a .2 difference in loading . Divergent validity could not be determined for these factors, as their loadings were close enough together that a determination could not be made about which factor they load on (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994). CronbachÕs alphas were calculated for e ach of the resulting factors to ensure the internal consistency of each of the factors. Each of these the items that loaded on these factors were -%!combined into one scale variable by adding up all item responses and dividing by the number of items that were used to create the variable. In this research, the CronbachÕs alphas critical cut off value was set to .6. Some research has suggested that C ronbachÕs alphas be at least .7 (DeVellis, 2012) to ensure internal consistency, however, others have argued that this cutoff is an Òurban legend (Lance, Butts and Michels, 2006) Ó and that reliability estimates as low as .6 are still valid (Pasta and Suhr, 2004) . In addition, the number of items that load on each factor affect the alpha value that is calculated. Factors with less than 3 items may exhibit lower alpha reliabilities (Tavakol and Dennick, 2011) , suggesting that there may be even more flexibility in these cases. Factor scores were also calculated, but the creation of composite scale variables allowed for easier interpretation and analysis and provided similar results as factor scores (DiStefano, Zhu and Mindrila, 2009; Furr and Bacharach, 2013) . Since EFA is a largely theory driven methodology, the results below indicate the relationship s between the items entered into the factor analysis, but cannot deduce whether these items have a positive or negative relationship to the underlying latent variable of white racial identity. However, these relationships ca n be hypothesized based on previous theories and will be in the discussion section. Linear r egression The second step of this analysis involved linear regression. The composite score variables created through EFA were utilized as the dependent variable i n eight separate linear regressions to determine the way these attitudes, behaviors and preferences differed by a number of key socio -demographic variables. This kind of analysis was possible because of the underlying hypothesis of EFA that all of the items grouped together in one factor are really measuring different dimensions of an overarching construct. Therefore, these items can be scaled together -&!and use d to create a more comprehensive variable. The independent variables imputed into the linear regression were first checked for patterns in missing data and small cell size. Open -ended responses were also inductively coded to turn qualitative responses int o quantitative data that could be subjected to statistical analysis. Missing d ata for variables subjected to linear regression Missing data for items subjected to linear regression was analyzed by item using the Missing Value analysis tool in SPSS. No item had more than 10% missing data, which suggests that the missing data will not impact the data results and analysis. In addition, only one case show s over 5% of missing data , which suggests that the data may not be missing at random. The missing data for each item, along with an explanation for any items whose missing data is theoretically significant or more than 5% is listed in table 5 . Table 5 : Missing Data for Socio -Demographic Items Item: Frequency: %: What is your racial/ethnic group? 3 1.4% Age 1 .5 Education 1 .5 Michigan Residency 0 0 Religion 11 5% Bilingual 0 0 Gender 3 1.4% Class 2 .9% Family Income 12 5.5% Urbanicity 5 2.3% Racial Composition of School, Neighborhood and Family While Growing Up 0 0 Racial Composition of Current Neighborhood 3 1.4% Some Members of my Immediate Family are Prejudiced 0 0 Three respondents left their racial/ethnic identification blank. Because racial/ethnic identity was the key determining demographic variable in the WRIS, it was impossible to -'!perform any further analysis without first determining whether respondents had a racial/ethnic identity that could be categorized as white. Instead of deleting these cases and the information that could be garnered from them, additional research was done to determine their racial/ethnic identification and to retain their answers for th e purposes of analysis. In particular, the researcher made this determination from their listing of the racial and ethnic categorization of their parents. The first of these respondents listed that their mother was Ò Hawaiian-Japanese Ó and that their father was ÒHungarian -Slovakian Ó. In the second case, the respondent listed that their mother and father were ÒC aucasian Ó. In the final case, the respondent listed their mother as ÒGermanÓ and their father as ÒPolishÓ. In all three cases, enough informatio n was available to determine that these respondents would fit into traditional classifications of white or Caucasian in the United States. Religious background had missing data of 5%. Because this data is not over 5%, it can be considered to be missing a t random (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2013) , although the high percentage of missing data is theoretically significant since it is likely respondents were more hesitant to answer this item as they consider ed their religious preferenc es to be private information (Wyatt, Katz and Kim, 2000) . Family income ha d 5.5% of missing data, just slightly over the critical value for data that is missing at random. It is likely that the pattern for this missing data can be explained by the fact that respondents consider family income private data. It is unlikely that tho se from certain income groups were more likely to exclude this information than respondents from other income groups. Instead, this perception of personal information was likely to be experienced across income brackets. Therefore, both of these items were retained for the purposes of final analysis. In the regression analyses that follow, missing data was imputed using means to retain the highest sample size and because of the small amount of missing data. Mean -(!imputation has been criticized, as it can infl ate statistical significance and decrease standard errors (Allison, 2000; Allison, 2002) . The refore, the same regression models were also ru n with listwise deletion as a comparison and regressions with mean imputation showed similar, and in some cases, even more conservative results. For purposes of clarity, o nly the regressions with mean imputation are included in the next chapter. Recodes of linear regression v ariables Many of the socio -demographic independent variables subjected to linear regression required recodes to be entered into subsequent linear reg ression models . Linear regression requires that there be no extreme outliers in any items, that these data are distributed normally, and that these data are presented nume rically or categorically (Seber and Lee, 2003) . Therefore, open ended questions were recoded into categorical or binary variables, and items with small cells were collapsed to limit the effect of outliers and to ensure normal distribution. There ar e some limitations of recoding. Most of these limitations relate to the fact that recoding reduces some of the variation that exists in the data . Recoding can also change the mean of an item and affect the significance level of stat istical tests (Babbie et al., 2013; Buchner and Findley, 1991) . However, for the purposes of this analysis, recoding was seen as being necessary for the reasons mentioned above. The recoding process for each of these variables is discussed in detail below. Respondents were asked to write in their racial/ethnic group leading to a wide range of responses. These responses were inductively coded, first into particular racial and/or ethnic groups and finally into a dummy variable where white=0 a nd Caucasian or w hite ethnic=1, as theoretically white was perceived as being the comparison group and had a larger N. Age was collapsed so that the categories are 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 and a bove due to the small cell size of -)!the outlier categories beyond age 21. Education was originally a categorical variable that did not have equal amounts of responses in each category. Therefore, education exhibited some skewness and was not normally distributed. For the se reasons education was recoded as a dummy variable where 0=freshma n and 1=sophomore or beyond. This re -categorization was also supported by theory, as it has been hypothesized that freshman are in a key stage of identity development in which they may exhibit attitudes, behaviors, and preferences that are different from t heir older peers, who are more acculturated into their college environment (Denzin, 1966) . Residency was dummy coded into Michigan or non -Michigan resident as there were not enough non -Michigan respondents to create additional categories . In this case, Michigan residency was coded as 0. Religion was also open -ended and codes were created inductively by looking for patterns in the data and grouping the data together based on similarity of religious preference. Each of these major religious categories, i ncluding Catholic, Agnostic or Secular and Jewish were then coded into dummy variables . Christian religious preferences (which included one respondent who identified as Greek Orthodox Christian) were retained as the comparison category. These responses were also recoded into a second dummy variable that compared the responses of Christian and non-Christian s (which included Agnostic or Secular ). This second categorization was not retained in the final analysis, as the first set of coding categories revealed a more nuanced relationship between religion and WRI. Bilingual was dummy coded with 0=no. Respondents we re instructed to identify their gender by circling Òm aleÓ or Òf emaleÓ, or to write in a different gender category other than the tw o that were listed under ÒotherÓ. No one wrote in a third response. Gender was dummy coded with male=0. Respondents were asked to circle one of five categories to describe their class status, ranging from poor to upper class. No one circled poor and very f ew people circled upper class. Therefore, class was dummy coded into -*!poor/working class and upper middle/ upper cla ss with middle class as the omitted category . Respondents were asked to identify the type of city they grew up in, particularly whether it was rural, suburban or urban. Urbanicity was then dummy coded into rural and urban variables with suburban as the omitted category . Respondents were also asked about the racial composition of their school, neighborhood and family growing up and about the ra cial composition of t heir current neighborhood. O nly one respondent indicated that they currently lived in an all black neighborhood and a few indicated they currently lived in a mostly black neighborhood. Most respondents listed that they lived in raciall y mixed, mostly white, or all white neighborhoods. Two dummy variables were created from these responses. The first of these includes respondents who live in a racially mixed, mostly black , or all black neighborhood. The second includes those who live in a n all white neighborhood. Respondents who live in a mostly white neighborhood comprise d the comparison group. No respondents indicated that they grew up in an all black school, neighborhood or family and only a few indicated they grew up in a mostly black school, neighborhood or family. Two dummy variables were created from these responses. The first included respondents who grew up in mostly black or racially mixed networks. The second included respondents who grew up in all white networks. Respondents who grew up in mostly white network s served as the comparison group. Finally, family p rejudice was measured through a 5 -category variable that asked respondents whether they strongly disagreed or strongly agreed that at least one member of their immediate family was prejudiced. These respon ses were normally distributed with responses in each category, so this variable was left in its original form. -+! Regression a ssumptions After the data to be imputed into linear regressions was cleaned, it was checked to ensure that it met the assumptions for linear regression, including linearity, statistical independence of errors, homosc edasticity and normality (Montgomery, Peck and Vining, 2012; Seber and Lee, 2003; Tabachnick and Fidell, 2013; Weisberg, 2005) . In addition, the data was checked to ensure there were no extreme outliers or collinearity (Belsley, Kuh and Welsch, 2005; Montgomery, Peck and Vining, 2012; Seber and Lee, 2003; Seber and Lee, 2012; Tabachnick and Fidell , 2013; Weisberg, 2005) . An explanation of each of these assumptions and how the researcher ensured that the items met these assumptions is discussed in detail below. The first assumption of linear regression is that there is a linear relationship between the independent variables imputed into the regression and the dependent variable. This ensures that there is a consistent relationship between the two sets of variable s. Linear graphs that exhibit relationships that look like a U or a curve suggests that the relationship between the independent and dependent variable is unpredictable. An analysis of the linearity of the variables included in the linear regression in thi s research was conducted through the use of p -plots that graphed the standardized residuals against the dependent variables , the results of which are below. -,!Figure 1 : Normal P -Plot of Regression Standardized Residual for Dependent Variables American Composite Scale Variable: Cross Racial Composite Scale Variable: Ethnic Composite Scale Variable: Intimate Composite Scale Variable: Racial Attitudes Composite Scale Variable: Institutional Composite Scale Variable: --!Figure 1 (contÕd) Music Composite Scale Variable: Food Composite Scale Variable: All independent variables met the assumption for linearity with the dependent variables in this analysis. The second assumption of linear regression is that the items imputed into linear reg ression have errors that are not statistically correlated. Items without statistical independence of errors are likely to exhibit high correlations as the result of an unaccounted for item that was not included in the original measurement model. If this as sumption is violated, changes in th e dep endent variable could be the result of this unknown variable, instead of to items in the model. The Durbin Watson test checks for this assumption. Durbin Watson statistics over one show statistical independence of er rors (Fomby and Guilkey, 1978) . Table 6 : Durbin Watson Statistics for Dependent Variables Item Durbin -Watson American 2.072 Cross Racial 1.951 Ethnic 2.107 Intimate 1.985 Racial Attitudes 1.860 Institutional 1.838 Music 2.024 Food 2.102 %..!All of the Durbin Watson statistics for the variables entered into regressions for the purposes of this research exhibit Durbin Watson statistics higher than 1, and therefore it can be argued that their errors are statistically independent. Homosceda sticity is the third assumption researchers must meet to perform linear regression. Homosceda sticity tests ensure that there is homogeneity in the variance of errors for items included in the regression. If this assumption is not met, and the errors for the items are shown to exhibit heterosceda sticity it is likely that the confidence interval s that are calculated for the regression will be inaccurate. In addit ion, if there is a high amount of heterosceda sticity the results received from the data analysis are likely to overestimate model fit and PearsonÕs coefficients . For this research, scatterplots were constructed to examine the relationship between the standardized residuals for items included in the model by the ir predicted values , which allows for a determination of homosceda sticity (Galbraith, 1988; Miller, 1998) . Models that exhibit close to perfect symmetry from the left to the righ t and top to the bottom suggest that the model may not meet the assumptions. Figure 2 : Scatterplot s of Regression Standardized Residual and Regression Standardized Predicted Value for Dependent Variables American Composite Scale Variable: Cross Racial Composite Scale Variable: %.%!Figure 2 (contÕd) Ethnic Composite Scale Variable: Intimate Composite Scale Variable: Racial Attitudes Composite Scale Variable: Institutional Composite Scale Variable: Music Composite Scale Variable : Food Composite Scale Variable: %.&!All of the items entered into regression equations exhibited homosceda sticity and therefore met the assumption for unequal variance in errors. The final assumption of linear regression is that the responses in the dependent variable should be normally distributed. If these variables are non -normal, it can affect the significance levels shown in the results and the confidence intervals of the data. Histograms were used to check for normal distributio n of data. The data should exhibit a relatively symmetrical curve shape, and the height of the curve should be at around the 0 mark. Figure 3: Histograms for Dependent Variables American Composite Scale Variable: Cross Racial Composite Scale Variable: Ethnic Composite Scale Variable: Intimate Composite Scale Variable: %.'!Figure 3 (contÕd) Racial Attitudes Composite Scale Variable: Institutional Composite Scale Variable: Music Composite Scale Variable: Food Composite Scale Variable: Although not perfect, these dependent variables are normally distributed and therefore meet the linear regression assumption of normality. Although not formally regression assumptions, researchers are often encouraged to check their data for outliers and collinearit y to ensure data accuracy . Cooks values were used to determine if there were any significant outliers for any of the dependent variables that could exert undue influence on the distribution of the item . Cooks values over 1 indicate the presence of outliers that may skew the data and produce inaccurate results (Cook, 1977). A table detailing the minimum, maximum, mean a nd standard deviations for the C ooks values for each of the dependent variables is below. %.(!Table 7 : Cooks V alues for Dependent Variables (n=220) Item Minimum Maxi mum Mean SD American Composite Scale Variable .000 .078 .005 .009 Cross Racial Composite Scale Variable .000 .057 .005 .009 Ethnic Composite Scale Variable .000 .038 .005 .007 Intimate Composite Scale Variable .000 .135 .086 .035 Racial Attitudes Composite Scale Variable .000 .056 .005 .007 Institutional Composite Scale Variable .000 .071 .005 .010 Music Composite Scale Variable .000 .050 .005 .008 Food Composite Scale Variable .000 .078 .086 .035 Each of the dependent variables met the critical values for cooks statistic and therefore, it can be deduced that there are no outliers in any of the dependent variables that exhibit an undue influence on the variable. Independent variables that are highly collinear with the dependent variable(s) can cause problems in the estimation of regression coefficients. In regression models, highly collinear items are likely to have a statistically significant relationship. However, because these items are collinear, this relatio nship can often be attributed to the fact that the items are measuring the same thing, not to the fact that one depends on another . Collinearity statistics for all of the independent variables are included below. Tolerance levels below .2 and/or Variation Inflation Factors (VIFs) above 3 indicate a high amount of collinearity (Grewal, Cote and Baumgartner, 2004; Tabachnick and Fidell, 2013) . Table 8 : Collinearity Statistics for Independent Variables Item Tolerance VIF Open Ended Racial/Ethnic Identification (0=white) .869 1.150 Gender (0=Male) .774 1.291 Age .469 2.131 Education (0=Freshman) .465 2.152 Michigan Resident (0=yes) .955 1.047 Income .480 2.085 Poor/Working Class (0=middle class) .611 1.636 Upper Middle/Upper Class (0=middle class) .610 1.639 Rural/Country (0=suburban) .718 1.393 %.)!Table 8 (contÕd) Urban/City (0=suburban) .870 1.149 Racially Mixed to Mostly Black Network (0=mostly white network) .608 1.644 All White Network (0=mostly white network) .810 1.234 Racially Mixed to All Black Neighborhood (0=mostly white neighborhood) .746 1.340 All White Neighborhood (0=mostly white neighborhood) .850 1.176 Catholic (0=Christian) .715 1.398 Agnostic or Secular (0=Christian) .775 1.291 Jewish (0=Christian) .701 1.426 Family Prejudice .845 1.183 Bilingual (0=no) .870 1.149 None of the Tolerance levels are below .2 and none of the VIFs are above 3, therefore, it can be deduced that the independent variables are not collinear. In addition, correlation tables were examined to ensure none of the independent variables had highly collinear relationships with any of the other independent variables. Conclusion After cleaning the data and checking to make sure the data collected through the WRIS met statistical assumptio ns, the data was subjected to EFA and linear regression to determine the relationship between white attitudes, behaviors and preferences and their WRI. The outcomes of this analysis are the topic of the next chapter. %.*!FINDINGS Introduction This chapter details the research findings that emerged aft er subjecting the WRIS to a two-pronged process. First, the WRIS was analyzed using EFA to determine a baseline for WRI, including white attitudes, behaviors and preferences. Eight factors emerged that highlighted the significance of American, Cross Racial, Ethnic, Intimate, Racial, Institutional, Music and Food attitudes, behavior and preferences for WRI. These factors were turned into scales and utilized as the dependent variables in subsequent sets of linear regression. The findings of both sets of analysis are discussed in detail below. Exploratory Factor Analysis In the fir st round of data analysis the 37 dependent variables included in the WRIS that were intended to measure whites American, Cross Racial, Ethnic, Racial and Institutional attitudes, behaviors and preferences were subjected to EFA using principal axis factoring to determine the underlying fa ctor structure of WRI. In interpreting the factors, any item with a loading of at least .4 was retained as it was considered to be significant, which exceeds th e suggested cut off for .3 (Brown, 2006; Harrington, 2009) . Therefore, at least 16% (4^2) of the variance in each of the items in the scale can be attributed to variance in the u nderlying common factor (Gorsuch, 1983; Harrington, 2009) . There has been some debate about exactly which cutoff to use, however most accounts argue that the factor loading cut off a researcher chooses should depend on their sample size and whether the items cross load on multiple factors (Gorsuch, 1983) . .4 has been deemed as an acceptable cut off for sample sizes larger than 150 (Stevens, 2009) . Items that cross load on multiple factors may explain less variance in each particular item, and therefore, researchers may want to consider ens uring higher than normal %.+!factor loadings for these items (Matsunaga, 2010) . None of the items that were retained in this sample had cross loadings that were significant for a number of factors. EFA resulted in 8 factors that are shown and discussed below . Table 9 : Factor Loadings for White Racial Identity Factor Ameri. -can Cross Racial Ethnic Intimate Racial Attitude Institu -tional Music Food I am proud to be an American 0.633 0.017 0.139 -0.089 0.045 0.257 -0.121 0.013 It is important for me to celebrate American holidays and festivals 0.559 -0.048 0.249 -0.058 -0.001 0.117 0.042 0.147 It is extremely important for people to speak proper English. 0.538 0.015 0.086 0.253 -0.157 -0.042 -0.031 -0.018 English should be the official language of the United States. 0.536 0.084 0.081 0.045 -0.253 0.107 -0.103 -0.116 My political views are strongly conservative 0.532 0.159 -0.023 -0.069 -0.111 -0.03 -0.023 0.033 I have a strong sense of belonging to my own ethnic group. 0.478 0.188 0.302 0.184 -0.059 0.172 -0.022 0.018 I prefer going to parties where most of the people are white. -0.039 0.731 0.053 0.232 -0.114 0.049 0.051 -0.108 Whites understand me better than people who are not white. 0.072 0.698 -0.021 0.16 0.038 0.039 0.054 0.179 Most of the people I admire are white Americans. 0.157 0.477 0.012 -0.127 -0.087 0.033 0.121 -0.023 I rarely spend time with people from other ethnic groups. -0.006 0.441 -0.121 0.149 -0.052 0.088 0.17 -0.034 I feel it would be better if different ethnic groups didnÕt mix. 0.163 0.421 0.175 -0.168 -0.161 -0.06 -0.058 0.046 %.,!Table 9 (contÕd) I participate in the cultural practices of my ethnic group. 0.071 0.071 0.789 -0.034 -0.167 0.092 -0.052 -0.025 I have spent time finding out more about my own ethnic group. 0.106 -0.047 0.701 0.007 -0.024 0.004 0.02 0.024 It is important for me to celebrate ethnic festivals of my ancestors. 0.3 0.001 0.609 -0.107 0.002 -0.02 0.029 -0.008 My friends are white. -0.033 0.108 -0.128 0.828 0.049 0.018 0.086 -0.113 How often are your romantic partners the same race as you? 0.085 0.079 0.011 0.652 0.002 -0.034 0.087 0.017 Racial discrimination limits black employment. -0.113 -0.179 -0.079 0.038 0.832 -0.075 0.034 0.04 Racial discrimination accounts for blacks lack of success. -0.218 -0.087 -0.088 0.003 0.672 -0.071 -0.045 -0.068 Doctors are trustworthy. 0.092 0.02 0.024 0.022 -0.112 0.72 0.125 -0.097 I trust the United States government. 0.177 0.101 0.044 -0.04 -0.026 0.709 -0.052 0.039 I never like black music more than white music. -0.029 0.122 0.091 0.019 0.008 0.093 0.76 0.023 Most of the music I listen to is by artists who are white. -0.135 0.149 -0.088 0.162 -0.006 -0.033 0.606 0.019 Growing up, my family served casseroles as a main dinner dish. 0.061 -0.013 -0.037 0.039 -0.007 -0.067 -0.06 0.738 My family and friends have potlucks. -0.012 0.038 0.034 -0.092 -0.01 0.012 0.078 0.566 This model consists of 24 items that loaded on 8 factors and explained 48.75% of the variance in the latent construct of WRI. Each factor emerged through EFA, which showed how all of the %.-!items entered into the model group together. If items group together on one item and do not cross load on other items, the assumptions of EFA suggest that it is because the variance or loadings of those items are attributable to an underlying factor or common variable. Each factor was then labeled based on the researchers understanding of the underlying process or concept that connected all of the items within each factor . For the first model, Factor 1 was designated American, Factor 2 as Cross Racial, Factor 3 as Ethnic, Factor 4 as Intimate Interactions, Factor 5 as Racia l Attitudes, Factor 6 as Institutional Trust, Factor 7 as Music Preferences and Factor 8 as Food Preferences. American measured whites American attitudes, behavior and preferences through six items including their political views, American pride, participa tion in American cultural activities, opinions about English language, and feelings of belonging . Cross -Racial measured whites attitudes and behaviors regarding cross -racial interactions through five items including the frequency and comfort with which the y interacted with non -whites and whether most of the people they admired were white. Ethnic measured whites ethnic attitudes, behaviors and preferences through three items that included their participation in and research on the traditions of their own eth nic group. Intimate Interactions measured whites relationship behaviors through the use of two items that included how often whites had friends and romantic partners that are white as opposed to non -white. Racial attitudes consisted of two items that measured whether whites think discrimination plays a role in black employment and lack of success. Institutional trust measured whites institutional attitudes through two items that included whether whites trust doctors and the government. Music preferences mea sured whites musical attitudes, behaviors and preferences through two items that included whether they prefer black music and how often they listen to black music. Food preferences measured whites behaviors towards food and consisted of two items that incl uded how often whites ate casserole s and %%.!participated in potlucks. Almost all of the items that were dropped had slightly low factor loadings but were remov ed primarily because they cross -loaded on more than one factor, indicating that some components of t hese factors overlap and need further refinement. Alpha reliabilities were also calculated for each of these scales. Alpha reliabilities are measures of internal consistency or correlation among items within a scale. They provide researchers with informa tion about how much of the variance in an item is due to the underlying construct being measured by the scale and how much of the variance is due to measurement error, or unique item variance. Common variance can be calculated by squaring the alpha reliabi lity value. The measurement error of each scale can be calculated by subtracting this number from 1. Although this may seem similar to the results garnered by factor analysis, it is different because factor analysis can also provide information about which items load best on which factors (Tavakol and Dennick, 2011) . A table that summarizes the alpha reliabilities, common variance and measurement error of each scale is included below. Table 10 : Alpha Values for Each White Racial Identity Sub -Scale Factor Ameri -can Cross Racial Ethnic Intimate Racial Att itude Institut - ional Music Food Alpha .744 .691 .754 .668 .769 .682 .625 .58 Common Variance 55% 48% 57% 45% 59% 47% 39% 34% Measurement Error 45% 52% 43% 55% 41% 53% 61% 66% *Numbers rounded to nearest tenth Although some of these alpha reliabilities did not meet the suggested statistical strength of .7 (DeVellis, 2012) , they were retained due to the fact that the low alpha reliabilities were likely the result of the limited number of items that loaded on each factor. CronbachÕs alphas a re underestimated for factor s with three or less items (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994 ; Tavakol and Dennick, 2011) . This is largely because traditionally alpha values rely on the locally independent %%%!assumption that all correlations between items are the result of a common factor. Therefore, if the common factor or cause were removed, in theory, the items would no longer have any relationship. However, with only two items, it is not possible to determine if this assumption is violated. Therefore, alpha reliability estimates are decreased to counteract for this possibility (Eisinga, Grot enhuis and Pelzer, 2013) . In addition, it was desirable to retain these sub -scales or factors since the WRIS created here is still in an exploratory stage. Further research will utilize and refine the WRIS and therefore, items were left in that seemed l ike they may have relevance to the larger construct of White Racial Identity in future studies. To ensure the highest possible alpha reliability for each scale, alphas were also calculated, if one or more of the items were deleted. Table 11 : Alpha Value if Item Deleted for American Scale Scale Mean if Item Deleted Scale Variance if Item Deleted Corrected Item -Total Correlation Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted I am proud to be an American 16.50 12.917 .538 .695 It is important for me to celebrate American holidays and festivals 17.32 12.609 .469 .711 It is extremely important for people to speak proper English. 17.27 12.654 .473 .710 English should be the official language of the United States. 17.07 11.905 .508 .700 My political views are strongly conservative 17.85 12.581 .439 .720 I have a strong sense of belonging to my own ethnic group. 17.27 13.410 .480 .710 Table 12 : Alpha Value if Item Deleted for Cross - Racial Scale Scale Mean if Item Deleted Scale Variance if Item Deleted Corrected Item -Total Correlation Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted I prefer going to parties where most of the people are white. 9.71 5.146 .575 .581 %%&!Table 12 (contÕd) Whites understand me better than people who are not white. 9.62 5.050 .548 .592 Most of the people I admire are white Americans. 9.49 5.895 .395 .663 I rarely spend time with people from other ethnic groups. 9.54 6.021 .379 .669 I feel it would be better if different ethnic groups didnÕt mix. 10.75 6.538 .337 .682 Table 13 : Alpha Value if Item Deleted for Ethnic Scale Scale Mean if Item Deleted Scale Variance if Item Deleted Corrected Item -Total Correlation Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted I participate in the cultural practices of my ethnic group. 5.41 3.037 .642 .599 I have spent time finding out more about my own ethnic group. 5.69 3.513 .571 .684 It is important for me to celebrate ethnic festivals of my ancestors. 5.22 3.662 .539 .718 The first three scales show that the current configuration of items results in the highest alpha value. Alpha values if the item is deleted could not be calculated for the latter five scale s, since these scales were comprised of only two items. Composite scale variables were then created for each of these factors by adding all of the item scores together and dividing them by the number of items. Utilizing a scale or multi -item construct as a dependent variable in regression instead of a single item increases reliability (Gliem and Gliem, 2003) , decreases measurement error, and allows researchers to measure the finely parsed attributes that make up a scale that cannot be accounted for by one item alone (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994) . In addition, since the data included in this research was %%'!exploratory, this strategy allowed for a number of items to be included on the survey that could later be analyzed for underlying patterns. Linear Regression For the second round of data analysis, these new variables were then subjected to regression using the key socio -demographic variables discussed earlier . Since there are a number of independent variables included in the WRIS, five rounds of models were utilized to test the relationships between different sets of independent variables on each of the eight dependent variables. The first of these tables exam ines the predictive quality basic demographics have on white attitudes, behaviors and preferences. Some of these variables, including age, education, and state of residency did not have significant predictive values in any of the models, and were dropped. This is likely due to the limited variation in the responses of each of these variables. The second round of model s includes the independent variables, including open -ended racial/ethnic identification, class, and gender, which were shown to be significant in at least one of the models in round 1. In addition, urbanicity and religion were added in as additional predictors. Urbanicity was not significant in any of the models and so a third round of models was constructed which included open -ended racial/ethn ic identification, class, gender, and religion, which were identified as statistically significant predictors from either round 1 or round 2. In addition, independent variables that measured whites neighborhood and network behaviors and the level of prejud ice in their family growing up were added on. For the fourth set of model s, all of the independent variables, including those that were insignificant in previous models were calculated. Each of these regressions is shown in the table below. %%(!Table 14 : White Attitudes, Behaviors and Preferences by Basic Demographics : Ameri -can CSV Cross Racial CSV Ethnic CSV Intimate CSV Racial Attitudes CSV Institut -ional CSV Music CSV Food CSV Constant 3.32*** 2.57*** 2.65*** 3.83*** 3.74*** 2.80*** 2.98*** 2.59*** Open Ended Racial or Ethnic Identification (0=white) .072 (.100) .028 (.083) .132 (.125) .001 (.109) -.091 (.122) .222* (.109) .130 (.084) .185 (.118) Age 5.74E -5 (.054) -.026 (.045) .024 (.068) -.071 (.059) -.061 (.066) -.014 (.059) .064 (.046) .063 (.064) Education (0=freshman) -.094 (.136) .024 (.113) -.153 (.170) .015 (.149) .230 (.166) -.191 (.148) -.001 (.114) -.086 (.161) Residency (0=MI) -.109 (.150) -.002 (.124) -.028 (.187) -.137 (.164) .028 (.183) .132 (.163) -.012 (.126) -.530** (.177) Female (0=male) -.013 (.101) -.204* (.084) .075 (.127) -.128 (.111) .070 (.124) -.002 (.110) .015 (.085) .099 (.119) Poor/Working Class (0=middle class) -.125 (.204) -.030 (.169) -.086 (.256) .090 (.224) -.251 (.250) .317 (.223) .097 (.172) -.133 (.241) Upper Middle/Upper Class (0=middle class) .058 (.113) -.071 (.094) .248 (.141) -.258* (.124) -.161 (.138) -.017 (.123) -.128 (.095) -.065 (.134) Income .052 (.060) .031 (.050) -.033 (.075) .146* (.066) -.036 (.074) .185** (.066) .049 (.051) -.123 (.071) R-squared .027 .032 .028 .046 .029 .075 .043 .089 Adjusted r-squared -.010 -.005 -.009 .010 -.008 .040 .007 .054 N 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 Notes: Coefficients rounded to nearest tenth. 5.74 E-5 denotes scientific notation, the actual number is .0000547. *p!.05 **p !.01 ***p !.001 . CSV=Composite Scale Variable. Table 14 examines how basic demographics, including race, class, gender, age, education and state of residency impact white racial attitudes, behaviors, and preferences. Five of the eight dependent variables showed significant predictors. The impact these predictors had on each of the eight dependent variables is discussed in more detail below. The American model has an r-squared value of .027 and an adjusted R -squared of -.010, indicating that the socio -demographic variables included in this model explain anywhere from 0% to 2.7% of the variance in the factor American. The factor American is a combined variable, %%)!with higher scores indicating that respondents are more likely to agree with a nd participate in American attitudes, behaviors and preferences. None of the included socio -demographic predictors had a statistically significant impact on American in this model. The Cross -Racial model has a n r-squared value of .032 and an adjusted R -squared of -.005, indicating that the socio -demographic variables included in this model explain anywhere from 0% to 3.2% of the variance in the factor Cross Racial. The factor cross racial is a combined variable, with higher scores indicating that respondents are more likely to agree with and participate in attitudes, behaviors and preferences that prohibit cross racial interactions. Gender showed a negative relationship to this factor, indicating that females are more likely to participate in and support cross -racial interactions. The Ethnic model has a n r-squared value of .028 and an adjusted r -squared of -.009, indicating that the socio -demographic variables included in this model explain anywhere from 0% to 2. 8% of the variance in the factor Ethnic. The factor Ethnic is a combined variable, with higher scores indicating that respondents are more likely to agree with and participate in the ethnic attitudes, behaviors and preferences of their ancestral group . Non e of the included socio -demographic predictors had a statistically significant impact on Ethnic in this model. The Intimate model has a n r-squared value of .046 and an adjusted r -squared of .010, indicating that the socio -demographic variables included in this model explain 1% to 4.6% of the variance in the factor Intimate. The factor Intimate is a combined variable, with higher scores indicating that respondents are more likely to have white friends and romantic partners of the same race . Respondents who identified as upper middle or upper class were more likely to have cross -racial intimate interactions than those who identified as working class. However, as %%*!reported family income increased, respondents were less likely to have intimate cross -racial inter actions. The Racial Attitudes model has a r -squared value of .029 and an adjusted r -squared of -.008, indicating that the socio -demographic variables included in this model explain anywhere from 0% to 2.9% of the variance in the factor Racial Attitudes. The factor Racial Attitudes is a combined variable, with higher scores indicating that respondents are more likely to recognize the structural causes of racism, instead of blaming it on people of color . None of the included socio -demographic predictors had a statistically significant impact on Racial Attitudes in this model. The Institutional model has a n r-squared value of .075 and an adjusted r -squared of .040, indicating that the socio -demographic variables included in this model explain approximately 4 -7.5% of the variance in the factor Institutional. The factor Institutional is a combined variable, with higher scores indicating that respondents are more likely to trust American institutions, including the government and doctors. Those who identified as Caucasian or white ethnic were more likely to report higher levels of institutional trust than those who identified exclusively as white. Institutional trust increased with the respondents reported income. The Music model has a n r-squared value of .043 and an adjusted r -squared of .007, indicating that the socio -demographic variables in this model explain approximately .7 -4.3% of the variance in the factor Music. The factor Music is a combined variable, with higher scores indicat ing that respondents are more likely to listen to and prefer white music to music from other racial ethnic groups. None of the included socio -demographic predictors had a statistically significant impact on Music in this model. %%+! The Food model has a n r-squ ared value of .089 a nd an adjusted r -squared of .054 , indicating that the socio -demographic variables included in this model explain approximately 5.4-8.9% of the variance in the factor Food. The factor Food is a combined variable, with higher scores indic ating that respondents are more likely to participate in food practices that were hypothesized to be a part of white culture, including eating casseroles and attending potlucks. Michigan residents were less likely to participate in these food practices tha n non-Michigan residents . Table 15 : White Attitudes, Behaviors and Preferences by Race, Class, Gender, Urbanicity and Religion Ameri. -can CSV Cross Racial CSV Ethnic CSV Intimate CSV Racial Attitude CSV Instit ut. -utional CSV Music CSV Food CSV Constant 3.50*** 2.61*** 2.68*** 3.65*** 3.52*** 2.80*** 3.09*** 2.74*** Open Ended Racial or Ethnic Identification (0=white) .010 (.096) -.010 (.081) .081 (.122) -.024 (.107) -.063 (.123) .144 (.107 .125 (.084) .191 (.118) Female (0=male) -.026 (.096) -.188* (.080) .032 (.121) -.070 (.106) .123 (.122) -.040 (.106) .013 (.083) .121 (.117) Poor/Working Class (0=middle class) -.091 (.195) .000 (.163) -.039 (.247) .236 (.217) -.265 (.249) .354 (.217) .037 (.170) -.182 (.238) Upper Middle/Upper Class (0= middle class ) .049 (.109) -.055 (.092) .139 (.138) -.192 (.122) -.116 (.140) -.038 (.121) -.168 (.095) .006 (.134) Income .023 (.058) .011 (.049) -.041 (.074) .137* (.065) -.011 (.075) .153* (.065) .043 (.051) -.113 (.071) Urban/City (0=suburban ) -.160 (.173) -.182 (.145) .254 (.220) -.371 (.193) .231 (.222) .107 (.193) -.074 (.151) .042 (.212) Rural/ Country (0=suburban ) -.114 (.119) .022 (.100) -.005 (.150) .243 (.132) .136 (.152) -.124 (.132) .176 (.103) .012 (.145) Catholic (0=Christian) .048 (.108) .073 (.091) .152 (.137) -.051 (.121) -.063 (.138) .264* (.120) .217* (.094) -.180 (.132) Agnostic or Secular (0=Christian) -.552*** (.135) -.315** (.113) -.366** (.171) -.361* (.150) .205 (.173) -.352* (.150) .047 (.118) -.219 (.165) Jewish (0=Christian) -.277 (.201) -.260 (.169) .679** (.255) -.164 (.224) -.094 (.257) -.042 (.224) -.032 (.175) -.967*** (.246) R-squared .119 .102 .100 .107 .039 .130 .068 .117 Adjusted R -squared .077 .059 .057 .064 -.007 .088 .023 .074 %%,!Table 15 (contÕd) N 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 Notes: Coefficients rounded to nearest tenth. *p!.05 **p !.01 ***p !.001 . CSV=Composite Scale Variable. Table 15 examines how race, class, gender, urbanicity and religion impact white racial attitudes, behaviors, and preferences. Age, education and state of residency were excluded as predictors in this set of models, as they were not significant in most of the model s in Table 14 . All of the regressions examined in this set of models produced significant results , except for the one relating to Racial Attitudes. It is discussed, along with the other models, in detail below. The American model has a n r-squared value o f .119 and an adjusted r -squared of .077, indicating that the socio -demographic variables included in this model explain approximately 7.7-11.9% of the variance in the factor American. The factor American is a combined variable, with higher scores indicati ng that respondents are more likely to agree with and participate in American attitudes, behaviors and preferences. Respondents who identified as Agnostic or Secular had lower scores on this scale than Christians . The Cross -Racial model has a n r-squared value of .102 and an adjusted r -squared value of .059, indicating that the socio -demographic variables included in this model explain approximately 5.9 -10.2% of the variance in the factor Cross Racial. The factor cross racial is a combined varia ble, with higher scores indicating that respondents are more likely to agree with and participate in attitudes, behaviors and preferences that prohibit cross racial interactions. Those who reported being Agnostic or Secular or who identify as female , are m ore likely to support and participate in cross racial interactions. The Ethnic model has a n r-squared value of .100 and an adjusted r -squared value of .057 indicating that the socio -demographic variables included in this model explain approximately 5.7 %%-!to 10% of the variance in the factor Ethnic. The factor Ethnic is a combined variable, with higher scores indicating that respondents are more likely to agree with and participate in the ethnic attitudes, behaviors and preferences of their ancestral group . Respondents who identified as agnostic or secular reported that they were less likely than Christians to participate in ethnic practices. Respondents who identified as J ewish were more likely to participate in ethnic practices than Christians . The Intima te model has a n r-squared value of .107 and an adjusted r -squared of .064, indicating that the socio -demographic variables included in this model explain approximately 6.4-10.7% of the variance in the factor Intimate. The factor Intimate is a combined vari able, with higher scores indicating that respondents are more likely to have white friends and romantic partners of the same race . Respondents who identified as agnostic or secular were more likely to have cross -racial intimate interactions than those who identified as Christian. Respondents with higher reported family incomes were more likely to have racially homogenous intimate interactions. The Racial Attitudes model has a n r-squared value of .039 and an adjusted r -squared of -.007, indicating that the socio -demographic variables included in this model explain anywhere from 0% to 3.9% of the variance in the factor Racial Attitudes. The factor Racial Attitudes is a combined variable, with higher scores indicating that respondents are more likely to recogn ize the structural causes of racism, instead of blaming it on people of color . None of the included socio -demographic predictors had a statistically significant impact on Racial Attitudes in this model. The Institutional model has a n r-squared value of .130 and an adjusted r -squared of .088, indicating that the socio -demographic variables included in this model explain approximately %&.!8.8-13% of the variance in the factor Institutional. The factor Institutional is a combined variable, w ith higher scores indicating that respondents are more likely to trust American institutions, including the government and doctors. Respondents who identified as Catholic were more likely to trust American institutions than Christians . Institutional trust also increased along with income. Institutional trust decreased for t hose who identified as A gnostic or Secular in comparison with Christians. The Music model has a n r-squared value of .068 and an adjusted r -squared value of .023, indicating that the soc io-demographic variables included in this model explain approximately 2.3 to 6.8% of the variance in the factor Music. The factor Music is a combined variable, with higher scores indicating that respondents are more likely to listen to and prefer white mus ic to music from other racial ethnic groups. Catholic was the only socio -demo indicator that influence d this factor, with respondents from this group reporting that they were significantly more likely to appreciate and listen to white music than Christians . The Food model has a n r-squared value of .117 and an adjusted r -squared value of .074, indicating that the socio -demographic variables included in this model explain approximately 7.4 to 11.7% of the variance in the factor Food. The factor Food is a co mbined variable, with higher scores indicating that respondents are more likely to participate in food practices that were hypothesized to be a part of white culture, including eating casseroles and attending potlucks. Jewish respondents were less likely t o participate in these food practices than Christians. Table 16 : White Attitudes, Behaviors and Preferences by Race, Class, Gender, Religion, Neighborhood, Network and Family Prejudice Ameri. -can CSV Cross Racial CSV Ethnic CSV Intimate CSV Racial Attitude CSV Institut -ional . CSV Music CSV Food CSV Constant 3.57*** 2.41*** 2.20*** 4.46*** 3.74*** 3.07*** 2.98*** 2.21*** Open Ended Racial or Ethnic .027 (.093) -.034 (.076) .078 (.121) -.032 (.105) -.070 (.124) .154 (.107) .102 (.084) .173 (.117) %&%!Table 16 (contÕd) Identification (0=white) Female (0=male) -.051 (.095) -.239** (.077) -.034 (.123) -.047 (.106) .136 (.126) .033 (.108) .001 (.085) .079 (.118) Poor/Working Class (0=middle class ) -.067 (.188) -.031 (.154) -.040 (.245) .216 (.212) -.259 (.251) .398 (.216) -.017 (.169) -.215 (.236) Upper Middle/Upper Class (0= middle class ) .088 (.106) -.036 (.087) .140 (.138) -.208 (.119) -.119 (.141) -.031 (.121) -.189* (.095) -.005 (.132) Income -.006 (.058) .003 (.048) -.007 (.076) .075 (.065) -.028 (.078) .137* (.067) .059 (.052) -.068 (.073) Catholic (0=Christian) .039 (.103) .022 (.085) .143 (.134) -.080 (.116) -.085 (.138) .301* (.118) .181 (.093) -.193 (.129) Agnostic or Secular (0=Christian) -.534*** (.129) -.294** (.106) -.376* (.168) -.336* (.145) .206 (.172) -.314* (.148) .001 (.116) -.244 (.162) Jewish (0=Christian) -.281 (.209) -.028 (.171) .667* (.271) .064 (.234) -.055 (.278) -.039 (.239) -.035 (.188) -.969*** (.261) Current Neighborhood All White (0= Mostly white) .585*** (.153) .228 (.126) .032 (.199) -.253 (.172) -.104 (.204) -.088 (.176) -.170 (.138) -.100 (.192) Current Neighborhood Racially Mixed to All Black (0=Mostly white) .033 (.099) -.104 (.081) .202 (.129) -.282* (.112) -.001 (.132) -.069 (.114) -.049 (.089) .075 (.124) Previous Networks All White (0= Mostly white ) -.430** (.158) .026 (.130) -.126 (.206) -.043 (.178) .138 (.211) .143 (.182) .290* (.142) .186 (.198) Previous Networks Racially Mixed to Mostly Black (0= Mostly White ) -.025 (.109) -.169 (.089) .002 (.141) -.357** (.122) -.116 (.145) .017 (.125) .025 (.098) .082 (.136) Family Prejudice -.018 (.038) .107*** (.031) .121* (.049) -.112** (.042) -.026 (.050) -.098* (.043) .049 (.034) .126** (.047 R-squared .189 .210 .129 .165 .039 .149 .086 .151 Adjusted R -squared .138 .161 .074 .113 -.022 .095 .029 .097 N 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 Notes: Coefficients rounded to nearest tenth. *p!.05 **p !.01 ***p !.001 . CSV=Composite Scale Variable. %&&!Table 16 examines how race, class, gender, religion, neighborhood, network and family prejudice impact white racial attitudes, behaviors, and preferences. Urbanicity was excluded as a predictor in this set of models, in addition to the predictor s that were exclude d for Table 15 , as they were not significa nt in any of the models in Tables 14 or 15 . Religion was retained because it was shown to be highly significant in these same Tables . Neighborhood and network variables were added in together, since they are measur ing a similar thing. Family prejudice was also added in as it was the last predictor variable. All of the regressions , except one indicate important socio -demographic predictors. The results for this set of regressions is discussed in more detail below. The American model has a n r-squared value of .189 and an adjusted r -squared value of .138, indicating that the socio -demographic variables included in this model explain approximately 13.8 -18.9% of the variance in the factor American. The factor American is a combined variable, with higher scores indicating that respondents are more likely to agree with and participate in American attitudes, behaviors and preferences. Respondents who were socialized in networks that were all white were less likely to embrace American attitudes, behaviors and preferences than those socialized in mostly white networks. Respondents who identified as agnostic or Secular had lower scores than Christians. Those living in neighborhoods that were all white at the time of the survey w ere more likely to identify with American attitudes, behaviors, and preferences than those living in mostly white neighborhoods . The Cross -Racial model has a n r-squared value of .210 and an adjusted r -squared value of .161, indicating that the socio -demog raphic variables included in this model explain approximately 16.1 -21% of the variance in the factor Cross Racial. The factor cross racial is a combined variable, with higher scores indicating that respondents are more likely to agree with %&'!and participate in attitudes, behaviors and preferences that prohibit cross racial interactions. Those who reported being Agnostic or Secular were more likely to participate in cross racial interactions than Christians. Females were also more likely to pursue cross racial interactions than males . Respondents who reported higher levels of family prejudice were less likely to support cross -racial interactions than those who reported lower levels . The Ethnic model has a n r-squared value of .129 and an adjusted r -squared of .074, indicating that the socio -demographic variables included in this model explain approximately 7.4-12.9% of the variance in the factor Ethnic. The factor Ethnic is a combined variable, with higher scores indicating that respondents are more likely to a gree with and participate in the ethnic attitudes, behaviors and preferences of their ancestral group . Respondents who identified as Agnostic or S ecular reported that they were less likely to participate in ethnic practices than Christians. Respondents who identified as J ewish were more likely than Christians to participate in ethnic practices . Respondents who reported higher amounts of prejudice in their families were also more likely to participate in ethnic attitudes, behaviors and preferences than those who reported lower levels of family prejudice . The Intimate model has a n r-squared value of .165 and an adjusted r -squared value of .113, indicating that the socio -demographic variables included in this model explain approximately 11.3 -16.5% of the variance in the factor Intimate. The factor Intimate is a combined variable, wi th higher scores indicating that respondents are more likely to have white friends and romantic partners of the same race . Respondents who identified as Agnostic or Secular were more likely to have cross -racial intimate interactions than those who identifi ed as Christian. In addition, the racial composition of their networks growing up and current neighborhood influenced respondents cross racial intimate interactions. Respondents who grew %&(!up in racially mixed or mostly black networks or currently lived in r acially mixed to all black neighborhoods were also more likely to have cross -racial intimate interactions. Respondents who strongly agreed that some of their immediate family members were prejudiced were also more likely to have cross racial intimate inter actions than those who didnÕt report family prejudice . The Racial Attitudes model has a n r-squared value of .039 and an adjusted r -squared of -.022, indicating that the socio -demographic variables included in this model explain anywhere from 0% to 3.9% o f the variance in the factor Racial Attitudes. The factor Racial Attitudes is a combined variable, with higher scores indicating that respondents are more likely to recognize the structural causes of racism, instead of blaming it on people of color . None o f the included socio -demographic predictors had a statistically significant impact on Racial Attitudes in this model. The Institutional model has a n r-squared value of .149 and an adjusted r -squared of .095 , indicating that the socio -demographic variables included in this model explain approximately 9.5 to 14.9 % of the variance in the factor Institutional. The factor Institutional is a combined variable, with higher scores indicating that respondents are more likely to trust American institutions, includin g the government and doctors. Respond ents who identified as Catholic were more likely to trust American institutions than Christians . Institutional trust also increased along with income. Institutional trust decreased for those who identified as A gnostic o r Secular compared to those who identified as Christians and for those who were more likely to agree that their immediate family members were prejudice d. The Music model has a n r-squared value of .086 and an adjusted r -squared value of .029, indicating that the socio -demographic variables included in this model explain approximately 2.9-8.6% of the variance in the factor Music. The factor Music is a combined variable, with %&)!highe r scores indicating that respondents are more likely to listen to and prefer white music to music from other racial ethnic groups. Respondents who were socialized in networks that were all white reported that they were significantly more likely to apprecia te and listen to white music than those who were socialized in mostly white networks . Those who were upper middle class or upper class were less likely to listen exclusively to white music than those who identified as middle class. The Food model has a n r-squared value of .151 and an adjusted r -squared value of .097, indicating that the socio -demographic variables included in this model explain approximately 9.7-15.1% of the variance in the factor Food. The factor Food is a combined variable, with higher s cores indicating that respondents are more likely to participate in food practices that were hypothesized to be a part of white culture, including eating casseroles and attending potlucks. Jewish respondents were less likely to participate in these food pr actices than Christians , whereas whites that reported family prejudice were more likely to participate. Table 17 : White Attitudes, Behaviors and Preferences with all Independent Variables Ameri. -can CSV Cross Racial CSV Ethnic CSV Intimate CSV Racial Attitude CSV Institut -utional . CSV Music CSV Food CSV Constant 3.66*** 2.49*** 2.17*** 4.58*** 3.75*** 3.13*** 2.79*** 2.24*** Open Ended Racial or Ethnic Identification (0=white) .043 (.096) -.045 (.079) .046 (.125) -.031 (.106) -.065 (.128) .120 (.110) .095 (.086) .163 (.119) Female (0=male) -.052 (.098) -.247** (.081) -.019 (.127) -.048 (.108) .106 (.130) .042 (.111) .028 (.088) .094 (.120) Poor/Working Class (0=middle class ) -.056 (.195) -.058 (.160) -.115 (.253) .234 (.215) -.213 (.259) .281 (.222) .040 (.175) -.159 (.240) Upper Middle/Upper Class (0= middle class ) .094 (.109) -.049 (.090) .121 (.142) -.225 (.120) -.124 (.145) -.068 (.124) -.151 (.098) .036 (.134) Income -.017 (.059) .000 (.049) .004 (.077) .073 (.065) -.019 (.079) .144* (.068) .055 (.053) -.084 (.073) Catholic .027 .015 .141 -.013 -.066 .282* .211* -.189 %&*!Table 17 (contÕd) (0=Christian) (.107) (.088) (.139) (.118) (.142) (.122) (.096) (.132) Agnostic or Secular (0=Christian) -.545 *** (.133) -.306** (.109) -.372* (.172) -.290* (.146) .220 (.177) -.325* (.151) .018 (.119) -.257 (.163) Jewish (0=Christian) -.310 (.215) -.056 (.177) .655* (.279) .055 (.237) .042 (.286) -.090 (.244) -.050 (.192) -1.01*** (.264) Current Neighborhood All White (0= Mostly white) .590*** (.155) .230 (.128) .047 (.201) -.246 (.171) -.136 (.206) -.068 (.176) -.156 (.139) -.082 (.191) Current Neighborhood Racially Mixed to All Black (0= Mostly white ) .026 (.101) -.102 (.083) .206 (.131) -.324** (.112) .004 (.135) -.058 (.115) -.069 (.091) .043 (.125) Previous Networks All White (0= Mostly white ) -.429** (.163) .046 (.134) -.079 (.212) -.110 (.180) .113 (.217) .219 (.186) .236 (.146) .158 (.201) Previous Networks Racially Mixed to Mostly Black (0= Mostly White ) .008 (.118) -.164 (.098) -.040 (.154) -.233 (.131) -.178 (.158) -.008 (.135) .067 (.106) .083 (.146) Family Prejudice -.021 (.038) .109*** (.032) .130** (.050) -.120** (.042) -.029 (.051) -.083 (.044) .040 (.034) .115* (.047) Age .018 (.051) -.021 (.042) .008 (.066) -.083 (.056) -.071 (.068) -.004 (.058) .056 (.046) .072 (.063) Education (0=freshman) -.083 (.128) .024 (.106) -.107 (.167) .122 (.142) .235 (.171) -.137 (.146) .002 (.115) -.137 (.158) Residency (0=MI) -.168 (.140) -.009 (.116) .025 (.182) -.195 (.155) .048 (.187) .070 (.160) -.017 (.126) -.514** (.173) Urban/City (0=suburban ) -.168 (.178) -.089 (.146) .245 (.231) -.300 (.196) .314 (.237) .077 (.202) -.099 (.159) .037 (.219) Rural/Country (0=suburban ) -.047 (.124) -.061 (.102) -.051 (.160) .262 (.136) .098 (.165) -.135 (.141) .118 (.111) -.059 (.152) Bilingual (0=no?) -.142 (.166) .096 (.137) .256 (.215) .165 (.183) -.076 (.221) .304 (.189) .073 (.149) -.055 (.204) R-squared .204 .216 .146 .209 .058 .175 .109 .192 Adjusted R -squared .129 .142 .065 .133 -.032 .097 .024 .115 N 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 Notes: Coefficients rounded to nearest tenth. *p!.05 **p !.01 ***p !.001 . CSV=Composite Scale Variable. %&+!Table 17 examines how all of the hypothesized independent variables included in this research impact white racial attitudes, behaviors, and preferences. All of the models, except one indicate important socio -demographic predictors. Each of these eight models is di scussed in more detail below. The American model has a n r-squared value of .204 and an adjusted r -squared value of .129, indicating that the socio -demographic variables included in this model explain approximately 12.9 -20.4% of the variance in the factor American. The factor American is a combined variable, with higher scores indicating that respondents are more likely to agree with and participate in American attitudes, behaviors and preferences. Respondents who were socialized in networks that were all w hite were less likely to embrace American attitudes, behaviors and preferences than those socialized in mostly white networks. Respondents who identified as agnostic or Secular had lower scores than Christians. Those living in neighborhoods that were all w hite at the time of the survey were more likely to identify with American attitudes, behaviors, and preferences. The Cross -Racial model has a n r-squared value of .216 and an adjusted r -squared value of .142, indicating that the socio -demographic variables included in this model explain approximately 14.2 -21.6% of the variance in the factor Cross Racial. The factor cross racial is a combined vari able, with higher scores indicating that respondents are more likely to agree with and participate in attitudes, behaviors and preferences that prohibit cross racial interact ions. Those who reported being A gnostic or S ecular were more likely to participate in cross racial interactions than Christians. Females were also more likely to pursue cross racial interactions than males . People who reported higher levels of family prejudice were less likely to support and participate in cross -racial interactions. %&,! The Ethnic model h as an r -squared value of .146 and an adjusted r -squared of .065, indicating that the socio -demographic variables included in this model explain approximately 6.5-14.6% of the variance in the factor Ethnic. The factor Ethnic is a combined v ariable, with higher scores indicating that respondents are more likely to agree with and participate in the ethnic attitudes, behaviors and preferences of their ancestral group . Respondents who identified as Agnostic or S ecular reported that they were less likely to participate in ethnic practices than Christians. Respondents who identified as J ewish were more likely than Christians to participate in ethnic practices . Respondents who reported higher amounts of prejudice in their families were also more lik ely to participate in ethnic attitudes, behaviors and preferences. The Intimate model has a n r-squared value of .209 and an adjusted r -squared value of .133, indicating that the socio -demographic variables included in this model explain approximately 13. 3-20.9% of the variance in the factor Intimate. The factor Intimate is a combined variable, with higher scores indicating that respondents are more likely to have white friends and romantic partners of the same race . Respondents who identified as Agnostic or Secular were more likely to have cross -racial intimate interactions than those who identified as Christian. In addition, the racial composition of their networks growing up and current neighborhood influenced respondents cross racial intimate interactio ns. Respondents who reported that they currently lived in racially mixed to all black neighborhoods were also more likely to have cross racial intimate interactions. Respondents who strongly agreed that some of their immediate family members were prejudice d were also more likely to have cross racial intimate interactions. The Racial Attitudes model has a n r-squared value of .058 and an adjusted r -squared of -.032, indicating that the socio -demographic variables included in this model explain anywhere %&-!from 0% to 5.8% of the variance in the factor Racial Attitudes. The factor Racial Attitudes is a combined variable, with higher scores indicating that respondents are more likely to recognize the structural causes of racism, instead of blaming it on people of color . None of the included socio -demographic predictors had a statistically significant impact on Racial Attitudes in this model. The Institutional model has a n r-squared value of .175 and an adjusted r -squared of . 097, indicating that the socio -demographic variables included in this model explain approximately 9.7 to 17.5% of the variance in the factor Institutional. The factor Institutional is a combined variable, with higher scores indicating that respondents are more likely to trust Amer ican institutions, including the government and doctors. Respond ents who identified as Catholic were more likely to trust American institutions than Christians . Institutional trust also increased along with income. Institutional trust decreased for those who identified as A gnostic or Secular compared to those who identified as Christians. The Music model has a n r-squared value of .109 and an adjusted r -squared value of .024, indicating that the socio -demographic variables included in this model explain app roximately 2.4-10.9% of the variance in the factor Music. The factor Music is a combined variable, with higher scores indicating that respondents are more likely to listen to and prefer white music to music from other racial ethnic groups. Respondents who were identified as Catholic were more likely to appreciate and listen to white music than Christians . The Food model has a n r-squared value of .192 and an adjusted r -squared value of .115, indicating that the socio -demographic variables included in this model explain approximately 11.5-19.2% of the variance in the factor Food. The factor Food is a combined variable, with higher scores indicating that respondents are more likely to participate in food practices that were %'.!hypothesized to be a part of white culture, including eating casseroles and attending potlucks. Jewish respondents were less likely to participate in these food practices than Christians , as were Michigan residents whereas whites that reported family prejudice were more likely to participat e. A final model was run consisting of the variables that were significant any of the previous sets of regressions . The results of this table are below. Table 18 : White Attitudes, Behaviors and Preferences with Variables that Significant in All Previous Models Ameri -can CSV Cross Racial CSV Ethnic CSV Intimate CSV Racial Attitude CSV Institut -utional CSV Music CSV Food CSV Constant 3.58*** 2.40*** 2.17*** 4.65*** 3.627*** 3.28 *** 3.06*** 2.33*** Female (0=male) -.062 (.093) -.239 ** (.076) -.043 (.121) -.024 (.105) .138 (.124) .061 (.107) .034 (.084) .085 (.114) Income .016 (.047) .000 (.039) .027 (.061) -.005 (.053) -.018 (.063) .074 (.055) .015 (.043) -.062 (.058) Catholic (0=Christian) .058 (.101) .013 (.083) .166 (.131) -.091 (.114) -.125 (.135) .327 ** (.117) .157 (.092) -.173 (.124) Agnostic or Secular (0=Christian) -.543*** (.128) -.291 ** (.105) -.390 * (.167) -.315 *** (.144) .198 (.171) -.308 * (.148) -.012 (.116) -.282 (.157) Jewish (0=Christian) -.252 (.204) -.043 (.167) .722 ** (.266) -.022 (.231) -.099 (.273) -.047 (.237) -.103 (.186) -.979 *** (.251) Current Neighborhood All White (0= Mostly white) .575 *** (.152) .233 (.124) .013 (.198) -.225 (.172) -.084 (.203) -.090 (.176) -.143 (.138) -.094 (.187) Current Neighborhood Racially Mixed to All Black (0= Mostly white ) .021 (.099) -.103 (.081) .201 (.129) -.299 ** (.112) .014 (.133) -.076 (.115) -.040 (.090) .049 (.122) Previous Networks All White (0= Mostly white ) -.432 ** (.157) .022 (.129) -.116 (.205) -.056 (.178) .134 (.211) .159 (.182) .303 * (.143) .172 (.194) Previous Networks Racially Mixed to Mostly Black (0= Mostly White ) -.018 (.108) -.171 (.088) .005 (.141) -.348** (.122) -.134 (.144) .028 (.125) .012 (.098) .085 (.133) Family Prejudice -.021 (.038) .106 *** (.031) .123* (.049) -.115** (.043) -.030 (.050) -.090 * (.044) .048 (.034) .116 * (.046) Residency (0=MI) -.164 (.138) -.013 (.113) .018 (.180) -.202 (.156) .023 (.185) .072 (.160) -.022 (.126) -.523 ** (.170) %'%!Table 18 (contÕd) R-squared .191 .209 .123 .154 .030 .129 .063 .174 Adjusted R -squared .148 .167 .076 .109 -.021 .083 .014 .131 N 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 220 Notes: Coefficients rounded to nearest tenth. *p!.05 **p !.01 ***p !.001 . CSV=Composite Scale Variable. Table 18 examines how all of the hypothesized independent variables that were significant in previous models impact white racial attitudes, behaviors, and preferences. All of the models, except one indicate important socio -demographic predictors. Each of these eig ht models is discussed in more detail below. The American model has an r-squared value of .191 and an adjusted r -squared value of .148, indicating that the socio -demographic variables included in thi s model explain approximately 14.8 -19.1% of the variance in the factor American. The factor American is a combined variable, with higher scores indicating that respondents are more likely to agree with and participate in American attitudes, behaviors and preferences. Respondents who were socialized in networks that were all white were less likely to embrace American attitudes, behaviors and preferences than those socialized in mostly white networks. Respondents who identified as agnostic or Secular had lower scores than Christians. Those living in neighborhoods that were all white at the time of the survey were more likely to identify with American attitudes, behaviors, and preferences. The Cross -Racial mode l has an r -squared value of .209 and an adjusted r -squared value of .167 , indicating that the socio -demogr aphic variables included in thi s model explain approximately 16.7 -20.9% of the variance in the factor Cross Racial. The factor cross racial is a combined variable, with higher scores indicating that respondents are more likely to agree with and participate in attitudes, behaviors and preferences that prohibit cross racial interact ions. Those who reported being A gnostic or S ecular were more likely to participate in cross racial %'&!interactions than Christians. Females were also more likely to pursue cross racia l interactions than males . Respondents who reported higher levels of family prejudice were less likely to support and participate in cross -racial interactions. The Ethnic mode l has an r -squared value of .123 and an adjusted r -squared of .076 , indicating that the socio -demographic variables included in th is model explain approximately 7.6-12.3% of the variance in the factor Ethnic. The factor Ethnic is a combined variable, with higher scores indicating that respondents are more likely to agree with and par ticipate in the ethnic attitudes, behaviors and preferences of their ancestral group . Respondents who identified as Agnostic or Secular reported that they were less likely to participate in ethnic practices than Christians. Respondents who identified as J ewish were more likely than Christians to participate in ethnic practices . Respondents who had higher amounts of prejudice in their families were also more likely to participate in ethnic attitudes, behaviors and preferences. The Intimate mode l has an r -squared value of .154 and an adjusted r -squared value of .109, indicating that the socio -demographic variables included in thi s model explain approximately 10.9 -15.4% of the variance in the factor Intimate. The factor Intimate is a combined variable, with higher scores indicating that respondents are more likely to have white friends and romantic partners of the same race . Respondents who identified as Agnostic or Secular were more likely to have cross -racial intimate interactions than those who identified as Christian. In addition, the racial composition of their networks growing up and current neighborhood influenced respondents cross racial intimate interactions. Respondents who grew up in racially mixed or mostly black networks or currently lived in raci ally mixed to all black neighborhoods were also more likely to have cross racial intimate interactions. Respondents who %''!strongly agreed that some of their immediate family members were prejudiced were also more likely to have cross racial intimate interact ions. The Racial Attitudes mode l has an r -squared value of .030 and an adjusted r -square d of -.021, indicating that the socio -demographic variables included in this model explain anywhere from 0% to 3 % of the variance in the factor Racial Attitudes. The factor Racial Attitudes is a combined variable, with higher scores indicating that respondents are more likely to recognize the structural causes of racism, instead of blaming it on people of color . None of the included socio -demographic predictors had a s tatistically significant impact on Racial Attitudes in this model. The Institutional mode l has an r -squared value of .129 and an adjusted r -squared of .083 , indicating that the socio -demographic variables included in this model explain approximately 8.3 to 12.9% of the variance in the factor Institutional. The factor Institutional is a combined variable, with higher scores indicating that respondents are more likely to trust American institutions, including the government and doctors. Respond ents who ident ified as Catholic were more likely to trust American institutions than Christians . Institutional trust decreased for those who identified as A gnostic or Secular compared to tho se who identified as Christians and for respondents who agreed members of their family were prejudiced. The Music model has an r -squared value of .063 and an adjusted r -squared value of .01 4, indicating that the socio -demographic variables included in th is model explain approximately 1.4-6.3% of the variance in the factor Music. The factor Music is a combined variable, with higher scores indicating that respondents are more likely to listen to and prefer white music to music from other racial ethnic groups. Respondents who were socialized in all white networks %'(!were more likely to appr eciate and listen to white music than those socialized in mostly white networks . The Food model has an r -squared value of .174 and an adjusted r -squared value of .131 , indicating that the socio -demographic variables included in thi s model explain approxi mately 13.1-17.4% of the variance in the factor Food. The factor Food is a combined variable, with higher scores indicating that respondents are more likely to participate in food practices that were hypothesized to be a part of white culture, including ea ting casseroles and attending potlucks. Jewish respondents were less likely to participate in these food practices than Christians , as were Michigan residents whereas whites that reported family prejudice were more likely to participate. Together, these m odels indicate that socio -demographic factors are important predictors of the kinds of WRI whites exhibit . The significance of these findings will be discussed in more depth, along with concluding thoughts, in the next chapter. !!!!!!!%')!DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION !Introduction This research conducted in this dissertation provides an analysis of the psychometric properties of the White Racial Identity Scale and examines how the factors that contribute to White Racial Identity change based on key socio -dem ographic indicators . Six research questions were utilized to explore these relationships including: RQ1: What American attitudes, behaviors and preferences are proxy measures for WRI? RQ2: What attitudes, behaviors, and preferences regarding cross -racial i nteractions are proxy measures for WRI? RQ3: What ethnic attitudes, behaviors, and preferences are proxy measures for WRI? RQ4: What racial attitudes are proxy measures for WRI? RQ5: What institutional attitudes, behaviors, and preferences are proxies for WRI? RQ6: How do these attitudes, behaviors, and preferences differ by key socio -demographic factors, including age, education, religion, ethnic identification, bilingual ability, gender, class, urbanicity, neighborhood and network racial composition and f amily prejudice? The first five questions were analyzed using EFA, which revealed a WRIS that consisted of 8 factors. These initial 8 initial factors support the theoretical literature on racial identity development, acculturation and whitenes s (Behrens and Rowe, 1997; Cokley, 2007; Croll, 2007; Knowles and Peng, 2005; Landrine and Klonoff, 1996; McDermott and Samson, 2005; Perry, 2002; Perry, 2007; Ponterotto and Park -Taylor, 2007; Quintana, 2007; Rowe, Bennett and Atkinson, 1994; Trimble, 2007) and suggest that American, Cross Racial, Ethnic, Intimate %'*!Racial, Institutional, Music and Food attitudes, behaviors and preferences are proxy measures for WRI. However, white respondents attitudes, behaviors and preferences did not load onto WRI exactly as expected . The implications of these findings are discussed below. In addition, extensive regression analysis was conducted in response to RQ6. Open e nded racial/ethnic identification, gender, class, religion, neighborhood and network experiences, and family prejudice were shown to be important predictors of the kinds of WRI respondents exhibited in one or more of the regression models that examined the impact socio -demographic predictors have on WRI. The implications of those findings are discussed by type of socio -demographic indicator after the discussion of the results of the EFA. American Attitudes, Behaviors And Preferences as Proxy Measures For W RI It was hypothesized that ÒI am proud to be AmericanÓ, ÒMost of the people I admire are white AmericansÓ, ÒIt is important for me to celebrate American holidays and festivalsÓ, ÒEnglish should be the official language of the United StatesÓ, ÒIt is very important for people to speak proper EnglishÓ and ÒMy political views are strongly conservativeÓ would all load on the factor that measured American attitudes, behaviors, and preferences. All of these factors loaded on American as expected, except for ÒMos t of the people I admire are white AmericansÓ , which loaded on Cross Racial . The significance of this is discussed under RQ2. These findings confirm the original hypothesis that language use, American affect, American rituals, and political beliefs are key facets of WRI. In addition, ÒI have a strong sense of belonging to my own ethnic groupÓ, an item originally hypothesized to load on the factor Ethnic loaded on American. This reinforces the literature that argues that American identities and ethnic ident ities are largely intertwined for whites (Alba, 1990; Perry, 2002) . %'+!Cross -Racial Attitudes, Behaviors And Preferences as Proxy Measures For WRI It was hypothesized that ÒWhites understand me better than people who are not whiteÓ, ÒI prefer going to social gatherings and parties where most of the people are whiteÓ, ÒI prefer to go out on a date with someone who is whiteÓ, ÒMy friends are whiteÓ, ÒMy romantic partners are always the same race as meÓ, ÒI feel it would be better if different ethnic groups didnÕt mixÓ, ÒI rarely spend time with peo ple from other ethnic groupsÓ, ÒGrowing up, my school, neighborhood, and family were mostly whiteÓ, ÒI currently live in a mostly white neighborhoodÓ, and ÒSome members of my immediate family are prejudicedÓ would all load on the factor that measured Cross Racial attitudes, behaviors, and preferences. Three of these items , including the items that measured affect for white parties, whites understanding, and time spent with other ethnicities loaded on cross -racial as expected . This suggests that attitudes, b ehaviors, and preferences regarding cross -racial interactions are an important component of WRI. In addition, ÒMost of the people I admire are white AmericansÓ, an item hypothesized to load on American loaded here. This suggests that respondents feelings o f admiration for one racial group over another had less to do with their American identity and instead was an important predictor of their cross -racial affect and consequently, their cross racial behaviors. This finding also supports research that points t o the interconnected nature of national and racial identities for whit e Americans (McDermott and Samson, 2005; Perry, 2002; Perry, 2007) . The remaining items that were hypothesized to load on Cross Racial either did not load on any factors in the model, or loaded on factors that were not initially hypothesized to be part of the WRIS . ÒI prefer to go out on a date with someone who is whiteÓ , an item measuring whites proposed attitudes about inter -racial dating did not load on any of the factors and was dropped from the model. However, ÒMy romantic partners are always the same race as meÓ, an item %',!measuring whites actual behaviors regarding cro ss-racial romantic relationships and Ò My friends are whiteÓ loaded together on a separate factor that was not previously hypothesized. The fact that these items loaded in this manner is important for three primary reasons. First, the fact that the item that asked whites about their dating preferences and the item that asked whites about their actual dating behavior did not load similarly indicates some disconnect in respondents answers about cross racial dating. This supports literature that suggests tha t whites present racially egalitarian attitudes while maintaining behaviors that perpetuate intra -rac ial interactions (Bonilla -Silva, 2014; Sears, Sidanius and Bobo, 2000) . In addition, this finding may be the result of racially segregated networks, that influence respondents to pursue dating relationships within their neighborhoods and networks, which are primarily white (Bonilla -Silva, Goar and Embrick, 2006; Charles, 2003; Farle y et al., 1978; Farley et al., 1993; Krysan, Farley and Couper, 2008; Massey and Denton, 1993; Swaroop and Krysan, 2011) , although in theory, they may be open to dating cross -racially . Finally, the fact that intimate interactions loaded on a separate fa ctor than other types of less intimate cross racial interactions supports previous literature that suggests a dichotomy between cross racial interactions in p ublic and private spaces . Whites are more and more likely to come into contact with people of colo r in professional and higher education settings, however, this integration has not reached neighborhoods, romantic partners, and close friend groups . This supports literature that argues that people prefer racial homophily in their intimate interactions (Hallinan, 1978; McPherson and Smith -Lovin, 1987) . The final three items, including measures of family prejudice and racial composition of neighborhoods and networks did not load on any factors within the model. However, after additional consi deration, it was thought that these items might be key pieces of whites socialization (Broman, Jackson and Neighbors, 1989; Helms, 2007; Landrine and Klonoff, 1996; %'-!Quintana, 2007; Rosenberg and Turner, 1981) , and th erefore were moved to socio -demographic indicators. These three items were then used in the later regression analysis and were shown to be significant predictors of the kind of WRI respondents exhibited. The implications of this are discussed under RQ6. Ethnic Attitu des, Behaviors And Preferences a s Proxy Measures For WRI It was hypothesized that ÒI have a strong sense of belonging to my own ethnic groupÓ, ÒI think about how my life will be affected by my group membershipÓ, ÒI am happy I am a member of the racial/ethnic group I belong toÓ, ÒIt is important for me to celebrate the ethnic holidays an d festivals of my ancestorsÓ, ÒI have spent time finding out more about my own ethnic groupÓ, ÒI have different ways of speaking, depending on who I am aroundÓ, ÒI participate in the cultural practices of my ethnic groupÓ, ÒI usually add salt to my food to make it taste betterÓ, ÒGrowing up, my family always served casseroles as a main dinner dishÓ, and ÒMy family and friends always have potlucksÓ would all load on the factor that measured Ethnic attitudes, behaviors, and preferences. The items measuring et hnic holidays and festivals, time spent researching own ethnic group, and participation in the cultural practices of an ethnic group loaded on Ethnic as expected . This finding supports the importance participation in ethnic rituals and activities have on WRI. Many of the items hypothesized to load on ethnic did not load, including the ones that measured strong feelings of belonging to an ethnic group, group membership, and positive affect for ethnic identification. All of these items examined whites attitud es about their group membership, with the underlying assumption that whites possess some level of ethnic group/racial group awareness. The fact that these items did not load support literature that argues that whiteness is normative and that whites take th eir racial and ethnic group membership for granted (Brander Rasmussen et al., 2001; Frankenberg, 1997; Perry, 2002) . Consequently, they %(.!are not awa re of any feelings of belonging to a racial group; feelings that are often cultivated through shared e xperiences of oppression (Hooks, 1981; Lorde, 1997; Young, 1988) . The item that measured whites sense of belonging to their ethnic group that was originally hypothesized to load here ended up loading on the factor American instead. This signifies that feelings of ethnic belonging are intricately tied with feelings of positive American affect and participat ion in American rituals, at least for white respondents. This supports previous literature that uses ethnic identity and feelings of affiliation as a key indicator o f American acculturation (Campisi, 1948; Campisi, 1947b; Chung, Kim and Abreu, 2004; Cortes et al., 2003; Phinney, 1992) . The item that measured code switching did not load on any factors within the model. Although this item has been hypothesized to be important for racialized ethnic others (Cross, 1991; Milr oy and Muysken, 1995) , it may not be a significant predictor of WRI because of the normativity given to ÒwhiteÓ ways of speaking (Sweetland, 2002) . Finally, none of the three food items that were originally hypoth esized as indicators of WRI loaded on this factor. However, that does not indicate that food preferences are not an important indicator of WRI. The item measuring salt consumption did not load on any factors and therefore is unlikely to be a strong indicat or of WRI. This item has historically been used as a key predictor of African American racial identit y (Klonoff and Landrine, 2000; Landrine and Klonoff, 1994; Landrine and Klonoff, 1995; Landrine and Klonoff, 1996) , but did not to prove to be as important in measuring WRI. The remaining two items that measured food preferences, including casserole consumption and frequency of potlucks did prove to be important indicators of WRI. This supports the hypothesis that food preferences are key indicators of WRI although more research needs to be done on the specific food preferences associated that are associated with WRI. %(%!Racial Attitudes As Proxy Measures For WRI It was hypothesized that ÒRace doesnÕt really matter. WeÕre all just humansÓ, ÒRacial discrimination limits black employmentÓ, ÒLess in -born ability account s for blacks lack of successÓ, ÒRacial discrimination accounts for blacks lack of successÓ, and ÒLack of motivation accounts for blacks lack of successÓ w ould all load on the factor that measured Racial attitudes, behaviors, and preferences. Two out of the five expected indicators loaded including ÒRacial discrimination limits black employmentÓ and ÒRacial discrimination accounts for blacks lack of successÓ . Both of these items indicate an awareness of structural discrimination that most whites do not possess (Bobo, 1983; Bonilla -Silva, 2014; Kluegel and Smith, 1986; Sears, Sidanius and Bobo, 2000; Tarman and Sears, 2005) . Two of the remaining items ÒLess in -born ability accounts for blacks lack of successÓ and ÒLack of motivation accounts for blacks lack of successÓ indicate more blatant racist attitudes an d did not load on any factors. This is likely due to color blin d ideologies that perpetuate politically correct attitudes, especial ly in college students, and a non -acceptance of blatant racial attitudes in American society (Bonilla -Silva , 2014). Finally, the item ÒRace doesnÕt really matter. WeÕre all just humansÓ di d not load on any factor in the model. This item was intended to measure color -blind ideologies. This question may not have been shown to be significant in the particular sample included in this study, as respondents were students in Sociology classes, inc luding a Race and Ethnicity class. Consequently, it is likely that students were socialized to agree with the statement that Òrace mattersÓ at least within the classroom setting, regardless of their own private beliefs. %(&!Institutional Attitudes, Behaviors And Preferences As Proxy Measures For WRI It was hypothesized that ÒMost of the music I listen to is by artists who are whiteÓ, ÒI like black music more than white musicÓ, ÒI watch TV shows and movies with mostly black charactersÓ, ÒI have seen people Òg et the spiritÓ or speak in tonguesÓ, ÒDoctors are trustworthyÓ and ÒI trust the United States government would all load on the factor that measured Institutional attitudes, behaviors, and preferences. Only four of these items loaded, but on separate factors. Whites reported feelings of trust toward doctors and the American government loaded on a factor that was labeled Institutional Trust . It is likely these items are significan t indicators of WRI because the y measure whites acceptance of key institut ions within American society , institutions that are often created and maintain to perpetuate white priv ilege and white supremacy (Kimmel and Ferber, 2003; McIntosh, 1989; Rothenberg, 2008; Wise, 2008) . The two items measuring the racial composition of whites musical preferences also loaded on their own factor, which suggests that music may be a more important media form in determining WRI than television. This finding supports literature that argues that whites are ab le to appropriate facets of racialized ethnic others culture, without actually integrating it into their identity (Hess, 2005; Johnson, 2003; Sartwell, 2005) . Finally, it was hypothesized that questions about religio us rituals would load here. These item s also did not load on any of the factors within the WRIS. It is likely that these items were not significant because the items that were included on WRIS did not accurately capture whites religious preferences. As wil l be examined under RQ6 , particular religious affiliations are a more important facet of WRI than the rituals associated with these religious beliefs . %('!How WRI Differs b y Key Socio -Demographic Indicators The next section includes an examination of how the factors that contribute to WRI differ by key socio -demograph ic factors. As hypothesized earlier, a hegemonic identity standard, or WRI does exist for whites, however the exact ways they internalize these dominant expectations and the performance whites construct in relation to these expectations is mitigated by their other social positions. Open -end ed racial/ethnic identification Open -ended ra cial or ethnic identification was measured through an open -ended item that allowed respondents to write in the racial or ethnic category most in line with their own identification (Phinney 1992). It was thought that this information would provide the researcher with information about how respondents viewed themsel ves in relation to the larger racial structure or racial formation they were engaged in (Omi and Winant, 1994). Previous literature has suggested that r acial identities vary for whites who categorize themselves as ethnic (Alba, 1990; Riesman and Gans, 1979 ; Waters, 1990), white (Croll, 2007; McDermott and Samson, 2005), American (Perry 2002; Perry , 2007), or human (Bonilla -Silva , 2014). White ethnic identification is often an indicator of a racial identity that is looking for distinction, and a connection t o some long forgotten ancestral past (Perry, 2002). Identifying as white on the other hand is a representation of subscribing to a more generalized racial identity, one under which ethnic identity has often all but disappeared. On the other hand, identifyi ng as ÒAmericanÓ or ÒhumanÓ often represents possessing an identity that normalizes whiteness and equates it as t he standard that all other racia lized ethnic others should be measured again st (McDermott and Samson , 2005). %((! Therefore, it was hypothesized t hat respondents who identified as ÒwhiteÓ or ÒAmericanÓ would have stronger pro -American attitudes, higher levels of institutional trust, and fewer ethnic ties and cross -racial interactions than those who self -identified as ÒCaucasianÓ or white ethnic. In most of the models, differences in racial or ethnic identification were not significant. This item was only significant in the first model, which included basic demographic predictors, for the factor Institutional. Respondents who identified as Caucasian o r Ethnic as opposed to white were more likely to have trust in doctors and the political system of the United States. This is an opposite result of what was hypothesized. This may be a result of white racial backlash (Hewitt, 2005; Taylor, 1995) , wherein conservative, pro -American whites grasp at ethnic or Ònon -whiteÓ identifiers as a way to signify their feelings that they are becoming the minority in contemporary American society. Three additional models we re run with this item and open -ended racial/ethnic identification did not remain significant in any of them. This item was not included in the final model, since it was not statistically significant throughout. These results suggest tha t there may not be distinctions in WRI that can be predicted by different kinds of racial or ethnic identification. However, due to the large body of literature proposing the opposite ( Alba, 1990; Croll, 2007; McDermott and Samson, 2005; Perry, 2002; Riesm an and Gans, 1979; Waters, 1990), it is more likely that insignificant results were due to the limited variation in regional, educational, and age differences of the whites included in this research , which limited the predictive quality of this item . Gend er Gender was measured through the use of an item that asked respondents to circle one of three possible response options: male, female, other: write in. No respondents selected other, so gender was coded into a binary dummy variable. Previous research ha s showed that females %()!exhibit different WRI than males (Bettie, 2000; Ferber, 1998; Frank, 1998; Frankenberg, 1993; Wilkins, 2004) . Much of this research has argued that females are much more likely to participate in cross -racial interactions due to the fact that they themselves are oppressed and therefore can relate to other ma rginalized groups (Bonilla -Silva, 2014 ). This hypothesis was proven to be true. Females consistently were more likely to have cross -racial interactions than men in all of the models. This indicates that gender is an important predictor for WRI, with females being much more likely to have positive regard for cross -racial interacti ons and to participate in cross -racial interactions themselves. Gender was not an important predictor of any other factors that contribute to WRI. This suggests that although it is more likely that wh ite women will be open to cross -racial interactions that they do not necessarily have less hegemonic WRI in other areas such as institutional trust, or American attitudes. Class This predictor was measured through the use of two items. The first item was intended to measure class status by comparing poor/working class, middle class, and upper middle/upper class white resp ondents. The second item measured class through respondents estimated family income. Previous research has indicated the importance of both for measuring class holistically (Levine, 2006) . It was hypothesized that both facets of class would be important predi ctors of WRI . Most of the research on WRI suggests that working class whites are more likely to use the hegemonic white performances available to them, such as negative racial attitudes and fewer cross -racial interactions than those who are middle class or ab ove (Hartigan, 1999; Hartigan, 2003; McDermott, 2006; Roediger, 2007; Wray and Newitz, 1997) . The item that measured class status was a significant predictor of WRI in the first model , which only included basic demographic information and t he third model, w hich included race, class, gender, religion, %(*!neighborhood, network and family prejudice . In the first series of models , those who were upper middle or upper class were more likely to have cross -racial intimate interactions than those who identified as midd le class. This supports literature that suggests that affluent whites are in less competition by non -white racial or ethnic groups and therefore, may be more open to socializing with them. It is likely that the people of color who have made it to their lev el of social standing have internalized many aspects of white culture and therefore blend in without feeling threatened (Blumer, 1958; Bobo, 1983; Bobo and Hutchings, 1996; Quillian, 1995; Taylor, 1998) . In the third set of model s, respondents who identified as upper middle or middle class were more likely to report listening to non -white music than middle class respondents. This supports literature that has argued that whites sometimes utilize non -white or ethnic mu sic as a sign of their cosmopolitan nature (Born and Hesmondhalgh, 2000) . Income was a more frequent significant predictor of WRI than class status. Those with higher incomes were more likely to report predominately white intimate interactions in the first, second, and fourth set of models. This suggests that, at least in this sample, affluent whites were more likely to prefer white friends and romantic partners. Although this seems to contradict the findings on the relationship between class status and cross racial contact, it may be the case tha t income is a more accurate predictor of class status, as Americans have been socialized to identify as middle or upper middle class, regardless of income. Income was also a significant predictor of institutional trust, with more affluent whites reporting higher levels of institutional trust in the first, second, third and fourth set of models. This supports literature that suggests that institutional trust increases along with wealth and life satisfaction (Cook and Gronke, 2005) . Income did not remain significant in the final model, which included all pr eviously significant variables. %(+! Religion Religion was an open -ended question intended to measure religious affiliation. Inductive coding revealed four categories: Jewish, Catholic, Agnostic, and Christian. Previous li terature has argued that WRI is infused with a Christian religious tinge, guided by the Protestant ethics o f individualism and meritocracy (Feagin, 2006; Goldschmidt and McAlister, 2004; Weber, 2001) . Therefore, it was hypothesized that Christians would exhi bit different American affect, cross -racial attitudes and behaviors, ethnic behaviors, institutional trust, and racial attitudes than those who are not Christian. Ultimately, religious affiliation was the most important predictor of WRI and was significant in all of the models. Catholics exhibited more institutional trust than Christians in the second, third, fourth and fifth sets of mod els. The second and fourth models also showed that Catholics were more likely to listen to all white music than Christians. Respondents who identified as A gnostic or S ecular exhibited the most distinct forms of WRI. Agnostics/ secular respondents were less likely to identify with American attitudes and practices, to participate in ethnic rituals and practices, and to have more increased institutional trust than Christians in the second through fifth sets of models. Agnostic or S ecular respondents were more likely t o engage in cross racial interactions than Christians, whether they were intimate or not and to report being more likely to pursue both intimate and non -intimate cross racial interactions in the second through fifth sets of models . This was an unexp ected finding that has yet to be explored in the literature. It seems that whites who oppose traditional religion may also be rebellious in other areas that are more typical bastions of white culture , including negative racial attitudes, low cross racial i nteractions, and high levels of institutional trust. In other words, their religious non-conformity has extended to other a reas of mainstream life (Caldwell -Harris et al., 2011; Hout and Fischer, 2002) . Jewish respondents were more likely to participate in ethnic %(,!practices and less likely to participate in white food practices than Christians in the second through fifth round of models . This supports previous literature that suggests ethnic traditions and rituals are a more embedded part of Jewish culture than they are for many Americans and also reaffirms the diversity of Jewish food practices in comparison with white Christian ones (Fishman, 2000) . Neighborhood and n etwork Respondents were asked questions that asked about the racial composition of their networks growing up, and of their current neighborhoods. Previous research has i ndicated the importance of racial neighborhood and network composition for racial identities (Oyserman and Yoon, 2009) and WRI more specifically (Hartigan, 1999; McDermott and Samson, 2005; Wray and Newitz, 1997) . Respondents who lived in an all white neighborhood at the time of the survey were more likely to support American attitu des and behaviors in all the models the item was included in ( rounds 3-5) than those who lived in mostly white neighborhoods. Respondents who lived in racially mixed to all black neighborhoods were more likely t o participate in intimate cross -racial intera ctions than those in mostly white neighborhoods in all of the mo dels. This makes sense as cross -racial intimate interactions only become possible in environments that provide people access to others with different racial or ethnic backgrounds. These multi -ethnic environments often become Òcosmopolitan canopiesÓ that facilitate cross -race intera ctions (Anderson, 2011) . The racial makeup of respond ents networks, including schools, neighborhoods, and families , growing up had a slightly different affect on their WR I. The differential impact racial composition had on whites growing up as opposed to the racial makeup of their current %(-!neighborhoods is supported by literature that argues for the primacy of racial socialization on identity in early childhood (Clark and Clark, 1939; Cross, 1991; Van Ausdale and Feagin, 2001) . Whites who were socialized in networks that were all white were less likely to be supportive of American attitudes, behaviors and preferences than those socialized in mostly white networks in all of the models. This may be because of contemporary conservative ideologies and rhetoric that argues American society is beco ming increasingly liberal (Skocpol and Williamson, 2012) . In addition, whites raised in all white networks were more likely to listen to and identify with all white music than those raised in mostly white networks in rounds 3 and 5. This reinforces the argument th at racial composition of networks guides the cultural products whites have access to. Children raised in all white neighborho ods may not be socialized to identify with music by non -white artists, or may not be aware that some of the music they hear is black, or influenced by African American cultural styles . Respondents who grew up in networks that were racially mixed to mostly black reported that they were more likely to engage in intimate cross racial interactions in rounds 3 and 5, which supports previous arguments about the connection between racial composition and the prevalence of cross -racial interactions. Together, these findings of this research confirm the importance of racial composition of neighborhoods and networks for WRI. Family p rejudice Family prejudice was measured through the use of a 5 -point likert scale item that asked respondents how much they agreed with t he statement that immediate members of their family were prejudiced. This question captures the messages respondents received in early childhood regarding race. This specific indicator has been used as a measure of racial identity in the past (Landrine and Klonoff, 1995; Landrine and Klonoff, 1996) . In this research, respondents who reported higher levels of family prejudice were less likely to pursue and participate in intimate %).!and non -intimate cross ra cial interactions . These respondents were also less likely to report strong feelings of trust towards American institutions in rounds 3 and 5. Furthermore, respondents who reported higher levels of family prejudice were more likely to participate in ethnic ritu als and events and to participate in white American food such as casseroles and f ood practices like potlucks. What is interesting here is that these respondents were able to identify their family prejudice - however, this ability to name the prejudice that existed within their family did not negate their own participation in attitudes, behaviors and preferences more likely to be associated with prejudiced whites . This process hi ghlights the importance of early childhood socialization, especially the socializ ation that occurs through significant oth ers (Clark and Clark, 1939; Cross, 1991; Rosenberg and Turner, 1981; Van Ausdale and Feagin, 2001) . Key Themes for Consideration Together, these findings suggest themes that are significant to large r bodies of literature within Social Psychology, Sociology, Whiteness S tudies, and Racial and Ethnic Studies, including: WRI and White Hegemony, Beyond Group M embership , and WRI as More than Awareness and/or Identification . Each of these themes is discussed in more detail below. WRI and w hite hegemony EFA indicated the presence of 8 factors that are key predictors of WRI including American, Cross -Racial, Ethnic, Intimate, Racial Attitudes, Institutional, Music, and Food. These factors provide us with important information about the structural and cultural components that construct a baseline of attitudinal, behavioral, and preferential expectations that guide what it means to be white on a societal level. Consequently, it can be argued that these 8 categories are key components in the cultivation and maintenance of hegemonic whiteness , an construct that %)%!sets forth patterned cultural mechanisms, interactive expectations, and institutional limitations that determine which ki nd of white racial identities are valued and how white racial identities are situated in relation to each other (Chen, 1999; Connell and Messerschmidt, 2005; Gramsci and Buttigieg, 1992; Hughey, 2010; Orlowski, 2011) . Although EFA cannot provide information that quantifies the directionality of these factors in relation to white hegemony, the findings included here make a clear case that these c ategories are essential to WRI. This is significant in that it confirms th eoretical and empirical research that argues that expectations about what it means to be white are guided by structural, patterned relationships (Croll, 2007; Morris, 2006; Perry, 2002; Perry, 2007) . In addition, the linear regression conducted in this research suggests that these patterned relationships extend beyond the construct of WRI. For example, the finding that female respondents were much more likely to participate in cross racial interactions than males, or that Agnostic respondents were less likely to possess trust in American institutions indicate that there are macro level sociological forces that influence attitudes, behaviors, an d preferences in fairly predictable ways within the larger construct of WRI . These findings are not surprising given previous research that has argued for the ways WRI are mitigated by social demographic predictors such as class (Brander Rasmussen et al., 2001; McDermott and Samson, 2005; Wray and Newitz, 1997; Wray, 2006) , gender (Frankenberg, 1993) and racial composition of neighborhoods and networks (Hartigan, 1999; Morris, 2005; Morris, 2006) . These findings also directly contradict color blind and post -racial ideologies that normalize white identities and suggest that we are beyond the need for racial and ethnic categorization (Bonilla -Silva, 2014) . Most whites subscribe to these views, except those who identify as anti -rac ist activist s or nationalists (Hughey, 2010) . Color blind ideologies come at a %)&!significant cost for racial and ethnic minorities, as the denial of racism perpetuates very real inequalities and decreases whites support for key affirmative action policies that might negate some of the long term impacts of the persistent and continued discrimination racialized ethnic others experience through things such as housing discrimination, police brutality, and immigration policies (Bobo, 1983; Sears, Sidaniu s and Bobo, 2000; Tarman and Sears, 2005) . This study provides convincing data that race and ethnicity are important forces in structuring identities and interactions by showing that whites attitudes, behaviors, and preferences group together in pattern ed, predictable ways. One of the most influential results of this finding may be to convince well -intentioned whites that Òcolor does matterÓ (Bush, 2004) . Beyond group member ship This research also extends arguments that white racial identities are not determined solely by group membership, but are also influenced by interactional and cultural components. This confirms previous literature on other racial ethnic minorities that points to the importance that culture has on identity (Anderson et al., 1993; Barona and Miller, 1994b; Barry, 2001; Batis et al., 2011; Birman an d Trickett, 2001; Candelario, 2000) . Although the whites surveyed in this research all identified as white and therefore had white racial identities that were impacted by the 8 factors listed above , the particular way they experience d and performed the attitudes, behaviors, and preferences measured by each of the factors varied by respondent and their socio -demographic background . What this suggests is that each of the respondents surveyed in this research possessed white racial identities that were cons tructed in large part through their attitudes, behaviors, and preferences in the aforementioned categories. However, the particular configurations of attitudes, behaviors, and preferences imply a sense of agency, wherein respondents incorporated some of th e expectations of hegemonic whiteness and resisted others %)'!based on their access to power and their own interactional and individual level experiences. This supports social psychological literature that suggests that significant others, identity standards , and role performance all mitigate identity dev elopment and performance (Burke and Reitzes, 1981; Burke, 2004; Burke, 2006; Cast, 2003; Cast, 2004; Goffman, 1959; Goffman, 1967; Goffman, 1986; Stets and Burke, 2000) . In addition, these findings provide additional understanding the differing levels of access whites have to white privilege . As previous literature has suggeste d, although all whites have some level of skin color privilege, this privilege is mitigated by other factors s uch as class, and gender (Brander Rasmussen et al., 2001; Dei, Karumanchery and Karumanchery -Luik, 2004; Feagin and O'Brien, 2003; Ferber et al., 2008; Fine, 2004; Kendall, 2006; Kimmel and Ferber, 2003; Rothenberg, 2002; Wray and Newitz, 1997; Wray, 2006) . This is confirmed in this research, as we see those who are on the margins of whiteness, including women, and those who have limited access to white resources, including all white neighborhoods exhib it different kinds of WRI, and likely have differing degrees of privilege than those who are not in these categories. WRI as more than awareness or identification This WRIS developed here also makes important contributions to the understanding of WRI as a concept that cannot be solely equated with whites explicit acknowledgement that they are aware of being white or possessing a WRI (Helms and Carter, 1990; Knowles and Peng, 2005). In this research, respondents exhibited affiliation with components of WRI whether or not they acknowledged that they were aware of their WRI, or that it was a significant predictor of their broader sens e of self. This suggests that whites participate in cultural practices associated with WRI whether or not they think their racial and ethnic identities are a guiding factor in their %)(!lives. It is likely that whites awareness of themselves as white has no pr edictive value largely due to ideologies that socialize whites to believe that whiteness is invisible and normative (Brander Rasmussen et al., 2001; Frankenberg, 1997) , and to avoid seeing the way race structures the ir everyday lives and in many cases, allows the levels of privilege and access denied to others who do not pass as white (McIntosh, 1989; Wise, 2008) . In addition, the findings in this research counter arguments that WRI are developmental , moving from weaker to stronger WRI as awareness of racial dynamics i ncrea se (Cross, 1991; Helms, 1990) . Instead, WRI are composed of complex and unique c onfigurations of attitudes, behaviors, and preferences that differ by respondent . Respondents were likely to exhibit a high number of attitudes, behaviors, and preferences that were predictive of WRI in some categories and a low number in others. Limitations and Future Research This research serves as a pilot study that provides important theoretical considerations about the nature of white racial identity in the United States. Because of the exploratory nature of this research, the primary limita tions are related to the sample quality and size. Since only one group was surveyed, I was not able to check for measurement invariance, which would allow for hypotheses about how this research might generalize to other groups of whites. In addition, since this research was exploratory, it has yet to be tested on other more representative samples of whites that may have more diverse educational, age, and regional responses . Therefore, the results included here should be interpreted contextually. However, mo st of the findings in this research are supported by previous theories about acculturation and whiteness, which indicates that many of the findings here may be generalizable to more diverse groups of whites. %))! Finally, the findings included here would have been strengthened by a comparison between the factors that influence WRI in whites versus if and to what extent these factors emerged as being important predictors of the racial identities of people of color. This analysis was limited in this research due to the small sample size. Future research will continue to refine the WRIS by distributing it to nationally representative samples of whites, including non -students, those who are in a broader age range, and those from different regions of the United Stat es and to people of color who will serve as a comparison group. The large sample size will also allow for additional statistical procedures that were not allowable in this research, including confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling. T hese techniques will provide more information about the specific direction of the relationship that the items included in this research have on WRI and on how they are related to each other. In addition, in future research, I would like to place more emp hasis on the contextual and performative nature of identities, as proposed by scholars of Social Psychology (Burke and Reitzes, 1981; Burke, 2004; Burke, 2006; Cast, 2003; Cast, 2004; Goffman, 1959; Goffman, 1967; Goffm an, 1986; Stets and Burke, 2000) and Racial and Ethnic Studies (Bettie, 2000; Candelario, 2000; Foley, 1997; Glenn, 2004; Wilkins, 2004) . As these bodies of literature suggest, white racial identities are likely to unde rgo temporal and spatial shifts . This research measured respondents WRI at one particular moment in time, and therefore may not account for how the respondents included in this study negotiate and shift their racial identities and racial identity performances over time and in different contexts. %)*!Conclusion This research provides ample evidence that WRI is not cultureless (Perry , 2002). Instead, as a whole, white racial identities are guided by hegemonic expectations about the kinds of attitudes, behaviors, and preferences that are acceptable. In particular, American, Cross -Racial, Ethnic, Intimate, Racial, Institutional, Music, and Food attitudes, behaviors, and preferences were shown to be key measures of WRI. These processes highlight the way racial formations and social structures guide and homogenize racial identities within the United States . Ho wever, although these processes create the boundaries of the kinds of white racial identities that are possible, white racial identities are not static. Instead, white racial identities are created and maintained by fluid processes that are influenced by i ndividual choices, interactions, and structural components (Lee and Bean, 2004) . The nuanced nature of these identities was confirmed by this research, as females, more affluent whites, those with higher levels of family prejudice, agnostics, or those wh o were socialized in or currently live in non -white neighborhoods exhibited very different kinds of WRI than those who did not possess these traits. These findings are significant for individuals attempting to understand thei r own identities, as well as pr actitioners desiring to understand racial identities . In addition, these findings reinforce the importance of social psychology as a lens to examine social processes and identity formation, wherein individual, interactional, and structural processes must all be examined together as forces that shape our soc ial world. %)+! APPENDIX %),!Table A.1: White Racial Identity Scale Instrument INSTRUCTIONS: Please write in a response to the following questions. What is your racial/ethnic group? How old are you? How many years of schooling have you completed? (eg. 12=high school grad, 13 -freshman) What state are you from? What city did you grow up in? What is your religious background? What ethnicity is your mother? What ethnicity is your father? Are you fluent in any language(s) other than English? If you are fluent in another language, which one(s)? The type of music I listen to the most is: INSTRUCTIONS: Please circle the response that is most true for you to each following questions. What is your gender? Male Female Other (write in): What was your class status growing up? Poor Working Class Middle Class Upper Middle Class Upper Class Approximately what was your familyÕs income while you were growing up? Less than $19,999 $20,000 -$39,000 $40,000 -$59,000 $60,000 -$79,000 $80,000 or above Did you grow up in a rural, suburban or urban area? Rural (country) Suburban Urban (city) Other (write in): What are your political views? Strongly Conservative Somewhat Conservative Neutral Somewhat Liberal Strongly Liberal Generally, I find it difficult to socialize with anybody. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree There are times I think no one understands me. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree Generally, I feel pretty satisfied with my life. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree I feel that whites understand me better than people who are not white. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree I prefer going to social gatherings and parties where most of the people are white. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree I would prefer to go out on a date with someone who was white than someone of another race. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree My friends are: All White Mostly White Racially Mixed Mostly Black All Black How often are your romantic partners the same race as you? Never Once in a While Sometimes Frequently Almost Always I sometimes feel it would be better if different ethnic groups didnÕt try to mix together. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree I spend time with people from ethnic groups other than my own. Never Once in a While Sometimes Frequently Almost Always Growing up, my school, neighborhood, and family was: All White Mostly White Racially Mixed Mostly Black All Black I currently live in a neighborhood that is: All White Mostly White Racially Mixed Mostly Black All Black Some members of my immediate family are prejudiced. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree %)-!Table A.1 (contÕd) I am proud to be an American. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree I have a strong sense of belonging to my own ethnic group. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree I think a lot about how my life will be affected by my ethnic group membership. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree I am happy that I am a member of the racial/ethnic group I belong to. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree Most of the people I admire are white Americans. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree My race doesnÕt really matter. WeÕre all just humans. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree Racial Discrimination Limits Black Employment Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree Less In -born Ability Accounts for Blacks Lack of Success Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree Racial Discrimination Accounts for Blacks Lack of Success Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree Lack of Motivation Accounts for Blacks Lack of Success Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree How important is it for you to celebrate the ethnic festivals or holidays of your ancestors? Not Important at All Slightly important Neutral Very Important Extremel y Importan t How important is it for you to celebrate American holidays and festivals (eg. 4 th of July)? Not Important at All Slightly important Neutral Very Important Extremel y Importan t I have spent time trying to find out more about my own ethnic group, such as its history, traditions, and customs. Never Once in a While Sometimes Frequently Almost Always I participate in the cultural practices of my own group, such as special food, music, or customs. Never Once in a While Sometimes Frequently Almost Always English should be the official language of the United States. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree How important is it for people to speak ÒproperÓ English? Not Important at All Slightly important Neutral Very Important Extremel y Importan t I have different ways of speaking, depending on who I am around. Never Once in a While Sometimes Frequently Almost Always I usually add salt to my food to make it taste better. Never Once in a While Sometimes Frequently Almost Always My family served casseroles as a main dish for dinner while I was growing up. Never Once in a While Sometimes Frequently Almost Always My family and friends have potlucks. Never Once in a While Sometimes Frequently Almost Always Most of the music I listen to is by artists who are: All White Mostly White Racially Mixed Mostly Black All Black I like black music more than white music. Never Once in a While Sometimes Frequently Almost Always %*.!Table A.1 (contÕd) I regularly watch TV shows and/or movies where most of the characters are: All White Mostly White Racially Mixed Mostly Black All Black I have seen people Òget the spiritÓ or speak in tongues. Never Once in a While Sometimes Frequently Almost Always Doctors are trustworthy. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree I trust the United States government. Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree %*%! REFERENCES %*&!REFERENCES Alba, Richard, Rub”n G. Rumbaut and Karen Marotz. 2005. "A Distorted Nation: Perceptions of Racial/Ethnic Group Sizes and Attitudes toward Immigrants and Other Minorities." Social Forces 84(2):901 -19. Alba, Richard D. 1990. Ethnic Identity : The Transformation of White America . New Haven: Yale University Press. Allison, Paul D. 2000. "Multiple Imputation for Missing Data: A Cautionary Tale." Sociological Methods & Research 28(3):301 -09. Allison, Paul David. 2002. Missing Data . Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications. Almaguer, Tomas. 1994. Racial Fault Lines : The Historical Origins of White Supremacy in California . Berkeley: University of California Press. Anagnostou, Yiorgos. 2009. Contours of White Ethnicity : Popular Ethnography and the Making of Usable Pasts in Greek America . Athens Ohio: Ohio University Press. Andersen, Margaret L. 2003. "Whitewashing Race: A Critical Perspective on Whiteness." Pp. 21-34 in White Out : The Continuing Significance of Racism , edited by A. W. Doane and E. Bonilla -Silva. New York: Routledge. Andersen, Margaret L. and Patricia Hill Collins. 2007. Race, Class, and Gender : An Anthology . Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth. Anderson, Elijah. 2011. The Cosmopolitan Canopy : Race and Civility in Everyday Life . New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co. Anderson, J., M. Moeschberger, M. S. Chen, P. Kun n, M. E. Wewers and R. Guthrie. 1993. "An Acculturation Scale for Southeast Asians." Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 28(3):134 -41. Anderson, Leon and David A. Snow. 2001. "Inequality and the Self: Exploring Connections from an Interactioni st Perspective." Symbolic Interaction 24(4):395 -406. Arendt, Hannah. 1974. "Communicative Power." Pp. 59 -74 in Power : A Radical View , edited by S. Lukes. London ; New York: Macmillan. Arnett, Jeffrey Jensen and Jennifer Lynn Tanner. 2006. Emerging Adul ts in America : Coming of Age in the 21st Century . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Arnett, Jeffrey Jensen. 2011. Debating Emerging Adulthood : Stage or Process . New York: Oxford University Press. %*'!Babbie, Earl, Fred Halley, William E Wa gner and Jeanne Zaino. 2013. Adventures in Social Research: Data Analysis Using Ibm Spss Statistics . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Bagozzi, Richard P, Youjae Yi and Lynn W Phillips. 1991. "Assessing Construct Validity in Organizational Research." Administrative science quarterly :421 -58. Bakalian, Anny P. and Mehdi Bozorgmehr. 2009. "Backlash 9/11 Middle Eastern and Muslim Americans Respond." Berkeley: University of California Press,. Retrieved. (http://ezproxy.msu.edu:2047/login?url=http://site.ebrary.com/lib/michstate/Top?id=1067 5694). Baron, Dennis E. 1992. The English -Only Question: An Official Language for Americans? : Yale University Pres s. Barona, Andres and Jeffrey A. Miller. 1994a. "Short Acculturation Scale for Hispanic Youth (Sash -Y): A Preliminary Report." Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 16(2):155 -62. Barona, Andr”s and Jeffrey A. Miller. 1994b. "Short Acculturation Scale for Hispanic Youth." Barry, Declan T. 2001. "Development of a New Scale for Measuring Acculturation: The East Asian Acculturation Measure (Eaam)." Journal of Immigrant Health 3(4):193 -97. Batis, Carolina, Lucia Hernandez -Barrera, Simon Barquera, Juan A. Rivera and Barry M. Popkin. 2011. "Food Acculturation Drives Dietary Differences among Mexicans, Mexican Americans, and Non -Hispanic Whites1 -3." The Journal of Nutrition 141(10):1898 -906. Behrens, John T. 1997. "Does the White Racial Identity Attitude S cale Measure Racial Identity?". Journal of Counseling Psychology 44(1):3 -12. Behrens, John T. and Wayne Rowe. 1997. "Measuring White Racial Identity: A Reply to Helms (1997)." Journal of Counseling Psychology 44(1):17 -19. Bello, A. L. 1995. "Imputation Techniques in Regression Analysis: Looking Closely at Their Implementation." Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 20(1):45 -57. Belsley, David A, Edwin Kuh and Roy E Welsch. 2005. Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Co llinearity , Vol. 571: John Wiley & Sons. Benet -Martinez, V. and J. Haritatos. 2005a. "Bicultural Identity Integration (Bii): Components and Psychosocial Antecedents." BLACKWELL PUBLISHERS. Benet -Martinez, V. and J. Haritatos. 2005b. "Bicultural Identity Integration (Bii): Components and Psychosocial Antecedents." J Pers 73(4):1015 -49. %*(!Benet -Martinez, Veronica. 2003. "The Bicultural Identity Integration Scale ÐVersion 1(Biis -1): Development and Psychometric Properties. ." Vol. Riverside, CA: Department o f Psychology, University of California at Riverside. Benet -Martinez, Veronica. 2006. "Benet -Martinez Acculturation Scale." in Instruments for Measuring Acc ulturation , edited by V. Taras. http://ucalgary.ca/~taras/_private/Acculturation_Survey_Catalogue.pdf: Univer sity of Calgary. Bennett, Derrick A. 2001. "How Can I Deal with Missing Data in My Study?". Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 25(5):464 -69. Berger, Peter L. and Thomas Luckmann. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality; a Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge . Garden City, N.Y.,: Doubleday. Berry, John W., R. C. Annis and International Association of Cross -Cultural Psychology. 1988. Ethnic Psychology : Research and Practice with Immigrants, Refugees, Native Peoples, Ethnic Groups and Sojourners : Selected Papers from the North American Regional Iaccp Conference on Ethnic Psychology Held in Kingston, Canada, August 16 -21, 1987. Berwyn, PA: Sw ets & Zeitlinger Berry, John W. 1990. "Psychology of Acculturation." Pp. 232 -53 in Applied Cross -Cultural Psychology , edited by R. W. Brislin. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications. Berry, John W. 1997. "Immigration, Acculturation, and Adaptation." Applied Psychology: An International Review 46(1):5 -34. Bettie, Julie. 2000. "Women without Class: Chicas, Cholas, Trash, and the Presence/Absence of Class Identity." Signs 26(1):1 -35. Binet, Alfred and Theodore Simon. 1916. The Development of Intellig ence in Children: The Binet -Simon Scale : Williams & Wilkins Company. Birman, Dina and Forrest B. Tyler. 1994. "Acculturation and Alienation of Soviet Jewish Refugees in the United States." Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs 120(1):101 -15. Birman, Dina and Edison J. Trickett. 2001. "Cultural Transitions in First -Generation Immigrants. Acculturation of Soviet Jewish Refugee Adolescents and Parents." Journal of Cross -Cultural Psychology 32(4):456 -77. Birman, Dina, Edison J. Trickett and An drey Vinokurov. 2002. "Acculturation and Adaptation of Soviet Jewish Refugee Adolescents: Predictors of Adjustment across Life Domains." American Journal of Community Psychology 30(5):585 -607. %*)!Blau, Peter M., Terry C. Blum and Joseph E. Schwartz. 1982. " Heterogeneity and Intermarriage." American Sociological Review 47(1):45 -62. Blumer, Herbert. 1958. "Race Prejudice as a Sense of Group Position." The Pacific Sociological Review 1(1):3 -7. Blumer, Herbert. 1969. Symbolic Interactionism; Perspective and Method . Englewood Cliffs, N.J.,: Prentice -Hall. Bobo, Lawrence. 1983. "Whites' Opposition to Busing: Symbolic Racism or Realistic Group Conflict?". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45(6):1196 -210. Bobo, Lawrence and Vincent L. Hutchings. 199 6. "Perceptions of Racial Group Competition: Extending Blumer's Theory of Group Position to a Multiracial Social Context." American Sociological Review 61(6):951 -72. Bobo, Lawrence and James Kluegel. 1997. "Status, Ideology and Dimensions of Whites' Raci al Beliefs and Attitudes: Progress and Stagnation." Pp. 93 -120 in Racial Attitudes in the 1990s : Continuity and Change , edited by S. A. Tuch and J. K. Martin. Westport, Conn.: Praeger. Bobo, Lawrence and Ryan A. Smith. 1998. "From Jim Crow Racism to Lais sez Faire Racism: The Transformation of Racial Attitudes." Pp. 182 -220, Beyond Pluralism : The Conception of Groups and Group Identities in America . Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Bobo, Lawrence D. 1999. "Prejudice as Group Position: Microfoundations of a Sociological Approach to Racism and Race Relations." Journal of Social Issues 55(3):445 -72. Bobo, Lawrence D. and Devon Johnson. 2000. "Racial Attitudes in a Prismatic Metropolis : Mapping Identity, Stereotypes, Competition, and Views on Affirmative Action." Pp. 81 -163 in Prismatic Metropolis : Inequality in Los Angeles , edited by L. Bobo, Melvin L. Oliver, James H. Johnson and Abel Valenzuela. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Bobo, Lawrence D. and Camille Z. Charles. 2009. "Race in the American Mind: From the Moynihan Report to the Obama Candidacy." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 621:243 -59. Bonilla -Silva, Eduardo. 1997. "Rethinking Racism: Tow ard a Structural Interpretation." American Sociological Review 62(3):465 -80. Bonilla -Silva, Eduardo. 2001. White Supremacy and Racism in the Post -Civil Rights Era . Boulder, Colo.: L. Rienner. Bonilla -Silva, Eduardo, Carla Goar and David G. Embrick. 2006 . "When Whites Flock Together: The Social Psychology of White Habitus." Critical Sociology 32(2-3):229 -53. %**!Bonilla -Silva, Eduardo. 2014. Racism without Racists : Color -Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in America . Lanham: Rowman & Litt lefield Publishers, Inc. Born, Georgina and David Hesmondhalgh. 2000. Western Music and Its Others : Difference, Representation, and Appropriation in Music . Berkeley: University of California Press. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction : A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste . Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Boyatzis, Richard E. 1998. Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development . Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications. Brander Rasmussen, Birgit, Eric Klin enberg, Irene J. Nexica and Matt Wray. 2001. The Making and Unmaking of Whiteness . Durham N.C.: Duke University Press. Brodkin, Karen. 1998. How Jews Became White Folks and What That Says About Race in America. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Pres s. Broman, Clifford L., James S. Jackson and Harold W. Neighbors. 1989. "Sociocultural Context and Racial Group Identification among Black Adults." Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale 2(3):367 -78. Broman, Clifford L., Roya Mavaddat and Shu -Yao H su. 2000. "The Experience and Consequences of Perceived Racial Discrimination: A Study of African Americans." Journal of Black Psychology 26(2):165 -80. Bronfenbrenner, Urie. 1979. The Ecology of Human Development : Experiments by Nature and Design . Cambr idge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Brown, Timothy A. 2006. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research . New York: Guilford Press. Buchner, David M and Thomas W Findley. 1991. "Research in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation: Viii. Preliminary Data Analysis." American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 70(1):S68 -S83. Burke, Peter J. and Donald C. Reitzes. 1981. "The Link between Identity and Role Performance." Social Psychology Quarterly 44(2):83 -92. Burke, Peter J. 2004. "Identities and Social Structure: The 2003 Cooley -Mead Award Address." Social Psychology Quarterly 67(1):5 -15. Burke, Peter J. 2006. "Identity Change." Social Psychology Quarterly 69(1):81 -96. Bush, Melanie E. L. 2004. Breaking the Code of Good Intentions : Everyday Forms of Whiteness . Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. %*+!Byrne, Barbara M. 2013. Structur al Equation Modeling with Amos: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming : Routledge. Caldwell -Harris, Catherine L, Angela L Wilson, Elizabeth LoTempio and Benjamin Beit -Hallahmi. 2011. "Exploring the Atheist Personality: Well -Being, Awe, and Magical Thinking in Atheists, Buddhists, and Christians." Mental Health, Religion & Culture 14(7):659 -72. Campisi, Paul J. 1948. "Ethnic Family Patterns: The Italian Family in the United States." American Journal of Sociology 53(6):443 -49. Campisi, Paul John. 1947a. "A Scale for the Measurement of Acculturation." T -00547 Ph.D., The University of Chicago, Ann Arbor. Retrieved from Dissertations & Theses @ CIC Institutions; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. Campisi, Pau l John. 1947b. A Scale for the Measurement of Acculturation . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago. Candelario, Ginetta. 2000. "Hair Race -Ing: Dominican Beauty Culture and Identity Production." Meridians 1(1):128 -56. Cast, Alicia D. 2003. "Power and the Ab ility to Define the Situation." Social Psychology Quarterly 66(3):185 -201. Cast, Alicia D. 2004. "Role -Taking and Interaction." Social Psychology Quarterly 67(3):296 -309. Charles, Camille Zubrinsky. 2003. "The Dynamics of Racial Residential Segregation." Annual Review of Sociology 29:167 -207. Chen, Anthony S. 1999. "Lives at the Center of the Periphery, Lives at the Periphery of the Center: Chinese American Masculinities and Bargaining with Hegemony." Gender and Society 13(5):584 -607. Chung, Ruth H., Bryan S. K. Kim and Jose M. Abreu. 2004. "Asian American Multidimensional Acculturation Scale: Development, Factor Analysis, Reliability, and Validity." Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology 10(1):66 -80. Clark, Kenneth B and Mamie K Clark. 1939. "The Development of Consciousness of Self and the Emergence of Racial Identification in Negro Preschool Children." The Journal of Social Psychology 10(4):591 -99. Coates, Rodney D. 2003. "Introduction: Reproducing Racialized Systems of Social Control." American Behavioral Scientist 47(3):235 -39. %*,!Cohen, Jacob and Jacob Cohen. 2003. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences . Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates. Cokley, Kevin. 2007. "Critical Issues in the Measurement of Ethnic and Racial Identity: A Referendum on the State of the Field." Journal of Counseling Psychology 54(3):224 -34. Cokluk, Omay and Murat Kayri. 2011. "The Effects of M ethods of Imputation for Missing Values on the Validity and Reliability of Scales." Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice 11(1):303 -09. Compaine, Benjamin M. and Douglas Gomery. 2000. Who Owns the Media? : Competition and Concentration in the Mass Media Industry . Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates. Connell, R. W. and James W. Messerschmidt. 2005. "Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept." Gender and Society 19(6):829 -59. Connell, Raewyn. 1987. Gender and Power : Society, the Person, and Sex ual Politics . Cambridge, UK: Polity Press in association with B. Blackwell. Cook, R Dennis. 1977. "Detection of Influential Observation in Linear Regression." Technometrics :15 -18. Cook, Timothy E. and Paul Gronke. 2005. "The Skeptical American: Revisiti ng the Meanings of Trust in Government and Confidence in Institutions." The Journal of Politics 67(3):784 -803. Cornell, Stephen E. and Douglas Hartmann. 2006. Ethnicity and Race : Making Identities in a Changing World, 2nd Ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Pine Forge Press. Cortes, Dharma E., Sherry Deren, Jonny Andia and Rafaela Robles. 2003. "The Use of the Puerto Rican Biculturality Scale with Puerto Rican Drug Users in New York and Puerto Rico." Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 35(2):197 -207. Croll, Paul R. 2007. "Modeling Determinants of White Racial Identity: Results from a New National Survey." Social Forces 86(2):613 -42. Cross, William E. 1991. Shades of Black : Diversity in African -American Identity . Philadelphia: Temple University Press . Cutler, Cecilia. 2003. ""Keepin' It Real": White Hip -Hoppers' Discourses of Language, Race, and Authenticity." Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 13(2):211 -33. De Vaus, D. A. 2013. Surveys in Social Research . Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Dei, George Je rry Sefa, Leeno Luke Karumanchery and Nisha Karumanchery -Luik. 2004. Playing the Race Card : Exposing White Power and Privilege . New York: P. Lang. %*-!Delgado, Richard and Jean Stefancic. 1997. Critical White Studies : Looking Behind the Mirror . Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Denzin, Norman K. 1966. "The Significant Others of a College Population*." The Sociological Quarterly 7(3):298 -310. Denzin, Norman K. 1987. "The Death of Sociology in the 1980s: Comment on Collins." American Journal of Sociolog y 93(1):175 -80. DeVellis, Robert F. . 2012. Scale Development: Theory and Applications , Vol. 26. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications. Devos, Thierry and Mahzarin R Banaji. 2005. "American= White?". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 88(3):447 . DiStefano, Christine, Min Zhu and Diana Mindrila. 2009. "Understanding and Using Factor Scores: Considerations for the Applied Researcher." Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 14(20):1 -11. Doane, Ashley W. 1997. "Dominant Group Ethnic Identity in the United States: The Role of "Hidden" Ethnicity in Intergroup Relations." The Sociological Quarterly 38(3):375 -97. Doane, Ashley W. and Eduardo Bonilla -Silva. 2003. White Out : The Continuing Sig nificance of Racism . New York: Routledge. Doberneck, Diane M., Paula K. Miller and John H Schweitzer. 2012. "The Matter of Origins: Multi -Site Evaluation of National Science Foundation Early Concept Grants for Exploratory Research Program. Evaluation Rese arch Report." Vol. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, University Outreach and Engagement. Dodson, Jualynne E. 2002. Engendering Church : Women, Power, and the Ame Church . Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield. Dong, Yiran and Chao -Ying Joanne Peng. 2013. "Principled Missing Data Methods for Researchers." Springerplus 2(1):222. Durkheim, Emile. 2012. The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life : Courier Corporation. Dyer, Richard. 1997. White . London ; New York: Routledge. Eisinga, R., Mt Grotenhuis and B. Pelzer. 2013. "The Reliability of a Two -Item Scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman -Brown?". Int J Public Health 58(4):637 -42. Emerson, Michael O. and Christian Smith. 2000. Divided by Faith : Evangelical Reli gion and the Problem of Race in America . Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press. Espiritu, Yen Le. 1992. Asian American Panethnicity : Bridging Institutions and Identities . Philadelphia: Temple University Press. %+.!Essed, Philomena. 1991. "Understanding Everyday Racism an Interdisciplinary Theory." Newbury Park: Sage Publications,. Retrieved. (http://ezproxy.msu.edu:2047/ login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=tr ue&scope=site&db=e000xna&AN=477951) . Farley, Reynolds, Howard Schuman, Suzanne Bianchi, Diane Colasanto and Shirley Hatchett. 1978. "'Chocolate City, Vanilla Suburbs:' Will the Trend toward Raciall y Separate Communities Continue?". Social Science Research 7(4):319 -44. Farley, Reynolds, Charlotte Steeh, Tara Jackson, Maria Krysan and Keith Reeves. 1993. "Continued Racial Residential Segregation in Detroit: "Chocolate City, Vanilla Suburbs" Revisite d." Journal of Housing Research 4(1):1. Feagin, Joe R. 1991. "The Continuing Significance of Race: Antiblack Discrimination in Public Places." American Sociological Review 56(1):101 -16. Feagin, Joe R. and Eileen O'Brien. 2003. White Men on Race : Power, Privilege, and the Shaping of Cultural Consciousness . Boston: Beacon Press. Feagin, Joe R. 2006. Racist America : Roots, Current Realities, and Future Reparations . Feagin, Joe R. 2013. The White Racial Frame : Centuries of Racial Framing and Counte r-Framing . New York: Routledge. Ferber, Abby L. 1998. White Man Falling : Race, Gender, and White Supremacy . Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield. Ferber, Abby L., Andrea O'Reilly Herrera, Christina M. Jimenez and Dena R. Samuels, eds. 2008. The Matrix Read er: Examining the Dynamics of Oppression and Privilege : McGraw -Hill. Fernandez, Carlos A. 1992. "La Raza and the Melting Pot: A Comparative Look at Multiethnicity." Pp. 126 -43 in Racially Mixed People in America , edited by M. P. P. Root. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications. Fine, Gary Alan. 1991. "On the Macrofoundations of Microsociology: Constraint and the Exterior Reality of Structure." The Sociological Quarterly 32(2):161 -77. Fine, Gary Alan. 1993. "The Sad Demise, Mysterious Disappearance, a nd Glorious Triumph of Symbolic Interactionism." Annual Review of Sociology 19:61 -87. Fine, Michelle. 2004. Off White : Readings on Power, Privilege, and Resistance . New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Fishman, Sylvia Barack. 2000. Jewish Life and American Cultu re. Albany: State University of New York. %+%!Foley, Neil. 1997. The White Scourge : Mexicans, Blacks, and Poor Whites in Texas Cotton Culture . Berkeley: University of California Press. Fomby, Thomas B and David K Guilkey. 1978. "On Choosing the Optimal Level of Significance for the Durbin -Watson Test and the Bayesian Alternative." Journal of Econometrics 8(2):203 -13. Foner, Nancy and George M. Fredrickson. 2004. Not Just Black and White : Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on Immigration, Race, and Et hnicity in the United States . New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Foucault, Michel. 1995. Discipline and Punish : The Birth of the Prison . New York: Vintage Books. Frank, Dana. 1998. "White Working -Class Women and the Race Question." International Labor and Working -Class History (54):80 -102. Frankenberg, Ruth. 1993. White Women, Race Matters : The Social Construction of Whiteness . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Frankenberg, Ruth. 1997. Displacing Whiteness : Essays in Social and Cultural Cr iticism. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press. Furr, R Michael and Verne R Bacharach. 2013. Psychometrics: An Introduction . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Galbraith, RF. 1988. "Graphical Display of Estimates Having Differing Standard Errors." Technometrics 30(3):271 -81. Gieryn, Thomas F. 2000. "A Space for Place in Sociology." Annual Review of Sociology 26:463 -96. Glenn, Evelyn Nakano. 2004. "Unequal Freedom How Race and Gender Shaped American Citizenship and Labor." Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Retrieved. (http://ezproxy.msu.edu:2047/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=tr ue&scope=site&db=e000 xna&AN=282094) . Gliem, Joseph A and Rosemary R Gliem. 2003. "Calculating, Interpreting, and Reporting CronbachÕs Alpha Reliability Coefficient for Likert -Type Scales." Midwest Research -to-Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education. Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life . Garden City, N.Y.,: Doubleday. Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interaction Ritual; Essays in Face -to-Face Behavior . Chicago,: Aldine Pub. Co. %+&!Goffman, Erving. 1986. Stigma : Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity . New York: Simon & Schuster. Gold, Steven J. 2004. "From Jim Crow to Racial Hegemony: Evolving Explanations of Racial Hierarchy." Ethnic and Racial Studies 27(6):951 -68. Goldschmidt, Henry and Elizabeth A. McAlister. 2004. Race, Nat ion, and Religion in the Americas . New York: Oxford University Press. Gorsuch, Richard L. 1983. Factor Analysis (2nd Ed.) . Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gramsci, Antonio and Joseph A. Buttigieg. 1992. Prison Notebooks . New York: Columbia University Pre ss. Green, Logan L. and Michael Haymes. 1973. "Value Orientation and Psychosocial Adjustment at Various Levels of Marijuana Use." Journal of Youth and Adolescence 2(3):213 -31. Grewal, Rajdeep, Joseph A Cote and Hans Baumgartner. 2004. "Multicollinearity and Measurement Error in Structural Equation Models: Implications for Theory Testing." Marketing Science 23(4):519 -29. Guilford, Joy Paul. 1966. "Intelligence: 1965 Model." American Psychologist 21(1):20. Guilford, Joy Paul. 1967. "The Nature of Intelligence." The nature of intelligence. Hacking, Ian. 1999. The Social Construction of What? Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Hall, Peter M. 1987. "Interactionism and the Study of Social Organization." The Sociological Quarterly 28(1):1 -22. Hall, Stuart and Open University. 1997. Representation : Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices . London ; Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage in association with the Open University. Hallinan, Maureen T. 1978. "The Process of Friendship Formation." Social Networks 1(2):193 -210. Harrington, Donna. 2009. Confirmatory Factor Analysis . New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Hartigan, John. 1999. Racial Situations : Class Predicaments of Whiteness in Detroit . Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Hartigan, John. 2003. "Who Are These White People?: ÒRednecks,Ó ÒHillbillies,Ó and ÒWhite TrashÓ as Marked Racial Subjects." Pp. 95 -112 in White Out : The Continuing %+'!Significance of Racism , edited by A. W. Doane and E. Bonilla -Silva. New York: Routledge. Hartmann, Douglas, Joseph Gerteis and Paul R. Croll. 2009. "An Empirical Assessment of Whiteness Theory: Hidden from How Many?". Social Pro blems 56(3):403 -24. Heiss, Jerold. 1981. "Social Roles." Pp. 94 -132 in Social Psychology : Sociological Perspectives , edited by M. Rosenberg, R. H. Turner and American Sociological Association. Section on Social Psychology. New York: Basic Books. Helms, Janet E. 1990. Black and White Racial Identity : Theory, Research, and Practice . New York: Greenwood Press. Helms, Janet E. and Robert T. Carter. 1990. "Development of the White Racial Identity Attitude Scale." Pp. 67 -80 in Black and White Racial Identi ty : Theory, Research, and Practice , edited by J. E. Helms. New York: Greenwood Press. Helms, Janet E. 1997. "Implications of Behrens (1997) for the Validity of the White Racial Identity Attitude Scale." Journal of Counseling Psychology 44(1):13 -16. Helms, Janet E. 2007. "Some Better Practices for Measuring Racial and Ethnic Identity Constructs." Journal of Counseling Psychology 54(3):235 -46. Hess, Mickey. 2005. "Hip -Hop Realness and the White Performer." Critical studies in media communication 22(5):3 72-89. Hewitt, Roger. 2005. White Backlash and the Politics of Multiculturalism : Cambridge University Press. Hill Collins, Patricia. 2000. Black Feminist Thought : Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment . New York: Routledge. Hill Collins, Patricia. 2004. Black Sexual Politics : African Americans, Gender, and the New Racism . New York: Routledge. Hoffmann, Tom. 1985. "Measured Acculturation and Mmpi -168 Performance of Native American Adults." Journal of Cross -Cultural Psycholog y 16(2):243 -56. Holstein, James A. and Jaber F. Gubrium. 2000. The Self We Live By : Narrative Identity in a Postmodern World . New York: Oxford University Press. Hooks, Bell. 1981. Ain't I a Woman: Black Women and Feminism , Vol. 3: South End Press Bosto n. Hout, Michael and Claude S Fischer. 2002. "Why More Americans Have No Religious Preference: Politics and Generations." American Sociological Review :165 -90. %+(!Howard, Judith A. 2000. "Social Psychology of Identities." Annual Review of Sociology 26:367 -93. Howe, Chief. 1940. "An Assimilation Study of Indian Girls." The Journal of Social Psychology 11:19 -30. Hughey, Matthew W. 2010. "The (Dis)Similarities of White Racial Identities: The Conceptual Framework of 'Hegemonic Whiteness'." Ethnic and Racial S tudies 33(8):1289 -309. Humphreys, Lloyd G., Robert L. Linn and University of Illinois at Urbana -Champaign Department of Psychology. 1989. Intelligence : Measurement, Theory, and Public Policy : Proceedings of a Symposium in Honor of Lloyd G. Humphreys . Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Hyman, Herbert H. . 1968. "The Psychology of Status." Pp. 147 -65 in Readings in Reference Group Theory and Research , edited by H. H. Hyman and E. Singer. New York,: Free Press. Ignatiev, Noel and John Garvey. 1996. Race Traitor . New York: Routledge. Ignatiev, Noel. 2009. How the Irish Became White . New York: Routledge. Institute for Public Policy and Social Research. 2009. "State of the State Survey -54 (Fall).", edited by M. S. University. East Lansing, MI. Jackman, Mary R. 1994. The Velvet Glove : Paternalism and Conflict in Gender, Class, and Race Relations . Berkeley: University of California Press. Jacobson, Matthew Frye. 1999. Whiteness of a Different Color : European Immigrants and the Alchemy of Race . Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Jessor, R., T.D. Graves, R.C. Hanson and S.L. Jessor. 1968. Society, Personality, and Deviant Behavior. A Study of a Tri -Ethnic Community. [by] Richard Jessor, Theodore D. Graves, Robert C. Hanson, Shirley L. Je ssor : New York. Johnson, E. Patrick. 2003. Appropriating Blackness : Performance and the Politics of Authenticity . Durham N.C.: Duke University Press. Jordan, Winthrop D. and Winthrop D. Jordan. 1974. The White Man's Burden; Historical Origins of Racism in the United States . New York,: Oxford University Press. Karp, David Allen and William C. Yoels. 1986. Sociology and Everyday Life . Itasca, Ill.: F.E. Peacock. Kendall, Frances E. 2006. Understanding White Privilege : Creating Pathways to Authentic Relationships across Race . New York: Routledge. %+)!Kimmel, Michael S. and Abby L. Ferber. 2003. Privilege : A Reader . Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. Kirschenman, Joleen and Kathryn M. Neckerman. 1991. "WeÕd Love to Hire Them, butÉ: The Meaning of Race for Employers." Pp. 203 -32 in The Urban Underclass , edited by C. Jencks and P. E. Peterson. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution. Kivisto, Peter and Georganne Rundblad. 2000. Multiculturalism in the United States : Current Issues, Contemporary Voices . Thou sand Oaks, Calif.: Pine Forge Press. Kivisto, Peter. 2002. Multiculturalism in a Global Society . Oxford, UK ; Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub. Kline, Rex B. 2011. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling . New York: Guilford Press. Klonoff, Eliz abeth A. and Hope Landrine. 2000. "Revising and Improving the African American Acculturation Scale." The Journal of Black Psychology 26(2):235 -61. Kluegel, James R. and Eliot R. Smith. 1986. Beliefs About Inequality : Americans' Views of What Is and What Ought to Be . New York: A. de Gruyter. Knowles, Eric D. and Kaiping Peng. 2005. "White Selves: Conceptualizing and Measuring a Dominant -Group Identity." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89(2):223 -41. Koeske, Gary F. 1994. "Some Recommendations for Improving Measurement Validation in Social Work Research." Journal of Social Service Research 18(3-4):43 -72. Krysan, Maria and Michael Bader. 2007. "Perceiving the Metropolis: Seeing the City through a Pris m of Race." Social Forces 86(2):699 -733. Krysan, Maria, Reynolds Farley and Mick P. Couper. 2008. "In the Eye of the Beholder: Racial Beliefs and Residential Segregation." Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race 5(1):5 -26. Lance, Charles E, Mar cus M Butts and Lawrence C Michels. 2006. "The Sources of Four Commonly Reported Cutoff Criteria What Did They Really Say?". Organizational Research Methods 9(2):202 -20. Landrine, Hope and Elizabeth A. Klonoff. 1994. "The African American Acculturation S cale: Development, Reliability, and Validity." Journal of Black Psychology 20(2):104 -27. Landrine, Hope and Elizabeth A. Klonoff. 1995. "The African American Acculturation Scale Ii: Cross -Validation and Short Form." Pp. 124 -52, Vol. 21. %+*!Landrine, Hope a nd Elizabeth A. Klonoff. 1996. African -American Acculturation : Deconstructing Race and Reviving Culture . Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications. LaVeist, Thomas A., Kim J. Nickerson and Janice V. Bowie. 2000. "Attitudes About Racism, Medical Mistrust a nd Satisfaction with Care among African American and White Cardiac Patients." Medical Care Research and Review 57(Suppl1):146 -61. Lee, Jennifer and Frank D. Bean. 2004. "America's Changing Color Lines: Immigration, Race/Ethnicity, and Multiracial Identification." Annual Review of Sociology 30:221 -42. Lenski, Gerhard Emmanuel. 1966. Power and Privilege; a Theory of Social Stratifica tion . New York,: McGraw -Hill. Lenski, Gerhard Emmanuel. 1984. Power and Privilege : A Theory of Social Stratification . Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Levine, Rhonda F. 2006. Social Class and Stratification : Classic Statements and Theor etical Debates . Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Pub. Lim, Kaine V., Elaine Heiby, Richard Brislin and Bion Griffin. 2002. "The Development of the Khmer Acculturation Scale." International Journal of Intercultural Relations 26(6):653 -78. Lipsitz, George. 19 98. The Possessive Investment in Whiteness : How White People Profit from Identity Politics . Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Loewen, James W. 1988. The Mississippi Chinese : Between Black and White . Long Grove, Ill.: Waveland Press. Lorde, Audre. 1997. "Age, Race, Class, and Sex: Women Redefining Difference." CULTURAL POLITICS 11:374 -80. Lu, Shun and Gary Alan Fine. 1995. "The Presentation of Ethnic Authenticity: Chinese Food as a Social Accomplishment." The Sociological Quarterly 36(3):535 -53. Maines, David R. 2000. "The Social Construction of Meaning." Contemporary Sociology 29(4):577 -84. Mardia, Kanti V. 1970. "Measures of Multivariate Skewness and Kurtosis with Applications." Biometrika 57(3):519 -30. Marin, G., F. Sabogal, B. V. Marin, R. Oterosabogal and E. J. Perezstable. 1987. "Development of a Short Acculturation Scale for Hispanics." Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 9(2):183 -205. %++!Markus, Hazel Rose and Paula M. L. Moya. 2010. Doing Race : 21 Essays for the 21st Century . New York: W.W. Norton & Co. Martinez, R. and R. D. Norman. 1984. "Effects of Acculturation on Field Independence among Chicano Children." Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 6(2):113 -26. Martinot, Steve. 2007. "Immigration and the Boundary of Whiteness." Race/Ethnicity: Multidisciplinary Global Contexts 1(1):17 -36. Massey, Douglas S. and Nancy A. Denton. 1993. American Apartheid : Segregation and the Making of the Underclass . Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Matsunaga, Masaki. 2010. "How to Factor -Analyze Your Data Right: DoÕs, DonÕts, and How -ToÕs." International Journal of Psychological Research 3(1):97 -110. McCall, George J. . 2003. "The Me and the Not -Me: Positive and Negative Poles of Identity." Pp. 11 -26 in Advances in Identity Theory and Research , edited by P. J. Burke. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. McDermott, Monica and Frank L. Samson. 2005. "White Racial and Ethnic Identity in the United States." Annual Review of Sociology 31:245 -61. McDermott, Monica. 2006. Working -Class White : The Making and Unmaking of Race Relations . Berkeley: University of California Press. McIntosh, Peggy. 1988. "White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account of Coming to See Correspondences through Work in Women's Studies. Working Paper No. 189." Vol.: Center for Research on Women, Wellsley College, Wellsey, MA 02181 ($4.00; $1.00 shipping and handling). McIntosh, Peggy. 1989. White Privilege : Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack . [S.l.: s.n.] ;. McPherson, J. Miller and Lynn Smith -Lovin. 1987. "Homophily in Voluntary Organizations: Status Distance and the Composition of Face -to-Face Groups." American Sociological Review 52(3):370 -79. Mead, George Herbert and Charles William Morris. 1967. Mind, Self , and Society; from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist . Chicago, Ill.,: University of Chicago Press. Mendoza, Richard H. 1989. "An Empirical Scale to Measure Type and Degree of Acculturation in Mexican -American Adolescents and Adults." Journal of Cros s-Cultural Psychology 20(4):372 -85. Michelson, Melissa R. 2003. "The Corrosive Effect of Acculturation: How Mexican Americans Lose Political Trust." Social Science Quarterly 84(4):919 -33. %+,!Michelson, Melissa R. 2007. "All Roads Lead to Rust: How Accultu ration Erodes Latino Immigrant Trust in Government." Aztlan: A Journal of Chicano Studies 32(2):21 -46. Miller, Larry E. 1998. "Appropriate Analysis." Journal of Agricultural Education 39:1 -10. Milroy, Lesley and Pieter Muysken. 1995. One Speaker, Two L anguages : Cross -Disciplinary Perspectives on Code -Switching . Cambridge England ; New York: Cambridge University Press. Montgomery, Douglas C, Elizabeth A Peck and G Geoffrey Vining. 2012. Introduction to Linear Regression Analysis , Vol. 821: John Wiley & Sons. Morris, Edward W. 2005. "From "Middle Class" to "Trailer Trash:" Teachers' Perceptions of White Students in a Predominately Minority School." Sociology of Education 78(2):99 -121. Morris, Edward W. 2006. An Unexpected Minority : White Kids in an U rban School . New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Morrison, Toni. 1993. Playing in the Dark : Whiteness and the Literary Imagination . New York: Vintage Books. Nelson, Dana D. 1992. The Word in Black and White : Reading "Race" in American Literature, 1638-1867. New York: Oxford University Press. Noam, Eli M. 2009. Media Ownership and Concentration in America . Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press. Nunnally, Jum C. and Ira H. Bernstein. 1994. "Psychometric Theory." New York McGraw -Hill. OÕConnor, Roisin M., Craig R. Colder and Larry W. Hawk Jr. 2004. "Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire." Personality and Individual Differences 37(5):985 -1002. Olmedo, Esteban L and Amado M Padilla. 1978. "Empirical and Construct Validation of a Measure of Acculturation for Mexican Americans." The Journal of Social Psychology 105(2):179 -87. Omi, Michael and Howard Winant. 1994. Racial Formation in the United States : From the 1960s to the 1990s . New York: Routledge. Orlowski, Paul. 2011. Teaching About Hegemony Race, Class and Democracy in the 21st Century . Dordrecht ; New York: Springer,. Oyserman, Daphna and Kwang -il Yoon. 2009. "Neighborhood Effects on Racial -Ethnic Identity: The Undermining Role of Segregation." Race and Social Problems 1(2):67 -76. %+-!Pascoe, C. J. 2005. "'Dude, You're a Fag': Adolescent Masculinity and the Fag Discourse." Sexualities 8(3):329 -46. Pasta, David J and Diana Suhr. 2004. "Creating Scales from Quest ionnaires: Proc Varclus Vs. Factor Analysis." in Proceedings of the Twenty -Ninth Annual SAS Users Group International Conference (Paper 205 -29). Penn, David A. 2007. "Estimating Missing Values from the General Social Survey: An Application of Multiple Imp utation*." Social Science Quarterly 88(2):573 -84. Perea, Juan F. 1992. "Demography and Distrust: An Essay on American Languages, Cultural Pluralism, and Official English." Minn. L. Rev. 77:269. Perry, Pamela. 2002. Shades of White : White Kids and Raci al Identities in High School . Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Perry, Pamela. 2007. "White Universal Identity as a "Sense of Group Position"." Symbolic Interaction 30(3):375 -93. Persky, Irena and Dina Birman. 2005. "Ethnic Identity in Acculturation Re search: A Study of Multiple Identities of Jewish Refugees from the Former Soviet Union." Journal of Cross -Cultural Psychology 36(5):557 -72. Pettigrew, Thomas F. 1998. "Intergroup Contact Theory." Annual Review of Psychology 49(1):65 -85. Phinney, Jean S and Mona Devich -Navarro. 1997. "Variations in Bicultural Identification among African American and Mexican American Adolescents." Journal of research on adolescence 7(1):3 -32. Phinney, Jean S. 1992. "The Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure : A New Scale for Use with Diverse Groups." Journal of Adolescent Research 7(2):156 -76. Phinney, Jean S. and Anthony D. Ong. 2007. "Conceptualization and Measurement of Ethnic Identity: Current Status and Future Directions." Journal of Counseling Psychol ogy 54(3):271 -81. Podsakoff, Philip M, Scott B MacKenzie, Jeong -Yeon Lee and Nathan P Podsakoff. 2003. "Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies." Journal of applied psychology 88(5):879. Podsakoff, Philip M, Scott B MacKenzie and Nathan P Podsakoff. 2012. "Sources of Method Bias in Social Science Research and Recommendations on How to Control It." Annual Review of Psychology 63:539 -69. %,.!Ponterotto, Joseph G. and Jennie Park -Taylor. 2007. "Racial and Ethnic Identity Theory, Measurement, and Research in Counseling Psychology: Present Status and Future Directions." Journal of Counseling Psychology 54(3):282 -94. Ponterotto, Joseph G. 2010. Handbook of Multicultural Counseling . Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications. Quillian, Lincoln. 1995. "Prejudice as a Response to Perceived Group Threat: Population Composition and Anti -Immigrant and Racial Prejudice in Europe." American Sociological Review 60(4):586 -611. Quintana, Stephen M. 2007. "R acial and Ethnic Identity: Developmental Perspectives and Research." Journal of Counseling Psychology 54(3):259 -70. Riesman, David and Herbert J. Gans. 1979. On the Making of Americans : Essays in Honor of David Riesman . Philadelphia: University of Penns ylvania Press. Robinson, Dawn T. and Lynn Smith -Lovin. 1992. "Selective Interaction as a Strategy for Identity Maintenance: An Affect Control Model." Social Psychology Quarterly 55(1):12 -28. Roediger, David R. 2006. "Whiteness and Its Complications." The Chronicle of Higher Education 52(45):B5 -B8. Roediger, David R. 2007. The Wages of Whiteness : Race and the Making of the American Working Class . London ; New York: Verso. Root, Maria P. . 1992. Racially Mixed People in America . Newbury Park, Calif.: S age Publications. Rosenberg, Morris and Ralph H. Turner. 1981. Social Psychology : Sociological Perspectives . New York: Basic Books, Inc. Rosenberg, Morris and Ralph H. Turner. 1990. Social Psychology : Sociological Perspectives . New Brunswick, U.S.A.: Transaction Publishers. Rothenberg, Paula S. 2002. White Privilege : Essential Readings on the Other Side of Racism . New York: Worth Publishers. Rothenberg, Paula S. 2008. White Privilege : Essential Readings on the Other Side of Racism . New York: Worth Publishers. Rowe, Wayne, Sandra K. Bennett and Donald R. Atkinson. 1994. "White Racial Identity Models: A Critique and Alternative Proposal." The Counseling Psychologist 22(1):129 -46. %,%!Rubin, D. B. 1976. "Inference and Missing Data." Biometrika 63(3):581 -90. Rumbaut, Rub”n G. 2009. "Pigments of Our Imagination: On the Racialization and Racial Identities of "Hispanics" and "Latinos"." Pp. 15 -36 in How the U.S. Racializes Latinos: White Hegemony and Its Consequences , edited by J. A. Cobas, J. Duany and J. R. Feagin. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers. Sartwell, Crispin. 2005. "Wigger." Pp. 35 -48 in White on White/Black on Black , edited by G. Yancy. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Schwalbe, Michael, Sandra Godwin, Daphne Holden, Douglas Schrock, Sh ealy Thompson and Michele Wolkomir. 2000. "Generic Processes in the Reproduction of Inequality: An Interactionist Analysis." Social Forces 79(2):419 -52. Schwartz, S. J. and B. L. Zamboanga. 2008. "Testing Berry's Model of Acculturation: A Confirmatory La tent Class Approach." Cultur Divers Ethnic Minor Psychol 14(4):275 -85. Schwartz, Seth J. and Jennifer B. Unger. 2010. "Biculturalism and Context: What Is Biculturalism, and When Is It Adaptive?: Commentary on Mistry and Wu." Human Development 53(1):26 -32. Sears, David O., Jim Sidanius and Lawrence Bobo. 2000. Racialized Politics : The Debate About Racism in America . Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Seber, George AF and Alan J Lee. 2003. Linear Regression Analysis . Hoboken, N.J: Wiley -Interscience. Seber, George AF and Alan J Lee. 2012. Linear Regression Analysis , Vol. 936: John Wiley & Sons. Serpe, Richard T. 1987. "Stability and Change in Self: A Structural Symbolic Interactionist Explanation." Social Psychology Quarterly 50(1):44 -55. Sidanius, Jim and Felicia Pratto. 1999. Social Dominance : An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression . Cambridge, UK ; New York: Cambridge University Press. Sigelman, Lee and Susan Welch. 1993. "The Contact Hypothesis Revisited: Black -White Interaction and Positive Racial Attitudes." Social Forces 71(3):781 -95. Skocpol, Theda and Vanessa Williamson. 2012. The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism . Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press. Spearman, Charles. 1904. "" Genera l Intelligence," Objectively Determined and Measured." The American Journal of Psychology 15(2):201 -92. %,&!Spickard, Paul R. 1992. "The Illogic of American Racial Categories." in Racially Mixed People in America , edited by M. P. Root. London, UK: Sage Publications. Stets, Jan E. and Peter J. Burke. 2000. "Identity Theory and Social Identity Theory." Social Psychology Quarterly 63(3):224 -37. Stevens, James. 2009. Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences . New York: Routledge. Strauss, A nselm L. 1978. Negotiations : Varieties, Contexts, Processes, and Social Order . San Francisco: Jossey -Bass. Stryker, Sheldon. 1980. Symbolic Interactionism : A Social Structural Version . Menlo Park, Calif.: Benjamin/Cummings Pub. Co. Stryker, Sheldon. 19 81. "Symbolic Interactionism: Themes and Variations." Pp. xxiv, 776 p. in Social Psychology : Sociological Perspectives , edited by M. Rosenberg, R. H. Turner and American Sociological Association. Section on Social Psychology. New York: Basic Books, Inc. Stryker, Sheldon and Richard T. Serpe. 1994. "Identity Salience and Psychological Centrality: Equivalent, Overlapping, or Complementary Concepts?". Social Psychology Quarterly 57(1):16 -35. Stryker, Sheldon and Peter J. Burke. 2000. "The Past, Present, an d Future of an Identity Theory." Social Psychology Quarterly 63(4):284 -97. Stryker, Sheldon, Timothy J. Owens and Robert W. White. 2000. Self, Identity, and Social Movements . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Swaroop, Sapna and Maria Krysan. 2 011. "The Determinants of Neighborhood Satisfaction: Racial Proxy Revisited." Demography 48(3):1203 -29. Sweetland, Julie. 2002. "Unexpected but Authentic Use of an Ethnically -Marked Dialect." Journal of Sociolinguistics 6(4):514 -36. Swidler, Ann. 1986. "Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies." American Sociological Review 51(2):273 -86. Szapocznik, Jos”, Mercedes Arca Scopetta, William Kurtines and Maria de los Angeles Aranalde. 1978. "Szapocznik Value Acculturation Scale." Tabac hnick, Barbara G. and Linda S. Fidell. 2013. Using Multivariate Statistics . Boston: Pearson Education. %,'!Tajfel, Henri. 1982. "Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations." Annual Review of Psychology 33(1):1 -39. Taras, Vas. 2008. "Instruments for Measuring Acculturation." Vol. http://ucalgary.ca/~taras/_private/Acculturation_Survey_Catalogue.pdf: University of Calgary. Tarman, Christopher and David O. Sears. 2005. "The Conceptualization and Measurement of Symbolic Racism." The Journal of Politics 67(3):731 -61. Tatalovich, Raymond. 1995. Nativism Reborn?: The Official English Language Movement and the American States : U niversity Press of Kentucky. Tavakol, Mohsen and Reg Dennick. 2011. "Making Sense of Cronbach's Alpha." International journal of medical education 2:53. Taylor, Marylee C. 1995. "White Backlash to Workplace Affirmative Action: Peril or Myth?". Social Fo rces 73(4):1385 -414. Taylor, Marylee C. 1998. "How White Attitudes Vary with the Racial Composition of Local Populations: Numbers Count." American Sociological Review 63(4):512 -35. Trimble, Joseph E. 2007. "Prolegomena for the Connotation of Construct Use in the Measurement of Ethnic and Racial Identity." Journal of Counseling Psychology 54(3):247 -58. Tsai, Jeanne L., Yu -Wen Ying and Peter A. Lee. 2000. "The Meaning of 'Being Chinese' and 'Being American'. Variation among Chinese American Young Adults ." Journal of Cross -Cultural Psychology 31(3):302 -32. Tuan, Mia. 1998. Forever Foreigners or Honorary Whites? : The Asian Ethnic Experience Today . New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press. Tyler, Tom R. 2005. "Policing in Black and White: Ethnic Group Differences in Trust and Confidence in the Police." Police Quarterly 8(3):322 -42. Van Ausdale, Debra and Joe R. Feagin. 2001. The First R : How Children Learn Race and Racism . Lanham, Md.: Ro wman & Littlefield. Van den Berghe, Pierre L. 1967. Race and Racism; a Comparative Perspective . New York,: Wiley. Verkuyten, Maykel. 2005. The Social Psychology of Ethnic Identity . Hove, UK ; New York: Psychology Press. %,(!Ward, Colleen and Antony Kennedy. 1994. "Acculturation Strategies, Psychological Adjustment, and Sociocultural Competence During Cross -Cultural Transitions." International Journal of Intercultural Relations 18(3):329 -43. Ward, Colleen and Arzu Rana -Deuba. 1999. "Acculturation and Adaptat ion Revisited." Journal of Cross -Cultural Psychology 30(4):422 -42. Waters, Mary C. 1990. Ethnic Options : Choosing Identities in America . Berkeley: University of California Press. Waters, Mary C. 1999. Black Identities : West Indian Immigrant Dreams and American Realities . Cambridge, Mass.: Russell Sage Foundation Weber, Max. 2001. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism . London ; New York: Routledge. Weinstock, S. Alexander. 1964. "Some Factors That Retard or Accelerate the Rate of Accultur ation, with Special Reference to Hungarian Immigrants." Human Relations 17(4):321 -40. Weisberg, Sanford. 2005. Applied Linear Regression , Vol. 528: John Wiley & Sons. Wellman, David T. 1977. Portraits of White Racism . Cambridge, Eng. ; New York: Cambridg e University Press. Wenzel, James P. 2006. "Acculturation Effects on Trust in National and Local Government among Mexican Americans." Social Science Quarterly 87(s1):1073 -87. West, Candace and H. Zimmerman Don. 1987. "Doing Gender." Gender and Society 1(2):125 -51. West, Candace and Sarah Fenstermaker. 1995. "Doing Difference." Gender and Society 9(1):8 -37. White, Harrison C. 2008. "Identity and Control How Social Formations Emerge." Princeton: Princeton University Press,. Retrieved. (http://ezproxy.msu.edu:2047/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=tr ue&scope=site&db=e000xna&AN=503031) . Wilkins, Amy C. 2004. "Puerto Rican Wannabes: Sexual Spectacle and the Marking of Race, Class, and Gender Boundaries." Gender and Society 18(1):103 -21. Winant, Howard. 1997. "Behind Blue Eyes: Whiteness and Contemporary Us Racial Politics." New Left Re view (225):73 -88. Winant, Howard. 2001. The World Is a Ghetto : Race and Democracy since World War Ii . New York: Basic Books. %,)!Wise, Tim J. 2008. White Like Me : Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son . Brooklyn, NY: Soft Skull Press. Wolman, Benjamin B. 1985. Handbook of Intelligence : Theories, Measurements, and Applications . New York: Wiley. Wray, Matt and Annalee Newitz. 1997. White Trash : Race and Class in America . New York: Routledge. Wray, Matt. 2006. Not Quite White : White T rash and the Boundaries of Whiteness . Durham: Duke University Press. Wyatt, Robert O, Elihu Katz and Joohan Kim. 2000. "Bridging the Spheres: Political and Personal Conversation in Public and Private Spaces." Journal of communication 50(1):71 -92. Young, Iris M. 1988. "Five Faces of Oppression." Philosophical forum 19(4):270 -90. Zea, Maria Cecilia, Kimberly K Asner -Self, Dina Birman and Lydia P Buki. 2003. "The Abbreviated Multidimentional Acculturation Scale: Empirical Validation with Two Latino/Latina Samples." Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 9(2):107. Zinn, Maxine Baca and Bonnie Thornton Dill. 1996. "Theorizing Difference from Multiracial Feminism." Feminist Studies 22(2):321 -31.