AFRICAN AMERICAN RACIAL IDENTITY

identities within an individual’s self-concept interact and affect his or her experiences. Too often racial identity is studied within a vacuum. Racial identity is likely to interact with other identities within the self- concept in such a way as to change its meaning for the person. For instance, it is quite possible that African American women’s racial ideology may vary according to the ideologies associated with their gender identity. There may even be gender differences in racial ideology as a result of differences in the meaning of gender for African American men and women. These are testable research questions within the framework of the MMRI.

Another contribution of the MMRI is in the way it addresses what constitutes the optimal racial identity. The underground perspective has argued that the indi- vidual’s perceptions with regard to the meaning of being African American are a function of both the person’s unique culture and his or her experiences as a member of an oppressed group (e.g., Akbar, 1984; Cross, 1991; Kambon, 1992; Milliones, 1980; Nobles, 1991). As a result, underground models have tended to employ methodologies that are sensitive to the individ- ual differences in African American identity. How- ever, in describing the diversity of the meaning of being African American, most theorists and re- searchers have attempted to define what constitutes the optimum African American racial identity. Unfortu- nately, many of these definitions of the optimum iden- tity are based on untested and/or untestable assump- tions and criteria (Sellers, 1993). In some instances, the criteria used to determine the optimum identity are so confounded with the measures of identity themselves that the model itself becomes hopelessly unfalsifiable (e.g., Kambon, 1992).

In our conceptualization of racial identity, we do not propose any hierarchy with respect to the inherent value of any particular ideology. Any evaluation of the func- tionality of a particular ideology differs according to which criterion is used to define functionality. For example, a person who values the survival of African American culture as a unique and separate way of life may be more likely to see a nationalist ideology as being optimal. On the other hand, a person who values the acceptance of African Americans by the broader American society may view an assimilationist ideology as being optimal. Even if consensus existed on a crite- rion (such as psychological well-being) to be used to determine an optimal ideology, it is likely that such a definition would have to be environmentally specific. Different environments are likely to be more hospitable for different racial ideologies which may, in turn, con- tribute to different levels of well-being. For instance, a nationalist ideology is probably more likely to be asso- ciated with positive well-being in an all-African Ameri- can environment than in an all-White environment. In any event, our conceptualization of ideology allows researchers to test such a hypothesis.

The MMRI also has the potential to contribute to the extensive literature on stereotyping. It has been noted that the stereotype literature has tended to focus on those who hold stereotypes with relatively little atten- tion being paid to the effects of such stereotypes on the stigmatized group (Devine, Evett, & Vasquez-Suson, 1996). Recently, Steele and his colleagues have pro- posed a model of stereotype threat which suggests that members of a stigmatized group are vulnerable to per- formance deficits in tasks for which their group is stereotyped as being inferior (Steele, 1997; Steele & Aronson, 1995). Steele and Aronson (1995) have re- ported evidence that African American college students performed poorer on a reading comprehension task when their race was made salient to them. They suggest that it does not matter whether the person believes the stereotype; what is important is that the person knows that the stereotype exists. In their description of stereo- type threat, Steele and Aronson do not discuss whether all African Americans would be susceptible or what factors might lead to individual differences to vulner- ability to the effect. The MMRI suggests that the mean- ing and significance that the individual places on race may moderate the stereotype threat effect. In particular, individuals who are more race central may need fewer race cues in the environment for race to become more salient during a particular task. As a result, they may be more susceptible to such an effect. However, this effect may also be moderated by the extent to which the individual believes that other groups hold those nega- tive stereotypes about the group (public regard). A person who does not believe that others hold such stereotypes may be less vulnerable to the effect. Finally, it is still an open question as to whether a person’s own beliefs about whether African Americans are less capa- ble on a task will influence the stereotype threat effect. In sum, the MMRI has the potential to further explicate person characteristics which may result in greater dif- ferentiation in the impact of stereotype threat on the performance of African Americans.

Perhaps the most important contribution of the MMRI is that it delineates a process by which racial identity may influence behavior at the level of the event through its conceptualization of racial identity. This issue is one that has been overlooked by both the mainstream and the underground literatures. Previously racial identity has been linked primarily to trans-situ- ational phenomena (e.g., self-esteem, GPA). While such studies have provided useful information regard- ing what outcomes racial identity is related to, these studies have been unable to delineate how racial identity is related to these outcomes. Because trans-situational phenomena are comprised of a number of individual events, one must be able to examine racial identity at the level of the specific situation. Without a process variable such as salience, one is forced to assume that all individuals in the situation will have the same level

33

SELLERS, SMITH, SHELTON, ROWLEY, & CHAVOUS

of race salience in the situation. Such an assumption is only tenable during events where the situational cues are so strong that they overpower any individual differ- ences in centrality (e.g., Klu Klux Klan meeting). How- ever, the vast majority of events are ones in which there is some ambiguity with respect to the situational cues that are present. In such situations, we expect individual differences in levels of race salience. The concept of salience allows us to account for that individual differ- ence in our assessment of behavior. As a result, we are able to make more precise predictions and account for a greater amount of the variance in our measurement models of the relation between racial identity and be- havior at the level of the event.

Racial Identity Versus Identity of Racial Groups

Recently, a number of mainstream researchers also have begun to explore the content of the identities of members of ethnic minority groups (Deaux, 1993; Ethier & Deaux, 1990, 1994; Gurin, Hurtado, & Peng, 1994; Oyserman, Gant, & Ager, 1995). This research suggests that ethnic minorities have rich-i sophisticated notions of self that are not homogenous. Identity in ethnic minority members is influenced by their social context (Deaux, 1993; Oyserman et al., 1995), as well as other social structures such as nativity (Gurin et al., 1994), to produce unique conceptualizations of the self. For instance, Gurin and her colleagues examined the differences in the way in which a sample of Mexi- cano and a sample of Chicano respondents described themselves as individuals. They define Mexicanos as Spanish-dominant persons born in Mexico and Chica- nos as English-dominant persons born in the United States. The respondents chose all the cards that de- scribed them from a set of 32 cards with labels covering a variety of ethnic, familial, cultural, class, and color terms. Using confirmatory factor analysis, Gurin et al. (1994) found that Chicanos demonstrated more differ- entiated identities (greater number of factors) than the Mexicanos. The content of the Chicano identities con- sisted of such factors as Farmworker, Working Class, U.S./Middle Class, Binational, Latino, Political Raza, and Family, while the content of the Mexicanos con- sisted of such factors as Working Class, Middle Class, Binational, Panraza, and Family Cultural Identifica- tion.

However, there is an important distinction between this research and the underground approach to under- standing racial identity in African Americans. The former research has focused on the content of identities of individuals who are members of particular ethnic and racial groups. Findings from these studies provide information about the way that individuals in particular ethnic and racial groups construct their own personal

self-concepts with their race and/or ethnicity as a back- drop. As such, this approach takes into consideration not only membership in their ethnic group, but other group and personal identities that are central to the way that each individual views him or herself (e.g., class, family). Thus, the focus of this work is on the “self-con- cepts” of members of particular ethnic and racial groups.

In contrast, researchers within the underground approach have tended to focus more on the meaning of being a member of a particular group-Blacks. The individual’s identification with his or her mem- bership in the Black group is the only group identity that is relevant. In most instances, the researchers provide an a priori definition of what it means to be Black and the individual’s level of racial identity is assessed according to that definition. Other group and personal identities that the individual may pos- sess are not seen as particularly relevant. This is, in part, because many of the underground approaches to Black identity implicitly assert that a strong identifi- cation with race is a necessary part of a healthy Black identity and that the emphasis of another group iden- tity over one’s racial group is unhealthy (Baldwin, 1984). Thus, the underground approach to studying racial identity is concerned solely with that aspect of African Americans’ self-concept that is associated with their race.

The conceptualization of the MMRI is more consis- tent with the tradition of the underground approach. The MMRI is concerned with African Americans’ attitudes and beliefs associated with their membership in the Black racial group. The MMRI does not address di- rectly the content of African Americans’ self-concept outside of the significance and meaning the individual attaches to being Black. This does not mean that the MMRI is incompatible with a more multidetermined view of the African American self-concept. On the contrary, we believe that African Americans’ beliefs about what it means to be Black can play a significant role in shaping their self-concepts if they view race as a defining characteristic (Rowley et al., in press). Whereas research such as that produced by Gurin and her colleagues (Gurin et al., 1994) take a macro view of the various identity components found in the self-con- cepts of members of ethnic groups, the MMRI repre- sents a micro view of a particular identity component within the self-concept of African Americans. Thus, research on the content of the self-concept of African Americans can provide breadth to our understanding of what identity components play a role in the self-con- cepts of African Americans, while research from the underground perspective (including the MMRI) can provide important information about the depth of a particular identity dimension. Both are needed for a comprehensive, textured, and layered understanding of the self-concepts of African Americans.

34