Personality and Soc ial Psychology Review 1998, Vol. 2, No. 1, 18-39
CopyrightO 1998 by Lawrence Erlbaurn Associates, Inc.
Multidimensional Model of Racial Identity: A Reconceptualization of African American Racial Identity
Robert M. Sellers Department ofPsychology University ofMichigan
Mia A. Smith and J. Nicole Shelton Department ofPsychology
University of Virginia
Stephanie A. J. Rowley Department ofPsychology University ofNorth Carolina
Tabbye M. Chavous Department ofPsychology
University of Virginia
Research on African American racial identity has utilized 2 distinct approaches. The mainstream approach hasfocused on universal properties associated with ethnic and racial identities. In contrast, the underground approach hasfocused on documenting the qualitative meaning of being African American, with an emphasis on the unique cultural and historical experiences of African Americans. The Multidimensional Model ofRacial Identity (MMRI) represents a synthesis of the strengths of these two approaches. The underlying assumptions associated with the model are explored. The modelproposes 4 dimensions ofAfrican American racial identity: salience, centrality, regard, and ideology. A description of these dimensions is provided along with a discussion ofhow they interact to influence behavior at the level ofthe event. We argue that the MMRI has the potential to make contributions to traditional research objectives of both approaches, as well as to provide the impetus to explore new questions.
African Americans’ experiences in the United States differ significantly from those of members of other ethnic groups. Although many ethnic groups have ex- perienced discrimination and oppression in the United States, the form of oppression that African Americans have faced is unique. While the worthiness of other ethnic groups has often been questioned upon their arrival in American society, no other groups’ humanity was denied them by the U.S. Constitution. African Americans were defined legally as property by the United States government for almost a century. For nearly 100 years after the end of slavery, laws were enacted with the expressed purpose of making social contact between Whites and African Americans illegal. Such laws effectively relegated African Americans to the status of second-class citizens. Because they were brought to the United States against their will and
systematically deprived of access to their indigenous culture, African Americans were not afforded the choice of whether to assimilate into the new culture or retain their indigenous culture. As a result, traditional African culture has had to be grafted onto the cultural practices of the European/American society to form an original cultural expression. The African American celebration of Kwanza is a good example of this union.
As a result of their experiences with oppression in this society, the concept of race has historically played a major role in the lives of African Americans. Al- though race has dubious value as a scientific classifica- tion system, it has had real consequences for the life experiences and life opportunities of African Ameri- cans in the United States. Race is a socially constructed concept which is the defining characteristic for African American group membership. This does not deny the importance of both traditional African and African American culture in the phenomenon of racial identity in African Americans. However, American society’s somewhat arbitrary categorization of individuals into
18
Requests for reprints should be sent to Robert M. Sellers, Depart- ment of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Ml 48109- 1109. E-mail: rsellers@umich.edu.

AFRICAN AMERICAN RACIAL IDENTITY
this racial group has resulted in the psychological uni- fication of many individuals who vary a great deal in their experiences and cultural expressions. The fact that the experiences of African Americans are heterogene- ous has resulted in variability in the significance and qualitative meaning that they attribute to being a mem- ber of the Black racial group. For instance, some indi- viduals place little significance on race in defining who they are, while others may see their racial membership as the defining characteristic of their self-concept. Even when individuals place similarly high levels of signifi- cance on race in defining themselves, they may differ a great deal in what they believe it means to be Black.’ One individual may believe that being Black means congregating among other Blacks, while another may believe being Black means that one should integrate with Whites. It is the significance and meaning that African Americans place on race in defining themselves
2that we refer to as racial identity. In this article, we introduce a new model of African
American racial identity-the Multidimensional Model of Racial Identity (MMRI). This model provides a conceptual framework for understanding both the sig- nificance of race in the self-concepts of African Ameri- cans and the qualitative meanings they attribute to being members of that racial category. Along with this con- ceptual framework, we propose a mechanism by which racial identity influences individuals’ situational ap- praisals and behaviors. Before presenting the model, we highlight the potential contributions of the MMRI and place it within its historical context by presenting a brief historical review of the way in which African American racial identity has been conceptualized and investigated in the psychological literature. Next, we discuss how contemporary researchers have begun to conceptualize ethnic identity to incorporate both the significance and the meaning of their ethnic group membership. We will then describe the four dimensions that comprise the
We purposefully make a distinction in our usage of the terms Black and African American. The term Black is used as an ambiguous category that may or may not be inclusive of all persons of African descent, depending upon the individual’s viewpoint. Some African Americans conceptualize the Black reference group as a group that is made up of African Americans only. Other African Americans may hold a more Pan-African view of the Black reference group, in which anyone of African descent is considered to be Black. Thus, we use the term Black when referring to the individuals’ own pheno- menological view ofthe make-up of their reference group. In contrast, we use the term African American to refer to those individuals of African descent who have received a significant portion of their socialization in the United States. Thus, the term African American is culturally bound to a group of people within the context of Ameri- can society.
Although some researchers have argued against the term racial identity in favor of the term ethnic identity to describe group identity within African Americans (e.g., Smith, 1989), we believe the impor- tance of the concept of race in the experiences of African Americans makes the former term preferable.
MMRI as well as some preliminary evidence of its operationalization. Next, we discuss how both the sig- nificance of race and the meaning of race interact to influence behavior at both -the molecular and molar level. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of the contributions of the MMRI to our understanding of African American racial identity.
Brief History of Racial Identity Research
Racial identity has been one of the most heavily researched areas that focuses on the psychological ex- periences of African Americans. Since its infancy, ra- cial identity researchers have grappled with the signifi- cance and meaning of the construct (Cross, 1991). Much of the early research viewed African American racial identity within the context of this group’s stigma- tized status in American society, with little regard for the role of culture (Clark & Clark, 1939; R. Horowitz, 1939). Gaines and Reed (1994, 1995) refer to this research tradition as the mainstream approach. This approach primarily has focused on the universal aspects ofgroup identity, using African Americans as a specific example. In the late 1960s another group of psycholo- gists, primarily African Americans, began to redefine African American racial identity with particular empha- sis on the uniqueness of their oppression and cultural experiences. This research constitutes what Gaines and Reed (1994, 1995) refer to as the underground perspec-
3tive. Although the mainstream approach owes its roots to the work of Gordon Allport (1954), the underground approach has a lineage that dates back to the pioneering work of W. E. B. DuBois (1903).
Initially, Gaines and Reed (1994, 1995) distin- guished between the mainstream and underground ap- proaches in their analysis of the research literature on prejudice. In their analysis, these investigators sug- gested that the mainstream approach is concerned pri- marily with examining universal cognitive and affec- tive processes (biases and errors) to explain how and why individuals (regardless of race) exhibit prejudicial behavior. This approach suggests that any group can act in a prejudicial manner or display in-group bias. In contrast, the underground (or Afrocentric) approach emphasizes the historical and cultural factors associated
Gaines and Reed (1994, 1995) use the term underground to reflect the fact that the research from this approach has traditionally received relatively little recognition from the broader psychological community. Like Gaines and Reed, we do not wish to convey secretiveness or subversive activity when we use the term under- ground. The researchers within this approach have held a continuing public discourse regarding their work that has been presented and published in sources that are available to everyone. The applicability of the term underground comes from the unfortunate reality that the scholarship has been virtually ignored by mainstream psychology.
19

SELLERS, SMITH, SHELTON, ROWLEY, & CHAVOUS
with African Americans’ experiences in the United States. Prejudice is seen as more than an error or bias in cognitive processing with an associated affective re- sponse. The underground approach views racial preju- dice as a by-product of America’s history of slavery and exploitation. Racial prejudice is viewed within the con- text of the White society’s need to resolve the disso- nance between the high moral ideas that embody being an American and America’s immoral treatment of Af- rican Americans. In actuality, much of Gaines and Reed’s (1994, 1995) discussion of prejudice focuses on the differences in Allport and DuBois’s conceptualiza- tion of the identity development of African Americans in the face of prejudice.
Mainstream Approach to African American Racial Identity
Allport (1954) maintained that living in a racist environment must have negative consequences for the African American psyche. As a result, he assumed that African Americans were forced to either devalue as- pects of themselves that reminded them of the stigma of being African American, or devalue the broader society for its prejudice against them, in order to func- tion. This notion of an unhealthy, stigmatized identity was consistent with the predominant conceptualiza- tions of the African American self-concept prior to the late 1960s (Clark, 1965; R. Horowitz, 1939; Kardiner & Ovesey, 1951). Subsequently, much of the early research on African American racial identity from the mainstream perspective presumed that self-hatred was a significant aspect of the African American self-con- cept (Cross, 1991).
As the mainstream approach has matured, much of the focus has been on understanding the cognitive proc- esses and structures of different group (or social) iden- tities within the self-concept (e.g., Cheek & Briggs, 1982; Gurin & Markus, 1988; Hogg, 1992; Markus, 1977; Oakes, Haslam, & Turner, 1994; J. C. Turner & Oakes, 1989) while ignoring the unique experiences of each group. For mainstream researchers, racial identity within African Americans is simply one example of these processes. The focus has been on assessing the common psychological structures associated with group identities of different racial/ethnic groups. Based on this focus, mainstream researchers tend to employ measures of group identity that are applicable to mem- bers of a variety of groups (e.g., Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992; Phinney, 1992). For example, Luhtanen and Crocker (1992) developed a collective self-esteem scale that measures individuals’ attitudes and feelings about a group with which they strongly identify. The refer- ence group individuals choose may be based on race, gender, ethnicity, region, occupation, or something else. Presumably, persons’ responses to a particular
group are comparable to the responses of another group they may select or even to other persons’ responses to different groups. Phinney’s (1990, 1992) measure of ethnic identity emphasizes a universal process that is associated with individuals’ development of an ethnic identity. Phinney de-emphasizes the unique history and experiences associated which each ethnic group in fa- vor of promoting a generic model that emphasizes the similarities across ethnic groups so that comparisons can be made across them.
The mainstream approach to racial/ethnic identity has tended to focus on the significance of race or ethnicity in individual lives. For instance, both Phinney (1992) and Crocker (Crocker & Luhtanen, 1990) have a concept in their model that deals with the importance individuals place on their racial/ethnic group member- ship. Crocker and her colleagues address this dimension of racial identity with their membership subscale in the Collective Self-Esteem measure (Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992). Phinney also measures a similar construct in her Multi-Group Ethnic Identity measure (Phinney, 1992). To their credit, Crocker and her colleagues distinguish between the significance of race to an individual’s self-concept and the affective and evaluative feelings that the individual holds for his or her racial/ethnic group by delineating a separate construct that they call private self-esteem. Cross (1991) notes the historical importance of making such a distinction in investigat- ing racial identity and self-esteem in African Americans as some of our recent research on the relationship between racial identity and self-esteem suggests (Rowley, Sellers, Chavous, & Smith, in press).
In its focus on universal properties and its emphasis on the significance of a group identity to an individual, the mainstream approach also has produced a great deal of research describing contexts in which a particular group identity is most likely to be salient (e.g., Abrams, Thomas, & Hoggs, 1990; Cota & Dion, 1986; Kite, 1992; McGuire & McGuire, 1982; J. C. Turner, Oakes, Haslam, & McGarty, 1994). Research in self-categori- zation and social identity suggests that the social con- text of a particular situation can make various aspects of an individual’s identity more or less accessible to them (e.g., Abrams et al., 1990; Cota & Dion, 1986; Kite, 1992; McGuire, McGuire, Child, & Fujioka, 1978). Distinctiveness theory (McGuire et al., 1978) states that when one is confronted by a complex stimu- lus, one notices a given characteristic of the stimulus to the extent that it is distinctive in the usual environment. In other words, McGuire and colleagues have consis- tently found distinctiveness to be relevant in relation to ethnicity and gender, as well as to a host of other factors such as age, birthplace, weight, hair color, and eye color (Kite, 1992; McGuire et al., 1978; McGuire, McGuire, & Winton, 1979; McGuire & Padawer-Singer, 1976).
The mainstream approach also has provided sub- stantial evidence that making a group identity salient
20

AFRICAN AMERICAN RACIAL IDENTITY
has consequences for the way in which individuals will perceive persons who are outside of their group (e.g., Crocker & Luhtanen, 1990; Crocker & Major, 1989; Crocker & Swartz, 1985; Jackson & Sullivan, 1987; McCall & Simmons, 1978). When the context is ma- nipulated to make group membership salient, individu- als are likely to evaluate fellow members of their group more favorably than individuals outside their group. They are also likely to devalue members of the out- group. Membership in a stigmatized group also influ- ences the way individuals interpret negative feedback (Crocker & Major, 1989). Members of a stigmatized group are more likely to attribute negative feedback to prejudice than others in situations in which such an attribution is reasonable. Such external attributions seem to serve a protective function for the self-esteem (Crocker & Major, 1989).
As a whole, the mainstream approach has produced a significant body of research delineating the underly- ing structure of identity for different groups. However, in producing this important information, this approach has, until recently, placed very little attention on the qualitative meanings associated with particular ethnic and racial identity. As a result, the mainstream ap- proach has provided a view of African American racial identity that has emphasized the stigma associated with having African features in this society. In some in- stances, mainstream researchers have acknowledged the protective qualities associated with African Ameri- can racial identity (e.g., Crocker & Major, 1989), but even this acknowledgment is based on a view of Afri- can American racial identity that focuses on the stigma attached to the identity, as opposed to the experiential properties associated with the unique historical and cultural influences associated with the African Ameri- can experience.
Underground Approach to African American Racial Identity
In contrast to Allport, DuBois (1903) did not view the African American self-concept as necessarily being damaged. Although he felt that the racial oppression African Americans faced played a significant role in the development of their self-concepts, he also recognized that there were cultural influences that had a direct positive influence on African American ego develop- ment. Thus, DuBois recognized that African Americans could forge a healthy, strong self-concept even with the stigma of being devalued by the larger society. From these theoretical roots, the underground approach to racial identity developed. As noted earlier, some main- stream research has recognized that racism has not resulted in systematic self-hatred in African Americans (e.g., Crocker & Major, 1989); however, there is a clear difference between the two approaches in the emphasis
that is placed on the role that history and culture play in the qualitative and experiential meaning associated with being Black.
The underground perspective emphasizes the speci- ficity ofAfrican American racial identity. The focus has been on providing a description of what it means to be Black. In other words, the underground approach has provided identity profiles regarding individuals’ atti- tudes and beliefs associated with their membership in the Black race. These profiles may differ as a function of identity development (Cross, 1971, 1991; Milliones, 1976; Parham, 1989) or exposure to a nurturing so- ciocultural environment (Baldwin, 1984; Kambon, 1992). Nonetheless, an optimal set of beliefs and atti- tudes regarding one’s race are either implicitly or ex- plicitly stated. Researchers differ in their criteria for determining what constitutes an optimal identity. This criteria ranges from an ability to survive in a racist environment (Parham, 1989) to a biogenetically prede- termined state of identity (Baldwin, 1984; Kambon, 1992).
DuBois (1903) eloquently articulated the double consciousness that resulted from the inherent struggle of being both a “Negro” and an American. Because of the inherent conflict between America’s overwhelm- ingly negative view of the Negro and the Negro’s own view of him or herself, the essential task of healthy ego development in African Americans becomes the rec- onciliation of the discrepancy between his or her Afri- can self and his or her American self. Not surprisingly, the tension between the individual’s “blackness” and the broader White society plays a central role in the way theorists from the underground perspective at- tempt to define the meaning of being Black. However, there is great variability in the way that this tension is conceptualized in definitions of what it means to be Black. Some theorists view identification with one’s blackness and identification with the broader White society as being two separate endpoints on a single continuum (e.g., Baldwin, 1984). Others view them as two separate dimensions on which individuals fall (e.g., Boykin, 1983). Still others conceptualize excep- tionally strong identification with all things Black as being an important step within the process of develop- ing an integrated identity (e.g., Cross, 1991). Theorists from the underground approach also recognize that the meaning of being Black is not only influenced by experiences of racism, but also incorporates cultural experiences from African Americans’ historical and contemporary experiences in America and Africa (e.g., Azibo, 1989; Baldwin, 1980, 1984; Cross, 1971,1991; Kambon, 1992; Milliones, 1976; Smith, 1991; J. L. White & Parham, 1990). As a result, many Afrocentric theorists consider it to be inappropriate to use models based on the experiences of other ethnic groups to explain the experiences of African Americans (Akbar, 1984; Azibo, 1991; Baldwin, 1984).
21

SELLERS, SMITH, SHELTON, ROWLEY, & CHAVOUS
Perhaps the most widely used model of African American racial identity within the underground per- spective is Cross’s model of Nigrescence (Cross, 1971, 1991). The Nigrescence model describes five stages of racial identity development that African Americans experience as they develop a psychologically healthy Black identity (Cross, 1971, 1991; Helms, 1990; Parham, 1989). Although the model has been adapted to investigate the group identities of members of other groups, the Nigrescence model was originally proposed to describe the unique cultural and structural experi- ences associated with becoming Black in the United States (Cross, 197 1). Recently, Cross (1991) revised the model and broadened each stage to include more di- verse experiences. Briefly, in the first stage, preencoun- ter, individuals do not believe that race is an important component of their identity. This may include an ide- alization of the dominant White society or simple place- ment of more emphasis on another identity component such as gender or religion. Individuals in the second stage, encounter, are faced with a profound experience or a collection of events directly linked to their race. This experience encourages individuals to reexamine their current identity and find or further develop their Black identity. This experience can be either positive or negative (Cross, 1991). The third stage, immer- sion/emersion, is described as being extremely pro- Black and antiwhite. Externally, individuals are ob- sessed with identifying with Black culture, but internally they have not made the commitment to en- dorse all values and traditions associated with being Black. The fourth stage, internalization, is charac- terized by having a feeling of inner security and satis- faction about being Black. Moreover, individuals at this stage tend to have a less idealized view regarding the meaning of race. They are able to see both the positive and negative elements of being Black or White. Inter- nalization-commitment, the final stage, represents those individuals who translate their internalized identities into action.
Parham and Helms (1981) developed the Racial Identity Attitudes Scale (RIAS) to operationalize the Nigrescence model. The RIAS measures attitudes that are representative of attitudes individuals are likely to hold toward the self, Blacks, and Whites as they trans- verse through the four stages. Attitudes are predicted to change from antiblack or low race salience (preencoun- ter); to attitude flux (encounter); to pro-Black with reference to antiwhite attitudes (immersion-emersion); to pro-Black without reference to White attitudes. The latest version of the RIAS is a 50-item scale in which respondents use a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) to indicate the extent to which each item represents their attitudes (Helms & Parham, 1990). There has been some concern regarding the reliability of the subscales (Ponterotto & Wise, 1987), and some authors have
questioned whether the use of an attitude scale is able to capture the complexity of African American racial identity (Akbar, 1989).