Prosocial Involvement Among African American Young Adults

Abstract

Prosocial involvement is conceptualized as support for or engaging in behaviors that contribute to or benefit African American communities. The current study examines the relationship between prosocial involvement and race-related factors among 303 African American college students. Using two underlying dimensions of prosocial involvement, prosocial attitudes and prosocial behaviors, models were tested to examine racial discrimination and racial identity as predictors of prosocial involvement. Overall, participants showed strong support for prosocial involvement. Racial discrimination, racial centrality, and private regard were positively related to both dimensions of prosocial involvement. There was also a positive association between nationalist and assimilation ideology with prosocial attitudes. Findings from this study highlight the complexity of prosocial involvement and the relevance of race-related factors among African American college students.

Keywords

prosocial involvement discrimination racial identity college students

Prosocial involvement is conceptualized as supporting or engaging in behaviors that contribute to or benefit African American communities (Mattis et al., 2004). It includes attitudes supporting or engagement in volunteering, political participation, organizational membership, mentoring, or any other social justice behavior that advances African American communities and families. The 2006 Civic and Political Health of the Nation Survey (Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement [CIRCLE], 2006) found that young African Americans were more involved in political activities (e.g., voting, membership in political organizations, donating money to political organizations, contacting media) than any other racial or ethnic group. This leaves little doubt that a substantial number of young African Americans are engaged in mainstream prosocial activities of society. However, the current study focuses explicitly on prosocial involvement and social responsibility traditions within the racial group (see Du Bois, 1981; Shaw, 1996; Slevin, 2005). Sanchez-Jankowski (2002) argues that oppressed groups are likely to show less interest in helping the general public, but are more inclined to engage in activities that directly benefit their group. Stoll (2001) examined prosocial involvement among African American, Latino, White, and Asian adults. Findings revealed that African Americans were more likely than any other group to be involved in organizations and activities that benefitted their racial community. Furthermore, a qualitative study by Carson (2009) found that African American college students involved with Black student organizations and events felt a particular responsibility to give back to the African American community.

Previous scholars have focused on one aspect of prosocial involvement: prosocial behaviors. While investigating predictors and outcomes related to prosocial behaviors is worthwhile, this approach ignores the complexity of prosocial involvement, as it is a multifaceted phenomenon. There is no doubt that prosocial behaviors are integral to our understanding of prosocial involvement, but individuals also hold particular attitudes about being involved in activities and engaging in behaviors that benefit the racial group. Surprisingly, investigations of prosocial attitudes are relatively rare in the psychological literature. This is a limitation in the prosocial involvement literature as it is likely that individual’s engagement in prosocial behaviors is at least partially influenced by their prosocial attitudes. Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that structural constraints (e.g., time, money) can inhibit engagement in prosocial behaviors (Verba, Schlozman, & Brady, 1995). For instance, some prosocial behaviors require extensive time commitments that may be difficult for individuals to meet. While individuals in these types of circumstances may hold attitudes that support a particular effort or cause, external life situations may render them unable to actually engage in prosocial behaviors (McAdam, 1986; Wall, 1995). Frankly, greater insight is garnered when prosocial involvement is investigated using a multidimensional perspective, as studying both dimensions provides greater information about prosocial involvement than either dimension alone.

Racial Discrimination

Scholars suggest that African Americans’ fervor for prosocial involvement within the racial group is influenced by the hardships they experience in a society that devalues their racial status. As a group, African Americans continue to experience inequities in the educational, criminal justice, and economic sectors. Within the education realm, the majority of African American school jurisdictions often lack the tangible and intangible resources found in predominantly White jurisdictions (Brooks-Gunn, Klebanov, & Duncan, 1996). In the criminal justice system, African Americans are more likely to receive the death penalty (Jacobs, Carmichael, & Kent, 2005) and more likely to receive harsher sentences than individuals from other racial groups when they commit similar crimes (Bushway & Piehl, 2001). The economic pursuits of African Americans are also challenged by housing discrimination (Lauren & Robert, 2004; Ross & Turner, 2005) and unfair loan practices (Williams, Nesiba, & McConnell, 2005). Essentially, the rights and opportunities made available to individuals of other racial and ethnic groups are sometimes denied to African Americans. However, racial discrimination does not just occur at the institutional level. Over half of African Americans have personally experienced discrimination as a result of their race (Ren, Amick, & Williams, 1999). These experiences do not occur without consequence. Previous research suggests that racial discrimination is harmful to individual’s psychological well-being (Deitch et al., 2003; Sanders Thompson, 2002).

While experiencing racial discrimination has clear implications for African Americans’ general well-being, these encounters also inform individual’s contextual understanding of the world around them and may communicate subtle messages about the value and significance of African Americans in society. For instance, experiencing racial discrimination may draw attention to the social inequities and disparities that exist between African Americans and other racial/ethnic groups. Recognition of these inequities, as well as other factors, may help form individuals’ perspectives on prosocial involvement. Ultimately, encountering racial discrimination is not a positive experience for African Americans, but these encounters may act as transformative experiences and motivate individuals to get involved in efforts to benefit the racial group.

Mattis et al. (2004) conducted one of the few examinations of racial discrimination and prosocial involvement. Specifically, Mattis and colleagues investigated the relationship between prosocial behaviors and racial discrimination among an adult sample of African American men. Findings revealed that individuals who perceived racial discrimination as more stressful were more likely to belong to a social justice organization. The authors suggested that experiencing the stress of discrimination may motivate individuals to work toward equality and social justice for their racial group. Frankly, some African Americans may engage in prosocial involvement as a means of coping with the negative experiences of racial discrimination. Like racial identity (Banks & Kohn-Wood, 2007) and family-level variables (Neblett et al., 2008), prosocial involvement may act as a resilience factor for individuals who encounter racial discrimination. Resilience is defined as factors and processes that reduce the likelihood of negative outcomes when individuals face adversity and risk (Garmezy, 1991; Rutter, 1987). Relevant to the current study, prosocial involvement may provide individuals with an outlet to vent the frustrations and stress typically associated with racial discrimination encounters. By becoming involved in positive activities in the African American community and endorsing prosocial involvement, it is possible that individuals are protected from the negative consequences commonly associated with racial discrimination (S. L. Sellers, Bonham, Neighbors, & Amell, 2009). While prosocial involvement is intended to benefit and serve the African American community, it is also plausible that prosocial involvement is a vehicle for African Americans to exhibit resiliency in the face of racial discrimination and marginalization. However, examining prosocial involvement only from a racial discrimination perspective suggests that African American’s desire to engage in activities that benefit the racial group is solely dependent on how they are treated by others; this is likely not the case.

Racial Identity

While racial discrimination encounters are a fact of life for many African Americans, their experiences and perceptions of themselves in this society are much more complex and dynamic than racial discrimination alone. As such, there are a multitude of other factors that influence whether individuals are engaged in prosocial behaviors. Social identity theory posits that individuals who identify more with a particular group and perceive themselves as disadvantaged compared with other groups will be more likely to engage in collective action. However, there is a need to move beyond the global idea of social identity and consider how specific aspects of identity are related to prosocial involvement. Given the salience of race in this society and the marginalization of African Americans, early theories of African American prosocial involvement suggested that African Americans engaged in prosocial behaviors to mitigate feelings of inferiority (Myrdal, Sterner, & Rose, 1944), or because prosocial involvement was encouraged by members of the racial group with whom they felt a common bond (Lane, 1959). While these theories attempted to use individuals’ attitudes and feelings about race as explanations for their prosocial involvement, it is now obvious that their theories did not address the complexity of African American racial identity. Recent advances in the racial-identity literature now allow for a more targeted examination of the relationship between prosocial involvement and racial identity.

Racial identity, or the meaning and significance individuals attribute to their racial status (R. M. Sellers, Smith, Shelton, Rowley, & Chavous, 1998), has been critically important in explaining African Americans’ racial attitudes and feelings. While multiple perspectives have been put forth to explain how African Americans come to think about race, one framework in particular has proven especially useful in the study of racial identity: the multidimensional model of racial identity (MMRI; R. M. Sellers et al., 1998). The MMRI posits that there are several dimensions to racial identity: salience, centrality, regard, and ideology. Salience refers to the extent to which one’s race is relevant to them at a particular time. It is a momentary conceptualization of racial identity, dependent on the context of the situation. Conversely, centrality refers to the extent to which an individual normatively defines herself or himself with regard to race. Unlike salience, this is a stable construct, and not dependent on context. Regard is the individual’s affective and evaluative judgment of her or his race. There is a private and a public component to this dimension. Private regard refers to how positive or negative a person feels about being a member of the racial group while public regard addresses how positively or negatively one believes what others feel about African Americans. Ideology is composed of four concepts: nationalist, minority, assimilationist, and humanist. Nationalist ideology refers to the unique experience of being African American; minority ideology refers to the extent to which individuals believe that there are commonalties with other minority groups; assimilation ideology captures the extent to which persons identify with their mainstream identity in place of their African American identity; and humanist ideology concentrates on the commonalities between all humans, regardless of group membership. The MMRI has been used to study an array of outcomes among African Americans, including mental health (R. M. Sellers, Caldwell, Schmeelk-Cone, & Zimmerman, 2003), academic engagement (Smalls, White, Chavous, & Sellers, 2007), and alcohol use (Caldwell, Sellers, Bernat, & Zimmerman, 2004). Generally, these studies suggest that holding race as central to the self and feeling positive about being African American (private regard) is associated with more positive outcomes.

Given the current study’s conceptualization of prosocial involvement, it is plausible that the extent to which an individual identifies with the racial group, how he or she feels about being a member of the group, and the meaning he or she attaches to his or her racial status is linked to his or her endorsement of prosocial involvement. One can expect that general attitudes, feelings, and behaviors regarding race should show some degree of consistency among each other. For instance, if individuals do not distinguish between African Americans and other racial/ethnic groups, they may not believe prosocial involvement is important. Similarly, individuals may be less concerned with contributing to the racial group if they do not hold their race as central to their self-concept. Chavous (2000) investigated the relationship between racial centrality and organizational involvement among African American college students and found that individuals who held race as central to their identity also reported greater involvement in African American organizations. Mitchell and Dell (1992) reported comparable findings. Examining the link between racial identity and prosocial involvement among college students is particularly important, as emerging adulthood is a time where individuals of all racial and ethnic backgrounds gain autonomy and begin to consider issues of identity in ways they have not before (Arnett, 2000; Arnett & Brody, 2008). African American emerging adults may also seek out opportunities to be involved in activities that focus on African American interests and issues so that they can become more knowledgeable about their racial heritage, the racial group, and matters concerning the racial community. As these individuals endure the challenges of young adulthood, as well as continue with the process of identity development, they may demonstrate a strong desire to be involved in activities and organizations with other African Americans contributing to the racial community. Considering racial identity may be particularly important when investigating prosocial involvement among African American emerging adults.

However, keeping in mind the complexity of racial identity, it is not clear how the meaning individuals attribute to their racial status is related to prosocial involvement. While previous scholars have speculated about the relationship between prosocial involvement and other dimensions of racial identity, few attempts have been made to investigate the relationship between prosocial involvement and racial ideologies. This is troubling, given R. M. Sellers and colleagues’ (1998) assertion that racial ideologies are discernible in an individual’s cultural and social activities and political practices. Racial ideologies (nationalist, minority, assimilation, and humanist ideologies) may be particularly influential in understanding African Americans’ prosocial involvement because they tap into individuals’ beliefs about how African Americans should live and interact in society (R. M. Sellers et al., 1998).

The Present Study

Opportunities to contribute to the racial community are varied across the life span. However, there are points during the life cycle when individuals have greater opportunities to become members of organizations, participate in social justice activities, volunteer, and so on. The college environment is ripe with prospects for young African Americans to be involved in prosocial behaviors and to develop prosocial attitudes. However, these opportunities are also presented during a time when individuals are confronted with new life experiences and are engaging in continued identity exploration, particularly around matters of race. During this time of life transition and identity exploration (Arnett & Brody, 2008), young African Americans may gravitate toward race-based organizations and activities that benefit the racial group while others may not. Given the saliency of race in the lives of many African American college students and their evolving racial-identity development, the current study investigates the role racial discrimination and racial identity may play in explaining the individual differences that exist in individuals’ prosocial involvement. Examining this relationship is important for several reasons. First, there has been much discussion about the negative impact of racial discrimination on African Americans. While this study does not dispute these assertions, it is also important to identify instances where African Americans are resilient despite such negative experiences. Engagement in prosocial behaviors may be one example of African Americans’ emerging adults’ resilience despite encountering racial discrimination. Engagement in prosocial behaviors may also provide opportunities for these individuals to fight against the type of racial discrimination they experienced in their own lives. Second, previous literature has clearly demonstrated relationships between racial identity with mental health and academic outcomes for this population. As a greater understanding of racial identity continues to evolve, it is critical that we begin to understand how racial identity can be used as a tool to benefit the larger African American community. Finally, prosocial involvement is critical to the well-being and functioning of all segments of society, particularly marginalized groups. Marginalized groups often face systemic and institutional challenges (inadequate funding, denied access, reduced funding, etc.) that place members of the group at greater risk for negative outcomes. Fortunately, these challenges are often addressed by individual members of the group who want to contribute to the racial community and see it succeed, despite the challenges they face. As the nation endures difficult economic times, it is possible that these challenges will persist for several years to come. The contributions and efforts of everyday citizens are vital to the groups’ prosperity. It is important that we begin to understand what motivates prosocial involvement so that we may encourage prosocial involvement within the racial group to continue to meet the needs of the larger community.

Investigating the relationship between prosocial attitudes and behaviors with racial discrimination and racial identity will aide our efforts in addressing the complexity of African Americans’ emerging adults’ prosocial involvement. Most investigations of African Americans prosocial involvement have focused on racial discrimination or racial identity. The present study suggests both factors are critical and must be examined in tandem to gain a complete understanding of the role they play in prosocial involvement. Furthermore, in exploring the relationships between prosocial attitudes and behaviors with racial discrimination, and the centrality, regard, and ideology dimensions of racial identity, this research sought to explain the additive relationship between racial discrimination and racial-identity variables on dimensions of prosocial involvement among African American college students who attended predominantly White (PWIs) and historically Black institutions (HBIs).

Based on previous research (Mattis et al., 2004), it was predicted that individuals who reported more frequent experiences with discrimination would also show greater endorsement for prosocial involvement in the African American community. However, the lens through which African Americans perceive discrimination, and other aspects of their lived experience, is through their racial identity. Hence, the current study also seeks to understand the unique relationship between prosocial involvement and dimensions of racial identity. The additive effects of centrality, regard, and ideology are examined as predictors of prosocial involvement. In-line with past research (Chavous, 2000; Lane, 1959; Miller, Gurin, Gurin, & Malanchuk, 1981; Mitchell & Dell, 1992; Myrdal et al., 1944), it was predicted that individuals who held race as central to their self-concept would report endorsement of prosocial attitudes and engagement in prosocial behaviors. Though previous theories of African Americans’ prosocial involvement argued that African Americans’ engagement was influenced by feelings of racial inferiority, no research has been presented to lend credence to this perspective. Furthermore, other scholars have found that most African Americans feel at least somewhat positive about their racial status (Rowley, Sellers, Chavous, & Smith, 1998). In light of this, it was hypothesized that there would be a positive relationship between private regard and prosocial attitudes and behaviors. Considering previous work (see Rivas-Drake, 2008; Sanchez-Jankowski, 2002), it was also predicted that there would be a negative relationship between public regard and dimensions of prosocial involvement. Though this area of research is limited, there is some previous literature to link discrimination, racial centrality, and regard to dimensions of prosocial involvement. Yet efforts to assess the relationship between prosocial attitudes and behaviors with racial ideologies are absent from the literature. To examine this relationship further, nationalist, minority, assimilation, and humanist ideologies were added to the final block of the model. Because there is limited literature examining the relationship between prosocial involvement and the meaning individuals attribute to their racial status, no a priori hypotheses were drawn regarding the relationship between prosocial involvement and the ideology dimensions of the MMRI.

Method

Participants

Three hundred and three self-identified African American college students were recruited from three PWIs located in the Midwestern region of the country and two HBIs located in the Mid-Atlantic and Southern regions of the country. An equal number of participants were recruited from each type of institution (PWI = 152, HBI = 151). The average age of participants was 20 years (M = 20.10, SD = 3.03), and the sample was majority female (81.2%). In total, 57% of the sample reported a GPA above 3.00. The median family income reported by students was between $50,000 and $59,999, and the median level of education completed by participants’ mothers was “some college.” Overall, participants from PWIs were younger, held less senior standing in their universities, were less likely to be employed, and had higher GPAs compared with their counterparts at HBIs. With regards to parental education, students who attended HBIs reported that their parents completed fewer years of education compared with students who attended PWIs. The gender distribution was comparable across both types of institutions.

Procedures

Participants were recruited during class sessions or electronically via e-mail. During the in-class recruitment sessions, students were given an overview of the study and asked to provide their names and e-mail addresses if they would like to participate. E-mail recruitment was facilitated by collaboration with university officials who agreed to allow student e-mail addresses to be released to the researcher. Once initial contact information was obtained, potential participants were contacted via e-mail and provided with another overview of the study. A link was embedded in the e-mail and participants were asked to click on the e-mail if they would like to participate. Once interested participants clicked on the link, a new window was opened and individuals were presented with an electronic informed consent form. Individuals who consented were asked to provide an electronic signature and date. Participants were then presented with a series of questions related to their background, beliefs, experiences, feelings, and attitudes. The survey took approximately 40 minutes to complete. On completion, participants were debriefed. Each participant received $15 cash compensation for his or her participation.

Measures

Prosocial attitudes

To evaluate participant’s prosocial attitudes, a 12-item measure was developed by the researcher. Consistent with the focus of this study, these items inquire about prosocial attitudes toward the racial group in particular. The researcher reviewed the scarce literature and developed items that were conceptually consistent with prosocial involvement and social participation among African Americans. One item was dropped from the scale because it was a double-barreled item. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted with the remaining items (see Table 1). Two factors emerged, and the initial eigenvalues indicated that the first factor explained 44.86% of the variance and the second factor explained 10.73% of the variance. For a number of reasons, the one-factor solution was selected. First, only one item, “the success of the racial group is dependent on the willingness of Black people to get involved in the community,” loaded on the second factor. This item was conceptually distinct from the remaining items, as it did not inquire about what Black people should do to ensure the success of the racial community, but instead asked about the extent to which individuals believed certain factors influenced the success of the group. Statistically, this solution was also preferred because the scree plot suggests eigenvalues “leveled off” after one factor. The Cronbach alpha for the remaining 10 items was reasonable at .90. Consistent with the focus of the study, these items inquired about the prosocial actions that African Americans should take to ensure the well-being of the African American community. The scale included a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and was scored by taking the average of all items. Higher scores were suggestive of greater endorsement of prosocial attitudes. Sample items included “Black people should fight against injustice and racism,” and “Black people have a responsibility to contribute to the Black community.”

Table 1.

Factor Loadings and Communalities of Prosocial Attitudes

	Factor 1	Factor 2	Commonality
Successful Blacks should help other Blacks to succeed	.73	.13	.55
Black people should choose careers that will allow them to make change in Black communities	.64	−.05	.41
Black people should fight against injustice and racism	.74	.01	.55
Black people should attend community meetings or conferences related to Black issues	.79	.17	.66
Black people should do what they can to ensure that predominantly Black neighborhoods thrive	.84	.08	.71
Black people should be involved in the political process so that they can influence who makes decisions that affect the Black community	.67	.09	.45
Black people should tend to their own business and not worry about the larger Black community	.83	.10	.69
Black people should participate in organizations that serve Black people	.73	.18	.57
Black people have a responsibility to contribute to the Black community	.59	−.14	.36
Blacks should work toward the goal of leaving Black communities better off than they were originally	.67	−.17	.47
The success of the racial group is dependent on the willingness of Black people to get involved in the community	.22	.77	.65
Eigenvalue	5.38	1.29
Percentage of total variance	44.86	10.73

Prosocial behaviors

Prosocial behaviors were measured using 15 items. The measure assessed individuals’ involvement in civic and social justice behaviors related to improving the plight of the African American community. Participants were asked to indicate how often they engaged in each behavior in the past year. One item was removed from the scale because of low variance (“volunteered for a political campaign”). Hence, the final scale included 14 items. The Cronbach alpha for this scale was .93. This measure has a response scale ranging from 0 (never) to 3 (more than four times). The scale was scored by taking the average of all items; higher scores are indicative of more involvement in prosocial behaviors. Sample items from this scale include “Donated time or money to community service efforts geared toward Black populations” and “Tutored Black youth.”

The Racism and Life Experiences Scale

Experiences with racial discrimination were evaluated using The Racism and Life Experience Scale (α = .96). This scale consists of 18 items evaluating how often individuals have been discriminated against because of their race in the past year (Harrell, 1997). Sample items include, “In the past year, how often have you been ignored, overlooked, or not given service (in a restaurant, store, etc.) because of your race?” and “In the past year, how often were you treated rudely or disrespectfully because of your race?” The frequency of discrimination was measured using a 6-point response scale ranging from 0 (never) to 5 (once a week or more). Scores were averaged across the 18 items. Higher scores are indicative of encountering more racial discrimination.

Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity

The Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity (MIBI) was used to evaluate the stable dimensions of the MMRI (R. M. Sellers et al., 1998), which include centrality, regard, ideology. The 5-point Likert-type scale includes 1 (strongly disagree), 2 (disagree), 3 (neutral), 4 (agree), and 5 (strongly agree). Higher scores are indicative of greater endorsement of the racial-identity dimension.

The centrality three-item subscale (α = .73) measures the extent to which being Black is important to the individuals’ self-concept. Sample items include “Being Black is an important part of who I am,” and “I have a strong sense of belonging to Black people.” Regard includes two subscales: private regard and public regard. The private regard subscale (α = .82) addresses individuals’ feelings about their race and how positively or negatively they feel about being a member of their racial group. Private regard items include “I am happy that I am Black,” and “I feel good about Black people.” The three-item public regard subscale (α= .76) evaluates how positively or negatively the individual feels others view their race. Sample public regard items are “Most people think that Blacks are as smart as people from other races” and “Society views Black people as an asset.”

The ideology scale includes four subscales: the nationalist ideology, minority ideology, assimilation ideology, and humanist ideology subscales. The nationalist ideology subscale (α = .69) measures the extent to which individuals stress the uniqueness of being Black. This 3-item subscale includes items such as “Black parents should surround their children with black art and black books,” and “Black people must organize themselves into a separate Black political force.” The minority ideology subscale (α = .73), also comprising three items, assesses the individual’s belief that they share a mutual experience with other minority groups. “Being the only black kid in class is no different than being the only Latino or Asian kid in class,” and “There are other people who experience racial injustice and indignities similar to Black Americans” are included in the Minority Ideology subscale. The assimilation ideology subscale (α = .65) evaluates the extent to which individuals find similarities with mainstream society. One of the three sample items includes “Blacks should act more like Whites to be successful in this society.” The humanist ideology subscale (α = .64) endorses the similarities between all humans, regardless of race and includes three items. “Blacks should think of themselves as individuals, not as Blacks” is an item included in this subscale.

Demographic background

Individuals were asked to provide information regarding their gender (0 = male, 1 = female) and classification in school (1 = freshmen, 2 = sophomore, 3 = junior, 4 = senior). Participants also provided information about their parent’s highest level of education; these responses ranged from junior high school or less to attained PhD/MD/JD or similar-level degree.

Results

Descriptive Analyses

The means and standard deviations for major study variables are found in Table 2. Overall, high levels of support were shown for prosocial attitudes (M = 3.98, SD = 0.66), suggesting participants believe African Americans should contribute to their racial communities in some way. Participants showed greatest support for the items: “Successful Blacks should help other Blacks to succeed,” “Black people should fight against injustice and racism,” and “Black people should be involved in the political process so that they can influence who makes decisions that affect the Black community.” Participants engaged in few prosocial behaviors (M = 1.19, SD = 0.75). The most frequent civic behaviors were “Attended meetings or conferences that focused on Black issues,” “Used your education and/or career skills to contribute to the Black community in some way,” and “Made a conscious effort to stay informed about issues relevant to Black people.”

Table 2.

Means and Standard Deviations for Key Study Variables

		Total Sample		PWI		HBI
Variable	Range	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
Prosocial attitudes	1-5	3.98	6.6	3.92	0.60	4.04	0.71
Prosocial behaviors	0-3	1.19	7.5**^{, a>b}	1.33	0.79	1.06	0.69
Racial discrimination	0-5	1.50	1.03	1.58	0.97	1.42	1.09
Centrality	1-5	3.63	7.8	3.59	0.82	3.68	0.75
Private regard	1-5	4.26	7.1	4.25	0.70	4.26	0.73
Public regard	1-5	2.58	7.0	2.56	0.68	2.61	0.72
Nationalist ideology	1-5	3.20	0.73**^{, a>b}	3.08	0.74	3.33	0.69
Minority ideology	1-5	3.33	0.80	3.40	0.79	3.27	0.81
Assimilation ideology	1-5	3.98	0.62	4.03	0.56	3.92	0.67
Humanist ideology	1-5	3.80	0.72**^{, a>b}	3.93	0.63	3.67	0.78

Note: PWI = predominantly White institution; HBI = historically Black institution.

PWI.

HBI.

p < .05. **p < .01.

On average, respondents encountered racial discrimination once or twice in the past year. The most frequently reported discrimination events were “being treated rudely or disrespectfully,” “being treated as if you were stupid, being talked down to” and “being mistaken for someone else of your same race.” Participants reported that being African American was important to their self-concept, as mean scores for racial centrality were past the midpoint of the subscale. Overall, respondents felt very positive about being African American, as private regard scores approached the higher end of the subscale (M = 4.26, SD = 0.71). Conversely, participants felt that others held negative attitudes about African Americans (M = 2.58, SD = 0.70). Furthermore, participants stressed the uniqueness of being African American and felt that minorities shared some commonalities with one another. They also showed moderately high levels of support for assimilation ideology and humanist ideology as mean scores on both scales were above the midpoint of the scale (M = 3.98, SD = 0.62 and M = 3.80, SD = 0.72, respectively).

Despite the presence of significant differences between participants on several key study variables, the samples were combined for analyses. Combining the samples provides a more representative sample of African American emerging adults than if the samples had been separated by type of university. Additionally, the researcher’s primary focus was the association between prosocial involvement and racial discrimination and racial identity, not necessarily the impact of university racial composition on this relationship. However, recognizing differences between the samples was still critical to data analysis and interpretation. T tests revealed significant mean differences between participants from PWIs and HBIs on prosocial behaviors and certain racial ideology variables. Individuals who attended PWIs engaged in significantly more prosocial behaviors compared with individuals from HBIs. Participants from HBIs reported greater endorsement of nationalist ideologies while participants from PWIs showed significantly greater support for humanist ideologies. Study variable means and standard deviations are listed by type of university in Table 2.

Correlations Among Study Variables

Bivariate correlations between prosocial attitudes, prosocial behaviors, racial discrimination, and racial identity were analyzed (see Table 3). Results indicate that prosocial attitudes were positively related to actual engagement in prosocial behaviors (r = .29, p < .01). There was also a positive relationship between prosocial attitudes and encounters with discrimination, such that individuals who believed African Americans should be involved in activities to benefit the racial group also experienced more racial discrimination. Believing that African Americans should give back to the African American community was also positively associated with racial centrality and a positive private regard, but negatively related to public regard. Involvement in prosocial behaviors was positively related to racial discrimination encounters. There was also a relationship between prosocial behaviors and racial centrality, private regard, and nationalist ideology. Several significant correlations were also found among the racial-discrimination and racial-identity variables. Respondents who reported more encounters with racial discrimination also held race as more central to their identity, believed others held negative views of African Americans, and endorsed the idea that being African American is a unique experience. There were also several significant correlations between the racial-identity variables. Correlations of major study variables by university racial composition are provided in Table 4.

Table 3.

Correlation Matrix of Key Study Variables

Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. Prosocial attitudes	—
2. Prosocial behaviors	.29**	—
3. Discrimination	.14*	.25**	—
4. Centrality	.35**	.32**	.17**	—
5. Private regard	.33**	.28**	.01	.60**	—
6. Public regard	−.14*	−.08	−.20**	−.13*	.06	—
7. Nationalist ideology	.45**	.18**	.16**	.42**	.37**	.07	—
8. Minority ideology	.06	.06	−.10	−.04	.05	.17**	.13*	—
9. Assimilation ideology	.28**	.10	−.06	.11	.33**	.02	.10	.21**	—
10. Humanist ideology	−.16**	−.13*	−.21**	−.31**	.02	.25**	−.31**	.31**	.44**	—

p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 4.

Correlation Matrix of Key Study Variables by University Racial Composition

Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. Prosocial attitudes		.41**	.30**	.50**	.36**	−.11	.54**	.02	.20*	−.35**
2. Prosocial behaviors	.22**		.36**	.44**	.37**	−.17*	.28*	.02	.11	−.17*
3. Discrimination	.02	.11		.29**	.21**	−.22**	.23**	−.10	.14	−.14
4. Centrality	.22**	.21**	.06		.58**	−.18*	.49**	.00	.01	−.46**
5. Private regard	.30**	.19*	−.16*	.63**		.10	.41**	.00	.21**	−.15
6. Public regard	−.17*	.02	−.17*	−.08	.02		.01	.03	.04	.18*
7. Nationalist ideology	.35**	.15	.13	.34**	.35**	.12		.03	−.03	−.49**
8. Minority ideology	.12	.07	−.12	−.07	.09	.30**	.27**		.19*	.29**
9. Assimilation ideology	.37**	.07	−.22*	.22**	.43**	.02	.26**	.21**		.45**
10. Humanist ideology	−.01	−.16*	−.28**	−.17*	.15	.33**	−.11	.31**	.42**

Note: Correlations for PWIs (predominantly White institutions) are located on the top of the matrix; correlations for HBIs (historically Black institutions) are located on the bottom of the matrix.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Regression Analyses Predicting Prosocial Involvement

Two separate hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine the multivariate relationship between racial-discrimination and racial-identity variables with prosocial attitudes and prosocial behaviors. This method of analyses was selected to evaluate the unique relationship between each type of predictor variable and prosocial involvement (attitudes and behaviors). The first step of variables included demographic variables, such as gender, school classification, and parent education. These variables were included to control for their influence on prosocial attitudes and prosocial behaviors. The second step included encounters with racial discrimination. Although racial discrimination encounters are interpreted via racial identity, it is possible that many of these experiences are so distressing and disturbing that they alone motivate individual’s prosocial involvement. To explore the relationship between prosocial involvement and the significance individuals attribute to their race and their affective racial-identity attitudes, the third block added racial centrality, private regard, and public regard. The final step consisted of nationalist ideology, minority ideology, assimilation ideology, and humanist ideology. Racial ideology dimensions were entered into the model separate from centrality, private regard, and public regard because they communicate the meaning of race to the individual, rather than the individual’s personal feelings and significance of race. Each block in the model allows for a substantively different examination of the relationship between prosocial involvement and racial discrimination and racial identity.

Prosocial attitudes

The first step of the model containing demographic variables was not significant, F(3, 293) = 2.27, p > .05, and only 2% of the variance was explained. Participant gender, classification, and parent education were not related to individual’s attitudes about prosocial involvement. However, the model became significant when racial discrimination was added to Step 2 of the model, F(4, 292) = 2.79, p < .05, ΔR² = .02. There was a positive relationship between racial discrimination and prosocial attitudes (β = .12, SE = .04, p < .01), suggesting that individuals who experienced racial discrimination also endorsed prosocial attitudes. Step 3 of the model, which added centrality, private regard, and public regard, was also significant, F(7, 289) = 8.81, p < .01. In all, 18% of the variance for prosocial attitudes was explained when these variables were added to the model (ΔR² = .14). Centrality (β = .22, SE = .06, p < .05) and private regard (β = .19, SE = .06, p < .05) were positively related to prosocial attitudes. However, there was a negative relationship between public regard and prosocial attitudes (β = −.10, SE = .05, p < .01), such that individuals who believed others held negative views about African Americans also supported prosocial attitudes. The overall model for Step 4 was significant when nationalist ideology, minority ideology, assimilation ideology, and humanist ideology were added, F(11, 285) = 12.56, p < .01. An additional 15% of the variance was explained when these variables were added to the model. However, only nationalist ideology (β = .31, SE = .06, p < .05) and assimilation ideology (β = .28, SE = .06, p < .05) were significantly related to prosocial attitudes. Believing that being African American is a unique experience and perceiving similarities between African Americans and mainstream society were also associated with prosocial attitudes. These results are displayed in Table 5.

Table 5.

Summary for Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Prosocial attitudes (N = 303)

	F	R ²	ΔR²	β (SE)
Step 1	2.27	.02	.02
Gender				.10 (.10)
Classification				.07 (.03)
Parent education				−.09 (.03)
Step 2	2.79*	.04	.02
Discrimination				.12 (.04)*
Step 3	8.81**	.18	.14
Centrality				.22 (.06)**
Private regard				.19 (.06)**
Public regard				−.10 (.05)*
Step 4	12.56**	.33	.15
Nationalist ideology				.31 (.06)**
Minority ideology				.03 (.04)
Assimilation ideology				.28 (.06)**
Humanist ideology				−.13 (.06)

p < .05. **p < .01.

Prosocial behaviors

Step 1 of the model predicting involvement in prosocial behaviors was not significant, F(3, 293) = 0.70, p > .05. The demographic variables included in the model were not significantly related to prosocial behaviors and no variance was explained in this model. However, in the second step when racial discrimination was added, the overall model was significant, F(4, 292) = 5.01, p < .01 and 6% of the variance was explained. Racial discrimination was positively related to prosocial behaviors, such that individuals who experienced racial discrimination also reported engagement in prosocial behaviors. Similarly, the model for Step 3 was significant, F(7, 289) = 7.96, p < .01, and an additional 10% of the variance was explained. The standardized beta coefficients indicate that centrality and private regard were positively related to prosocial behaviors. The final step of this model added nationalist ideology, minority ideology, assimilation ideology, and humanist ideology as predictor variables. While the overall model for this step was significant, none of the ideology variables were significantly related to prosocial involvement (see Table 6).

Table 6.

Summary for Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Prosocial Behaviors (N = 303)

	F	R ²	ΔR²	B (SE)
Step 1	0.70	.06	.06
Gender				.08 (.11)
Classification				.03 (.04)
Parent education				.02 (.03)
Step 2	5.01**	.08	.02
Discrimination				.24 (.04)**
Step 3	7.96**	.16	.10
Centrality				.19 (.07)**
Private regard				.16 (.07)*
Public regard				−.03 (.06)
Step 4	5.45**	.17	.01
Nationalist ideology				−.04 (.07)
Minority ideology				.10 (.06)
Assimilation ideology				.07 (.08)
Humanist ideology				−.10 (.08)

p < .05. **p < .01.

Discussion

This study examined the relationship between racial discrimination and racial identity with prosocial attitudes and behaviors. Generally, participants believed that African Americans should be involved in activities that advance the racial group and over half the sample was involved in at least one type of prosocial behavior. Hence, the tradition of prosocial attitudes and behaviors is evident in the current study. The findings suggest that prosocial involvement is associated with race-related experiences and specific racial-identity attitudes. As predicted, individuals who experienced racial discrimination also endorsed prosocial attitudes and engaged in prosocial behaviors. This suggests race-related experiences and context are important when considering prosocial attitudes. However, the amount of variance accounted for by racial discrimination was small in comparison with the other race-related variables in this study. Despite this, it is possible that endorsement of prosocial involvement aided individual’s efforts to cope with discrimination encounters. Future efforts must be made to investigate prosocial involvement as a resilience factor among African Americans who encounter racial discrimination. Future research should use a risk-resilience framework to investigate this relationship further.

A number of racial-identity attitudes were also associated with prosocial attitudes and prosocial behaviors. Specifically, individuals who held race as central to their self-concept were more likely to show support for prosocial involvement and be involved in prosocial behaviors. Gurin, Miller and Gurin (1980) report somewhat similar findings in their discussion of consciousness and identification among African Americans, women, the working class, and the elderly. Berman and Wittig (2004) tested a model of political action among a nationally representative sample of adults. Though this study was primarily concerned with understanding the role of socioeconomic status and church-based resources, they did include group consciousness and group identification as secondary variables of interest. Their findings suggested that group identification mediated the relationship between group consciousness and political action. Though with a much more restricted sample, these findings suggest that identification with one’s group is associated with political participation. Chavous (2000) replicated similar findings with African American college students. Findings from these studies indicate that greater identification with one’s group is associated with greater support for collective efforts that benefit the group. Similarly, Mattis, Hearn, and Jagers (2002) found support for the relationship between communalism and volunteer work among African American men. Taken together, these studies suggest that when individuals feel more connected to their racial group, they are more likely to demonstrate prosocial attitudes and become involved in prosocial behaviors. The current study reinforces the aforementioned findings by examining racial discrimination encounters, as well as racial identity, in the same model. Furthermore, this study acknowledges the complexity of racial identity by using a multidimensional approach.

The current findings also raise doubt about the assertion that African American prosocial involvement is influenced by a need to reinforce a negative self-concept (Myrdal et al., 1944). This research suggests that individuals who endorsed prosocial attitudes and individuals who were actually engaged in prosocial behaviors felt positive about being African American. This contradicts previous assertions about African Americans’ motivations for being involved in their communities. Instead, these individuals may feel a sense of agency and efficacy to oversee and improve conditions for a community of people who are unjustly disregarded by institutional structures and mainstream society. While individual’s public regard beliefs were related to their prosocial attitudes, it is interesting that there was no relationship between participants’ perceptions of outgroup members’ beliefs about the racial group and their actual engagement in prosocial activities. Ultimately, public regard beliefs may affect attitudes toward prosocial involvement, but they do not influence whether or not individuals engage in prosocial behaviors. How positively individuals feel about their own racial status seems to be a greater influence on their prosocial behavior than are public regard beliefs.

Interestingly, racial ideology dimensions were related to prosocial attitudes, but not actual engagement in prosocial behaviors. Namely, individuals who endorsed nationalist ideology and assimilation ideology showed support for prosocial attitudes. The relationship between nationalist ideology and prosocial attitudes is intuitive; it even provides some level of support for theories that contend African Americans endorse prosocial attitudes because they are part of a marginalized group. However, it is important that we reconsider the interpretation of this relationship, as these theories go further and contend that African Americans support prosocial activities because they share an oppressed identity. Instead, it can be argued that individuals who endorse a nationalist ideology support prosocial attitudes because the racial group faces unique challenges in society, and they want to use collective efforts to address these challenges. On the surface, the positive association between assimilation ideology and prosocial attitudes seems less intuitive. Yet it is possible that individuals who endorse the assimilation ideology believe that by working with mainstream society and within mainstream institutions they can improve conditions for the racial group. Future research should investigate this possibility. Keeping in mind that racial ideologies can inform the way African Americans live and interact in society (R. M. Sellers et al., 1998), it was surprising that there was no relationship between prosocial behaviors with nationalist, minority, assimilation, or humanist ideologies. Frankly, this is the dimension most closely linked to individuals’ behaviors, and there was no association between these variables in the current study. While there is no clear explanation for this finding, it is possible that racial ideologies are general guiding principles in the lives of African Americans. While these principles affect other life domains, they may not have implications for individual’s engagement in prosocial behaviors. Racial attitudes that are more personal to the individual, such as centrality and private regard, may inform individual’s prosocial behavior to a greater extent than abstract values and ideals. The present findings suggest this is the case. Taken together, these findings indicate that the relationship between racial identity and prosocial attitudes and behaviors requires a complex discussion that expands beyond theories of racial consciousness and self-esteem. While the significance of race and how positive the individual feels about race are clear indicators of prosocial behaviors, individuals also seem to use racial ideologies when determining whether or not they support prosocial attitudes.

A strength of this research is the multidimensional conceptualization of prosocial involvement. The descriptive and multivariate statistics suggest that using such an approach is warranted. For instance, individuals showed significant support for prosocial attitudes, but fewer participants were actually engaged in prosocial behaviors. It is possible that structural constraints (i.e., time, financial resources) limited individual’s ability to engage in prosocial behaviors, even though they held attitudes that supported prosocial involvement. The correlations between prosocial attitudes and prosocial behaviors were moderate. This indicates that while there is some variance shared between these constructs, they are distinct from one another. Moreover, while both dimensions of prosocial involvement were associated with specific racial-identity attitudes, certain racial-identity dimensions were more influential in individual’s prosocial attitudes. If prosocial behaviors were used as the sole indicator of prosocial involvement, as is typical in this literature, public regard, nationalist ideology, and assimilation ideology would seem irrelevant to this area of research.

It is important to recognize that racial identity attitudes do not operate in isolation of one another. While affective feelings about racial status and the meaning attributed to one’s race may reflect prosocial attitudes, the significance of race in their lives may determine the extent to which they actually become involved in behaviors and activities that positively benefit the racial group. Put another way, individuals may feel positive about their racial status and believe that being African American is unique from being a part of any other oppressed group, but these attitudes may be less influential if race is not viewed as a central social identity. Holding race as central to the self may allow for more opportunities to be involved in race-specific behaviors, as individuals may place themselves in a context where race-relevant prosocial behaviors are common and encouraged.

While this was not a primary focus of the current study, the disparate rates of prosocial behaviors between students from PWIs and HBIs is worth mentioning. Comparisons of prosocial behaviors indicated that participants from PWIs were more involved than their counterparts from HBIs. While prosocial involvement is a tradition within the racial group as a whole, several other factors may explain the higher rates of involvement among individuals who attended PWIs. There are several possible explanations for this finding. Work by Carson (2009) provides some direction. Carson found that students from PWIs became involved in Black student organizations to make connections with other African Americans and to contribute and stay connected to the larger African American community. Similar to the Carson study, participants in this study who attended PWIs may have sought social support by involving themselves in activities that put them in contact with other African Americans; these activities may have been disproportionately social justice oriented. It is also possible that individuals who attended PWIs sought out prosocial activities to maintain or regain a sense of connection to an African American community, a connection they may not have felt at their university.

Study Limitations and Future Directions

While previous literature suggests discrimination is a critical stressor for African American college students and is associated with a host of negative outcomes (Pieterse, Carter, Evans, & Walter, 2010; R. M. Sellers & Shelton, 2003), findings from this research suggest racial discrimination experiences may also lead individuals to be more vigilant about matters of race in their community. In a sense, encounters with racial discrimination may serve as a catalyst for prosocial involvement. Using a longitudinal design, future research should investigate the extent to which prosocial involvement is spurred by encounters with discrimination. This area of research would be strengthened even further if a domain-specific examination of racial discrimination (i.e., school discrimination, workplace discrimination) was conducted; stronger relationships between prosocial involvement and discrimination may be evident.

Prosocial involvement is a complex phenomenon. The current study focused primarily on attitudes and behaviors rooted in the activist, political, and civic arenas. However, African Americans’ prosocial involvement extends beyond these areas. Employing a qualitative methodology to investigate other ways in which African Americans are engaged in activities that benefit their racial communities would strengthen this area of work considerably. Despite this, it is notable that prosocial attitudes and engagement were examined in this study. Up to this point, most empirical research has focused only on prosocial attitudes or prosocial behaviors. By examining several domains of prosocial involvement simultaneously, this study shows that particular racial-identity dimensions are more relevant when investigating prosocial attitudes whereas others are more relevant when examining engagement in prosocial activities. While the racial-discrimination scale in this study has been used extensively in the literature, it limits individuals’ ability to report all aspects of racial discrimination. Ideally, participants would have the opportunity to report all instances of discrimination, whether they occur at an individual, cultural, or institutional level.

Just as the social position of African Americans has evolved over the years, it is also fair to say that the conceptualization of racial identity has evolved. Recent developments in racial-identity research allow for more specific examinations of the relationship between prosocial involvement and racial identity. The model of racial identity used in this study, the MMRI, moves beyond examining closeness to the racial group as a core feature of racial identity. Using the MMRI allowed for the opportunity to examine individuals’ self-perceptions about race as well as their beliefs about the opinions held by outgroup members. This conceptualization of racial identity allows for comparisons with previous literature that employ a monolithic racial-identity perspective (i.e., group closeness, perceptions of outgroup members), while also providing new information about possible relationships between prosocial involvement and the meaning individuals attribute to their racial identity.

It should also be noted that the sample was overwhelmingly female (81% of the participants). However, this may speak to a larger issue among African Americans in higher education. This study may actually reflect the gender composition of colleges and universities in this country, as there are generally more African American females enrolled in our nation’s colleges and universities than African American males ( Garibaldi, 2007 ). This was especially true for the institutions included in this research. Hence, the female-male disparity in the current study is only a slight exaggeration of the gender ratio at the universities where the data were collected. Because of this disparity, it was more difficult to detect possible gender differences in prosocial involvement. Despite the gender disparity, the sample also serves as a strength of this study. The multiuniversity methodology allows for a discussion of prosocial involvement beyond a particular university context or a particular region of the country. These findings generalize to individuals who attend HBIs and PWIs as well as individuals who live in the Midwest, Mid-Atlantic, and Southeast. The cross-sectional nature of this study also serves as a study limitation. Given that these data were collected at one time point it is difficult to determine whether racial discrimination experiences and racial-identity attitudes lead to endorsement of and engagement in prosocial activities or vice versa. To address this concern, future efforts should employ a longitudinal design.

Conclusion

African Americans have made strides in the political, educational, and economic arenas in recent decades. Despite such advances, findings from this study suggest race continues to be a salient factor in the lives of many African Americans. More important, this study highlights the continued importance of prosocial involvement in the lives of African Americans. Ultimately, the findings from this research can be used in colleges and universities, nonprofit organizations, and other venues that rely on the involvement of young African Americans to be involved. Though previous theories provide a background from which to begin thinking about prosocial involvement, the current study indicates that the relationship between prosocial involvement, racial discrimination, and racial identity is much more complex and warrants additional research. This study represents a first step in this process.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by grants from the Rackham Graduate School and Department of Psychology at the University of Michigan.

References

Arnett

J. J.

(2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469-480.

Arnett

J. J.

Brody

G. H.

(2008). A fraught passage: The identity challenges of African American emerging adults. Human Development, 51, 291-293.

Banks

K. H.

Kohn-Wood

L. P.

(2007). The influence of racial identity profiles on the relationship between racial discrimination and depressive symptoms. Journal of Black Psychology, 33, 331-354.

Berman

S. L.

Wittig

M. A.

(2004). An intergroup theories approach to direct political action among African Americans. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 7, 19-34.

Brooks-Gunn

Klebanov

P. K.

Duncan

G. J.

(1996). Ethnic differences in children’s intelligence test scores: Role of economic deprivation, home environment, and maternal characteristics. Child Development, 67, 396-408.

Bushway

S. D.

Piehl

A. M.

(2001). Judging judicial discretion: Legal factors and racial discrimination in sentencing. Law & Society Review, 35, 733-764.

Caldwell

C. H.

Sellers

R. M.

Bernat

D. H.

Zimmerman

M. A.

(2004). Racial identity, parental support, and alcohol use in a sample of academically at-risk African American high school students. American Journal of Community Psychology, 34, 71-82.

Carson

L. R.

(2009). I am because we are: Collectivism as a foundational characteristic of African American college student identity and academic achievement. Social Psychology of Education, 12, 327-344.

Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement. (2006). The 2006 civic and political health of the nation: A detailed look at how youth participate in politics and communities. Retrieved from http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/2006_CPHS_Report_update.pdf

10.

Chavous

T. M.

(2000). The relationships among racial identity, perceived ethnic fit, and organizational involvement for African American students at a predominantly White university. Journal of Black Psychology, 26, 79-100.

11.

Deitch

E. A.

Barsky

Butz

R. M.

Chan

Brief

A. P.

Bradley

J. C.

(2003). Subtle yet significant: The existence and impact of everyday racial discrimination in the workplace. Human Relations, 56, 1299-1324.

12.

Du Bois

W. E. B.

(1981). The talented tenth: The reexamination of a concept. In McDonnell

R. W.

(Ed.), The papers of W. E. B. Du Bois: 1803 (1877-1963) 1979: A guide (R. W. McDonnell, compiler). Sanford, NC: Microfilming Corporation of America.

13.

Garibaldi

A. M.

(2007). The educational status of African American males in the 21st century. Journal of Negro Education, 76, 324-333.

14.

Garmezy

(1991). Resilience and vulnerability to adverse developmental outcomes associated with poverty. American Behavioral Scientist, 34, 416-430.

15.

Gurin

Miller

A. H.

Gurin

(1980). Stratum identification and consciousness. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43, 30-47.

16.

Harrell

(1997, May). Development and initial validation of scales to measure racism-related stress. Paper presented at the 6th Biennial Conference on Community Research and Action, Society for Community Research and Action, Columbia, SC.

17.

Jacobs

Carmichael

J. T.

Kent

S. L.

(2005). Vigilantism, current racial threat, and death sentences. American Sociological Review, 70, 656-677.

18.

Lane

(1959). Political life: Why and how people get involved in politics. New York, NY: Free Press.

19.

Lauren

J. K.

Robert

L. K.

(2004). Housing and wealth inequality: Racial-ethnic differences in home equity in the United States. Demography, 41, 585-605.

20.

Mattis

J. S.

Beckham

W. P.

Saunders

B. A.

Williams

J. E.

McAllister

D. Y.

Myers

. . . Dixon

(2004). Who will volunteer? Religiosity, everyday racism, and social participation among African American men. Journal of Adult Development, 11, 261-272.

21.

Mattis

J. S.

Hearn

K. D.

Jagers

R. J.

(2002). Factors predicting communal attitudes among African American men. Journal of Black Psychology, 28, 197-214.

22.

McAdam

(1986). Recruitment to high-risk activism: The case of freedom summer. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 64-90.

23.

Miller

Gurin

Malanchuk

(1981). Group consciousness and political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 25, 494-511.

24.

Mitchell

S. L.

Dell

D. M.

(1992). The relationship between Black students’ racial identity attitude and participation in campus organizations. Journal of College Student Development, 33, 39-43.

25.

Myrdal

Sterner

Rose

(1944). An American dilemma. New York, NY: Harper.

26.

Neblett

E. W.

White

R. L.

Ford

K. R.

Philip

C. L.

Nguyen

H. X.

Sellers

R. M.

(2008). Patterns of racial socialization and psychological adjustment: Can parental communications about race temper the detrimental effects of racial discrimination? Journal for Research on Adolescence, 18, 477-515.

27.

Pieterse

A. L.

Carter

R. T.

Evans

S. A.

Walter

R. A.

(2010). An exploratory examination of the associations among racial and ethnic discrimination, racial climate, and trauma-related symptoms in a college student population. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57, 255-263.

28.

Ren

Amick

Williams

(1999). Racial/ethnic disparities in health: The interplay between discrimination and socioeconomic status. Ethnicity & Disease, 9, 151-165.

29.

Rivas-Drake

(2008). Perceived opportunity, ethnic identity, and achievement motivation among Latinos at a selective public university. Journal of Latinos and Education, 7, 113-128.

30.

Ross

S. L.

Turner

M. A.

(2005). Housing discrimination in metropolitan America: Explaining changes between 1989 and 2000. Social Problems, 52, 152-180.

31.

Rowley

S. J.

Sellers

R. M.

Chavous

T. M.

Smith

M. A.

(1998). The relationship between racial identity and self-esteem in African American college and high school students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 715-724.

32.

Rutter

(1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 57, 316-331.

33.

Sanchez-Jankowski

(2002). Minority youth and civic engagement: The impact of group relations. Applied Developmental Science, 6, 237-245.

34.

Sanders Thompson

V. L.

(2002). Racism: Perceptions of distress among African Americans. Community Mental Health Journal, 38, 111-118.

35.

Sellers

R. M.

Caldwell

C. H.

Schmeelk-Cone

K. H.

Zimmerman

M. A.

(2003). Racial identity, racial discrimination, perceived stress, and psychological distress among African American young adults. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 44, 302-317.

36.

Sellers

R. M.

Shelton

J. N.

(2003). The role of racial identity in perceived racial discrimination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1079-1092.

37.

Sellers

R. M.

Smith

M. A.

Shelton

J. N.

Rowley

S. A. J.

Chavous

T. M.

(1998). Multidimensional model of racial identity: A reconceptualization of African American racial identity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 18-39.

38.

Sellers

S. L.

Bonham

Neighbors

H. W.

Amell

J. W.

(2009). Effects of racial discrimination and health behaviors on mental and physical health of middle-class African American men. Health Education & Behavior, 36, 31-44.

39.

Shaw

S. J.

(1996). What a woman ought to be and to do: Black professional women workers during the Jim Crow era. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

40.

Slevin

K. F.

(2005). Intergenerational and community responsibility: Race uplift work in the retirement activities of professional African American women. Journal of Aging Studies, 19, 309-326.

41.

Smalls

White

Chavous

Sellers

(2007). Racial ideological beliefs and racial discrimination experiences as predictors of academic engagement among African American adolescents. Journal of Black Psychology, 33, 299-330.

42.

Stoll

M. A.

(2001). Race, neighborhood poverty, and participation in voluntary associations. Sociological Forum, 16, 529-557.

43.

Verba

Schlozman

K. L.

Brady

(1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism and American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

44.

Wall

(1995). Barriers to individual environmental action: The influence of attitudes and social experiences. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 32, 465-489.

45.

Williams

Nesiba

McConnell

E. D.

(2005). The changing face of inequality in home mortgage lending. Social Problems, 52, 181-208.