Development and Validation of the Black Community Activism Orientation Scale

Abstract

In this article, we describe the development and validation of a measure of orientation toward activism in and for the Black community—the Black Community Activism Orientation Scale (BCAOS)—in a sample of Black adolescents and emerging adults. An exploratory factor analysis (n = 446) was conducted and the results were a 26-item measure with scores of three internally consistent factors: high-risk, low-risk, and formal political activism orientation. A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted (n = 447) and strong model fit estimates confirmed the factor structure of the exploratory factor analysis. Convergent validity was established through bivariate correlations of the BCAOS factors with social responsibility beliefs and nationalist ideology. In light of increased participation in sociopolitical movements in support of Black lives, the BCAOS can contribute to investigations of the psychology of adolescent and emerging adult activism in and for the Black community. We recommend additional scale development research to further contribute to this growing field.

Keywords

activism activism orientation Black youth empowerment sociopolitical development

Numerous young Black people in the United States have endeavored for liberation through activism from the Civil Rights Movement and the Black Power Movement (McAdam, 1986; Van Deburg, 1992) to the contemporary #BlackLivesMatter movement (Garza, 2014) and Black Youth Project 100 (2013). Questions remain, however, regarding how Black adolescents and emerging adults are oriented toward activism and what motivates young Black people to engage in action for social change. Black young adults voted at higher rates than other racial-ethnic groups during the 2008 and 2012 Presidential Elections (Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, 2014). As political participation increases, it is important to consider how political action is measured, beyond voting, with attention to general (e.g., attended a protest) and domain-specific (e.g., attended a protest against police brutality) social action. For Black youth in the United States, racial group membership and their understanding of systems of racial injustice have influenced activism (Flanagan, Martínez, Cumsille, & Ngomane, 2011; Hope, Keels, & Durkee, 2016; Szymanski & Lewis, 2015). As such, we sought to understand how Black adolescents and emerging adults are oriented toward activism, specifically when it is rooted in social change that will affect their own racial group. To this end, we report the development and validation of the Black Community Activism Orientation Scale (BCAOS)—a measure of youth orientation toward social action in and for the Black community.

What Is Activism?

Activism is a widely used term, often linked with social movements, in pursuit of formal change to judicial, legislative, or electoral processes (Dennis, 2016). Ekman and Amnå (2012) conceptualize activism as a dimension of political participation, which includes formal political participation (e.g., voting; contacting political representatives), legal extraparliamentary actions (e.g., boycotts; demonstrations), and illegal extraparliamentary actions in the form of civil disobedience or politically motivated violence. Curtin and McGarty (2016) offer three characteristics that distinguish activists from nonactivists. First, activists express sympathy for a cause and are more susceptible to being mobilized to actions that support that cause. Second, political processes and outcomes are salient to activists, which yield a sense of social and political responsibility for a cause (Curtin, Stewart, & Duncan, 2010). Last, activists have a politicized collective identity, and belong to or are allied with oppressed groups who seek to counter policies and practices that disproportionally support privileged groups.

In research on youth activism, there are measures of past behavior and orientation toward future behavior. Measures of past behavior typically include a checklist or count of how many times a behavior was completed within a given timeframe. These measures consider breadth—the number of different activities (Chen, Propp, & Lee, 2014; Hope & Jagers, 2015) and intensity—the amount of time spent across all eligible activities (Ballard, 2015; Moore, Hope, Eisman, & Zimmerman, 2016). Activism orientation is an emotional and intellectual resolution to future action that may serve as an indicator of performed behavior (Corning & Myers, 2002). These measures typically use a Likert-type scale to assess the anticipated likelihood of engaging in different activities reflective of activism. Orientation toward future activism is a relevant consideration for marginalized groups, including Black youth, who may not have access to opportunity structures, such as community youth programs or school-based service-learning projects, which facilitate activism (Diemer & Li, 2011; Hope, 2015; Watts & Guessous, 2006). Youth may face structural barriers to engagement beyond their control, such as limited voice in institutional policy decisions, strained government-community relationships, or insufficient scaffolding to support the development of an activist orientation, and what may appear to be lack of engagement from a nonactivist is, in fact, a reflection of those structural barriers.

Several measures have been developed to examine activism orientation. The Activism Orientation Scale (AOS; Corning & Myers, 2002) is used to assess individuals’ propensities to involve themselves in conventional and unconventional actions for social change. AOS is grounded in social psychology and social action theories, and includes a range of politically oriented behaviors from passive actions (e.g., purchasing a politically motivated t-shirt) to more risky actions (e.g., attending a political rally). Similarly, the Activism and Radicalism Intention Scale (Moskalenko & McCauley, 2009) is used to assess an individual’s intent to engage in sociopolitical behavior that is either nonviolent, legal action (activism) or violent, legal action (radicalism). Strengths of both the AOS, and Activism and Radicalism Intention Scale are the broad scope of actions considered beyond protesting and demonstrating, and the measurement of the intent to engage in social change actions in the future. Neither measure, however, considers activism with regard to a specific social or political cause, such as social justice for Black people in the United States. Given that activists are characterized by sympathy toward a particular cause and collective identity (Curtin et al., 2010), it may be important to consider activism orientation with regard to a specific cause or community rather than a more generalized interpretation.

Activism and the Black Community

The authors define Black community activism as sociopolitical action planned and executed for the specific benefit of positive social change, eradication of oppression, and promotion of justice in and for the Black community. Black community activism also embodies collective resistance to structural oppression. Anti-Blackness is considered to be global and far-reaching, and thus necessitates collective action to eradicate its resulting racism and discrimination (Gillborn, 2006; Weiner, 2012). This group-specific activism gives voice to members of Black communities and provides an opportunity to make sociopolitical concerns known to other members of society.

Theorists suggest that Black activism may function as a coping mechanism for youth to subsist and resist systems of racial oppression and to improve life outcomes for individuals and communities (Hope & Spencer, 2017). For racially marginalized adolescents and emerging adults, this sociopolitical development is related to racial identity, including connectedness to one’s racial group, perceptions of self in relation to one’s racial group, and beliefs regarding the role of one’s racial group in the broader culture (Anyiwo, Bañales, Rowley, Watkins, & Richards-Schuster, 2018; Flanagan et al., 2011).

One model of Black racial identity is the Multidimensional Model of Racial Identity (Sellers, Smith, Shelton, Rowley, & Chavous, 1998), which consists of four dimensions of racial identity: racial salience, the situational relevance of race; racial centrality, connectedness to one’s racial group; racial regard, positive and negative racial group affect; and racial ideology, an individual’s philosophy of how members of their racial group should engage with society. With regard to social and political action, White-Johnson (2012), using the Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity (MIBI; Sellers, Rowley, Chavous, Shelton, & Smith, 1997), found that Black college students with high racial centrality (racial group membership is important to self-concept) were more motivated to engage in social action in support of racial equity than their low racial centrality peers. Similarly, Lozada, Jagers, Smith, Bañales, and Hope (2017) found that racial centrality, private regard, and oppressed minority ideology were positively related to prosocial behaviors among Black adolescents. These studies provide evidence to suggest that racial identity that reflects positive feelings about being Black and racial oppression may be distinct but related to engagement with sociopolitical action among Black adolescents and emerging adults.

The literature on the influence of race-related constructs on activism is restricted, in part, by measures of general activism that disregard the specific cause or community that motivates the social and political action. By focusing on activism specific to the Black community, researchers can investigate unique race-based mechanisms of action that may orient young Black people toward community change efforts. Researchers support this contention, finding that the meaning of and pathways to political participation may be different for Black youth when compared with youth from other racial-ethnic backgrounds (e.g., Asian American and Latinx; Barnes & Hope, 2017; Diemer, 2012; Hope et al., 2016). We argue that considering a specific domain of activism will provide clarity and precision to investigations of psychological mechanisms that support or deter youth activism.

Measuring Black Community Activism

Among research on activism and social action, three known bodies of research have considered the measurement of political and civic social action specific to the Black community. The 1993 National Black Politics Study (Dawson, Brown, & Jackson, 1993) included items to assess contacting Black elected officials and satisfaction with politicians addressing needs within Black communities (see also Sullivan & Esmail, 2007). While these items were specific to political experiences of the Black community, this study did not include a range of Black community activism of both parliamentary and extraparliamentary political engagement.

Another measure, the Involvement in African American Activism Scale (IAAAS; Szymanski, 2012), was adapted from the Involvement in Feminist Activism Scale (Szymanski, 2004) to analyze sociopolitical behavior aimed toward advancing the African American community. The 17-item IAAAS defines activism inclusive of donating money to African American groups or causes; participating in demonstrations, boycotts, marches, rallies; belonging to African American organizations; and participating in antiracism activities. IAAAS has been used to examine the relationship between race-related stress, racial identity, and African American activism (Szymanski & Lewis, 2015). Szymanski and Lewis (2015) found that African American college students who internalized positive racial self-concept were involved in activism. This measure captures social actions most typically associated with activism (e.g., demonstrations), but does not capture dangerous or illegal actions that people may take to counter injustice in Black communities (e.g., block a building with one’s body). Furthermore, while this measure captures past behavior, it does not reflect an orientation toward future action. Finally, this measure is specific to African American adults, which may limit its utility in communities where people of African descent do not identify as African American and may not adequately capture how an orientation toward activism manifests for younger community members.

A third measure, the Multidimensional Measure of Black Activism (Thomas, 2001) is used to assess activism within the African American community as behavior, sociopolitical attitudes, and social change strategies. Multidimensional Measure of Black Activism has been used to examine relationships between racial identity, psychological empowerment, and African American activism (Livingston et al., 2017). Livingston et al. found that racial centrality and psychological empowerment were positively related to awareness of anti-Black oppression and ability to mobilize the Black community through activism. A strength of this measure is the inclusion of attitudinal components of activism for the African American causes. A limitation, however, is the length, as the scale contains 97 items. Also, similar to the IAAAS, this measure is limited in its applicability to members of Black communities beyond African American adults.

The Purpose of the Current Study

Our study builds on the growing literature of activism specific to the Black community by addressing several limitations to existing measures. First, we expanded the conceptualization of what activities or behaviors constitute activism and activist orientation. Action toward social change in Black communities continues to evolve. For instance, scholars found that Black youth engaged in nontraditional, creative, and technological activities to promote social awareness and movements toward social change (Cohen & Kahne, 2011; Ginwright, 2010). This phenomenon may reflect a global transition toward utilization of social media platforms to document and reflect on socially unjust events (Bonilla & Rosa, 2015; Juris, 2012). Thus, we included items to assess social media activism, along with community-based social justice actions. Second, we took an African diaspora perspective of the Black community in the United States. A modern perspective of Black racial consciousness suggests there are common threads of “racial awakening” among Black people across the African diaspora and that antiracism activism is one outcome of understanding oneself as Black (Neville & Cross, 2016). Activism for Black liberation is not limited to Black descendants of enslaved Africans in the United States, which challenges the African American exclusivity of the aforementioned measures.

In light of the previous research on activism and activism orientation, we propose a multidimensional conceptualization of Black community activism orientation for adolescents and emerging adults. By assessing activism orientation as a multidimensional construct, we can account for whether there are different psychological mechanisms that may lead to extraparliamentary actions with differing levels of risk and social change behaviors within current political systems. We extend Corning and Myers’ (2002) definition of activism orientation, and propose that Black activism orientation is an emotional and intellectual resolution to future social justice action that benefits the Black community and reduces structural oppression against the Black community. We contend that Black community activism orientation may be low-risk, high-risk, or political. Low-risk Black community activism orientation is an orientation toward social action that is relatively safe and presents minimal risks. Low-risk Black community activism orientation includes confronting a comment that supports oppression of the Black community, or wearing a t-shirt with a sociopolitical message that supports the Black community. High-risk Black community activism orientation is an orientation toward social action that is perceived as likely to result in physical harm or arrest. High-risk activism orientation includes participating in social action that could lead to arrest or bodily harm. Finally, we propose political Black community activism orientation. Political activism orientation includes social action within traditional political systems, in line with Ekman and Amnå’s (2012) conceptualization of activism. Political activism orientation includes contacting a state or federal political representative regarding an issue facing the Black community, or campaigning for a political candidate who supports the Black community.

Based on the literature on activism and our expansion, we created a scale to measure these constructs specific to Black youth in the United States. We report on the development and validation of the Black Community Activism Scale (BCAOS), a measure of orientation toward activism that promotes racial justice, resists racial oppression, and supports improved sociopolitical conditions in Black communities in the United States. First, we describe the development of the BCAOS and examine the factor structure through exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Based on previous research, we expected that activism orientation would be multidimensional, reflecting high risk and unconventional action, low risk and passive action, and action within traditional political systems. We then describe the replication of the BCAOS factor structure with an independent sample through confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) and establish internal consistency of the scores. Finally, we examine the convergent and discriminant validity of the BCAOS scores.

Scholars suggest that activists have a Black racial identity that aligns with the social or political cause at hand and a sense of social and political responsibility (Curtin et al., 2010). As such, we expected that the high-risk and political BCAOS scores would be positively related to racial centrality, nationalist ideology, and oppressed minority ideology. We predicted that low-risk BCAOS scores would be positively related to racial private regard. Furthermore, we hypothesized that low-risk and political BCAOS scores would be positively related to social responsibility beliefs and values. Participants in this study were Black adolescents and emerging adults. Though adolescents and emerging adults have unique developmental considerations (Arnett, 2000), we were interested in examining the potential of a scale that is applicable during both adolescence and emerging adulthood.

Method

Participants

Participants were 893 self-identified Black adolescents and emerging adults aged 14 to 29 years (M = 19.7 years; SD = 4.78). The majority of participants identified as women (n = 602; 67.6%), 32.1% (n = 286) identified as men, and 0.56% (n = 5) identified as nonbinary or indicated no gender. With regard to African ancestry, most of the sample identified as African American (n = 590; 66.1%). Other participants identified their ancestry as Multiethnic (n = 93; 10.4%), African (n = 87; 9.7%), Afro-Caribbean or West Indian (n = 53; 5.9%), Afro-Latino (n = 47; 5.3%), and other, including Black, mixed race, Cape Verdean, Haitian, and American (n = 23; 2.6%). Just over 15% of participants identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (n = 142). Participants were located across the United States with representation from 42 states and the District of Columbia. The states with the greatest numerical representation were Georgia (n = 88; 9.9%), Texas (n = 74; 8.3%), and Florida (n = 73; 8.2%). A majority of participants were students at the time of the study (n = 656; 73.5%). Student participants were enrolled in middle school (n = 50), high school (n = 396), college (n = 172), and graduate school (n = 38). Just over a quarter of participants were not students at the time of the study (n = 237), and of those participants, 7.6% had advanced degrees (n = 18), 23.6% earned a bachelor’s degree (n = 56), 10% earned an associate’s degree (n = 24), 27% completed some college (n = 64), 30% earned a high school diploma or equivalent (n = 71), and 1.7% completed middle school (n = 4).

Procedure

Participants were recruited through Qualtrics Panels as a part of a study on the social and political experiences of Black adolescents and young adults in the United States. Qualtrics Panels is an online survey delivery service that researchers can use to recruit study participants, particularly from hard to reach demographics (see Brandon, Long, Loraas, Mueller-Phillips, & Vansant, 2014, for a detailed description). Adult participants (aged 18 years and older) were recruited through an e-mail invitation that included the expected duration of the study and the type of incentive available for participation. To reduce selection bias, the invitation did not include details about the survey content. Participants younger than the age of 18 years were recruited through an e-mail to their parents and participated with parent consent. Respondents were eligible to participate if they identified as Black and were between 14 and 29 years old. The survey took between 20 and 30 minutes to complete. All measures were presented in the same sequence and validity checks were included to ensure accurate response. Participants received an incentive. The specific incentive varied based on where Qualtrics Panels recruited the participant. Participants received cash, airline miles, gift cards, redeemable points, sweepstakes entrance, or vouchers. The host university institutional review board approved all of the study’s protocol.

Initial Scale Development

After a review of current activism and activism orientation measures specific to African American and Black experiences, we developed a pool of 38 items. Items were adapted from the AOS (Corning & Myers, 2002) and new items were created to reflect legal, illegal, traditional, and unconventional types of activism. We also developed new items to assess community and political engagement behaviors not typically considered activism and that reflect an orientation toward social justice in and for the Black community. We carefully considered clarity, language that reflects modern uses of technology, and actions that are not legally restricted by age. The initial scale items were piloted and evaluated by six female undergraduate research assistants (URAs) aged 18 to 24 years, five who identified as Black or African American and one who identified as White. The URAs were trained in youth sociopolitical development and had read two to three seminal articles on youth civic and political engagement prior to working on the scale development. The URAs independently rated each item and provided suggestions to improve clarity, readability, relevance, and face validity. Next, a focus group was conducted with the URAs to evaluate content validity. In this focus group, the first author asked the URAs to discuss actions that were not represented in the current set of items and what items may not represent activism. The items were then revised by the first author and presented to the URAs again for final suggestions for clarity and readability.

The items were designed to represent three subscales: low-risk activism orientation, high-risk activism orientation, and formal political activism orientation. Low-risk activism orientation items represent activism, that is, passive, conventional, and less risky (e.g., “Wear a t-shirt or button with a political message about the Black community”). High-risk activism orientation includes highly visible, assertive, and risky actions (e.g., “Block access to a building or public area with your body for a cause related to the Black community”). Formal political activism orientation includes traditional political involvement within formal political systems (e.g., “Donate money to a political candidate who supports Black issues”). Participants responded to each item on a 5-point Likert-type response scale (1 = extremely unlikely, 2 = unlikely, 3 = equally likely and unlikely, 4 = likely, 5 = extremely likely). Items were administered as a block within a larger survey on racial identity, racial discrimination, and activism. Within the activism block of the survey, the proposed scale items were presented randomly. Mean scores were created for each subscale. Higher scores indicate a more positive orientation toward that type of Black community activism and a greater intention of participating in that action in the future.

Measures for Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Social responsibility

Social responsibility was measured using the Personal Beliefs and Personal Values subscales from the Youth Civic and Character Measures Toolkit (Syvertsen, Wray-Lake, & Metzger, 2015). Personal beliefs, which reflect attitudes toward socially responsible behavior, were measured by a four-item subscale, including items, such as, “I have a responsibility to improve my community.” Participants indicated level of agreement or disagreement with each statement on a 5-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Personal values reflect the level of importance placed on being a socially responsible person. Personal values were measured by a four-item subscale, including items such as, “It’s important to me to make sure that all people are treated fairly.” Participants indicated level of importance of each statement on a 5-point scale from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (extremely important). Separate mean scores were created for social responsibility personal beliefs, and social responsibility personal values. A higher score indicates more positive attitudes toward socially responsible behavior (personal beliefs subscale) and a greater importance on being a socially responsible person (personal value subscale).

The original development and validation study that included these scales was conducted with a racially diverse sample of middle and high school students (α = .80-.83; Syvertsen et al., 2015). Syvertsen et al.’s sample was 50% White, 30% Hispanic or Latino/a, 10% Black or African American, 7% Asian, 4% American Indian/Alaska Native, 2% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and 8% identified as another race or ethnicity. In another study, the social responsibility personal values subscale was used with adolescents, and the results showed a small and positive correlation between social responsibility personal values and volunteering (r = .27) and voting intention (r = .33; Wray-Lake, Metzger, & Syvertsen, 2016).

Racial identity

Participants’ racial identity beliefs were assessed through two subscales of the Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity-Short (MIBI-S; Martin, Wout, Nguyen, Gonzalez, & Sellers, 2013). The MIBI-S is made up of 27 items across seven subscales of racial identity. In this study, we focused on the racial centrality and racial private regard dimensions. Racial centrality, or the importance of being Black to students’ overall self-definitions, was measured using a three-item subscale (e.g., “Being Black is an important reflection of who I am”). Private regard, or participants’ positive or negative feelings toward Blacks and being Black, was measured using a three-item subscale (e.g., “I feel good about Black people”). Participants indicated their level of agreement with each statement on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Mean scores were created for each subscale. This scale has been used in previous research with Black adolescents and emerging adults with reliability estimates of the scores ranging from .58 to .87 for racial centrality and .76 to .85 for private regard (Bernard, Hoggard, & Neblett, 2018; Butler-Barnes et al., 2017; Hoggard, Byrd, & Sellers, 2015). We were unable to locate published studies that report factor structure and further validity of the short version of the MIBI.

Participants’ beliefs regarding the ways Black people should behave politically, economically, socially, and culturally were assessed through four ideology subscales of the MIBI (Sellers et al., 1997). Assimilationist ideology, which stresses similarities between Black culture and mainstream American culture, was measured using a nine-item subscale (e.g., “Blacks should strive to be full members of the American political system”). Humanist ideology, which focuses on similarities among all people, was measured using a seven-item subscale (e.g., “We are all people and we should love people of all races”). Minority ideology, which emphasizes similarities between African Americans and other oppressed groups, was measured using a nine-item subscale (e.g., “Black people should treat other oppressed people as allies”). Nationalist ideology, which highlights the uniqueness of being Black, was measured using an eight-item subscale (e.g., “A thorough knowledge of Black history is very important for Blacks”). Participants indicated their level of agreement with each statement on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). All negatively worded items were reverse coded and mean scores were created for each subscale such that higher scores indicated higher assimilationist ideology (α = .76), humanist ideology (α = .76), minority ideology (α = .83), and nationalist ideology (α = .80). Several studies with college students have reported validation of the MIBI in African American college student samples (Cokley & Helm, 2001; Simmons, Worrell, & Berry, 2008; Vandiver, Worrell, & Delgado-Romero, 2009). These studies do not find that the factor structure holds, the humanist and assimilationist ideology subscales in particular. As such, we only included the oppressed minority ideology and nationalist ideology subscales in subsequent analyses.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

We followed recommended procedures for scale development using EFAs and CFAs (Worthington & Whittaker, 2006). We used random selection without replacement to generate two independent data sets. Sample 1 (n = 446) was used to conduct the EFA and Sample 2 (n = 447) was used to validate the factor structure through CFA and to examine convergent and discriminant validity.

We examined whether the two random samples were equivalent with regard to age, gender, African ancestry, and education. The mean age of Sample 1 was 19.8 years (SD = 4.80, Range = 14-29) and the mean age of Sample 2 was 19.7 years (SD = 4.77, Range = 14-29). Based on an independent sample t test, there were no mean group differences in age by sample, t(891) = 2.09, p = .83. With regard to gender, 70.1% of Sample 1 and 64.7% of Sample 2 identified as women. Chi-square analyses indicated the proportion of men and women in each sample did not differ significantly from what would be expected by chance, χ²(2, n = 888) = 2.97, p = .09. With regard to African ancestry, 62.3% of Sample 1 and 69.8% of Sample 2 identified as African American, 22.9% of Sample 1 and 19.0% of Sample 2 identified as African, Afro-Caribbean, and Afro-Latino, and 14.8% of Sample 1 and 11.2% of Sample 2 identified as Multiethnic or other ethnic ancestry. The proportion of participants from each ancestral background did not differ significantly from what would be expected by chance, χ²(5, N = 893) = 6.64, p = .25. In Sample 1, 72% of participants were students and 75% of participants were students in Sample 2. The proportion of students and nonstudents in each sample did not vary from what was expected by chance, χ²(4, N = 893) = 2.96, p = .57.

Descriptive Analyses

We examined the means, standard deviations, ranges, skew, and kurtosis (see Supplemental Table 1 available online) and the bivariate correlations (available on request from the corresponding author) of the individual items used for the EFA of Sample 1. There was no missingness in the study variables. The means of the items used to examine the factor structure of the BCAOS ranged from 2.14 to 3.37 and the median value was 2.90. Skewness ranged from −0.41 to 0.80, with a median skew of 0.01. Kurtosis ranged from 1.98 to 2.63, with a median kurtosis of 2.17. No significant deviations from normality were found, with the exception of three items with skew above 0.50: (a) “Engage in an illegal act as part of a political protest specific to the Black community” (0.80); (b) “Block access to a building or public area with your body for a cause related to the Black community” (0.63); and (c) “Engage in a physical confrontation at a political rally specific to the Black community” (0.55). Correlations between the Black Community Activism Orientation items ranged from .21 to .77, with a median value of .52.

Given the age range of our sample, we conducted analyses to determine if there were mean group differences between adolescents and emerging adults on the individual items. A categorical variable was created to distinguish adolescents (aged 14-17 years) from emerging adults (aged 18-29 years). Of the 38 items used in the EFA, 3 items had statistically significant mean group differences by age group. Emerging adults reported a greater orientation toward antiracism work (M = 3.08, SD = 1.23) than adolescents, M = 2.91, SD = 1.22; t(891) = −2.05, p = .04, d = 0.14. Emerging adults reported a greater orientation toward getting involved with organizations that support other marginalized groups (M = 3.13, SD = 1.32) than adolescents, M = 2.92, SD = 1.26; t(891) = −2.33, p = .02, d = 0.16. Emerging adults also reported a greater likelihood of following social causes on social media (M = 3.48, SD = 1.30) than adolescents, M = 3.27, SD = 1.24; t(891) = −2.49,p = .01, d = 0.17. Given the age-group differences, these items were removed from consideration in the EFA.

Exploratory Factor Analysis

An EFA was conducted on Sample 1 using STATA SE 14 following the procedures outlined by Yong and Pearce (2013). First, we examined the correlation matrix and determined that there were patterns of relationship among the activism orientation items (r < ±.30) and no indicators of multicollinearity (r = ±.90). We then evaluated the data using Bartlett’s test of sphericity and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy and to determine if the items were appropriate to conduct an EFA. Bartlett’s test of sphericity was statistically significant (p < .001) and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure was 0.979, indicating the scores of the items were suitable for EFA. To explore the factor structure, we used principal axis factors with iterations and oblique rotation (promax), given the expected correlation between the obtained factors (Corning & Myers, 2002). To determine a factor solution, we used parallel analysis, which has shown greater consistency than eigenvalues and scree tests (Gaskin & Happell, 2014), and minimum average partials. Parallel analysis with 100 replications and minimum average partials both indicated a three-factor solution. Items were retained if they had pattern coefficient factor loadings of |.40| or greater and items with cross-loadings of |.32| or greater were removed (Costello & Osborne, 2005). Based on these criteria, nine items were removed because they had cross-loadings above |.32| on two factors. Table 1 shows the pattern coefficient factor loadings after rotation.

Table 1.

Pattern Coefficients and Commonalities for the Black Community Activism Orientation Scale Exploratory Factor Analysis: Principal Factor Analysis With Oblique Rotation (n = 446).

Item	1	2	3	h ²
Factor 1: Low-risk activism orientation
Display a poster or bumper sticker with a political message specific to the Black community	.65	.04	.16	.68
Purchase a poster, t-shirt, and so on, which endorses a political point of view specific to the Black community	.73	.01	.10	.64
Go out of your way to collect information on a social or political issue specific to the Black community	.59	.14	.14	.60
Present facts to contest another person’s social or political statement about the Black community	.68	.09	.14	.69
Confront jokes, statements, or innuendos that opposed the Black community	.87	−.02	−.19	.57
Boycott a product for political reasons specific to the Black community	.52	.20	.13	.55
Sign a petition for a political cause specific to the Black community	.75	−.08	.13	.65
Try to change a friend’s or acquaintance’s mind about a social or political issue specific to the Black community	.82	.05	−.08	.63
Try to change a relative’s mind about a social or political issue specific to the Black community	.85	.04	−.09	.66
Wear a t-shirt or button with a political message about the Black community	.76	−.03	.08	.66
Teach or mentor in the Black community	.46	.04	.25	.47
Factor 2: High-risk activism orientation
Engage in a political activity related to the Black community in which you knew you will be arrested	.04	.78	.04	.68
Engage in a physical confrontation at a political rally specific to the Black community	.06	.85	−.07	.70
Engage in a political activity specific to the Black community in which you feared that some of your possessions would be damaged	.06	.74	.09	.69
Engage in an illegal act as part of a political protest specific to the Black community	−.10	.79	.00	.57
Engage in a political activity specific to the Black community in which you suspect there would be a confrontation with the police or possible arrest	.07	.80	.03	.73
Block access to a building or public area with your body for a cause related to Black community	.01	.75	.07	.63
Engage in any political activity specific to the Black community in which you fear for your personal safety	.06	.74	.07	.67
Factor 3: Formal political activism orientation
Organize a political event (e.g., talk, march) specific to the Black community	.08	.28	.54	.64
Give a lecture or talk about a social or political issue specific to the Black community	.14	.27	.46	.60
Donate money to a political candidate who supports Black issues	.20	−.01	.63	.61
Send a letter or e-mail expressing a political opinion specific to the Black community to the editor of a periodical or television show	.18	−.01	.40	.60
Send a letter or e-mail to a public official about a political issue specific to the Black community	.17	.20	.56	.68
Attend a regular planning meeting for political organization that supports Black issues	.28	.15	.52	.72
Keep track of view of members of Congress regarding an issue important to the Black community	.31	.08	.42	.53
Campaign by phone for a political candidate who supports Black issues	−.09	.29	.64	.65
Eigenvalues	18.94	2.78	0.73
Percentage of variance	15.48	15.25	12.29
Cronbach’s α	.94	.93	.91
M	3.20	2.36	2.80
SD	1.01	1.05	1.00

Note: h² = communalities. Bold font indicates factor loadings over .40.

The three-factor solution explained 43% of the variance (see Table 1). The three factors were conceptually meaningful and reflected unique dimensions of Black community activism orientation. Factor 1, low-risk, consisted of 11 items and measured orientation toward engaging in sociopolitical, community, and social justice actions in and for the Black community that are passive, low-risk, and conventional. Factor coefficients ranged from .46 to .87 and communalities ranged from .47 to .69. Factor 2, high-risk, consisted of seven items and measured orientation toward engaging in high visibility, assertive, and unconventional sociopolitical, community, and social justice actions in and for the Black community. Factor coefficients ranged from .74 to .86 and communalities ranged from .57 to .70. Factor 3, formal political, consisted of eight items and measured orientation toward engaging in traditional political actions in and for the Black community, such as engagement with elected officials and participation with formal political groups. Factor coefficients ranged from .42 to .64 and communalities ranged from .53 to .72.

Internal consistency of the scores was demonstrated by high Cronbach’s alpha estimates for each of the three factors: Low-risk (α = .94), high-risk (α = .93), and formal political (α = .91). The factors were positively correlated: (a) Low-risk and high-risk = .54; (b) low-risk and formal political = .79; and high-risk and formal political = .74.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

To validate the three-factor model that resulted from the EFA, we conducted a CFA with Sample 2 (n = 447) using structural equation modeling with maximum likelihood estimation in STATA SE 14. We compared the three-factor model, with each item loading onto the factor identified in the EFA against a one-factor model, with all items loading onto a single factor to determine whether the three-factor model provided a better fit to the data than a single-factor model. In the single-factor model, one item, “Display a poster or bumper sticker with a political message specific to the Black community” was constrained to equal one. In the three-factor model, for each subscale, one item was constrained to equal 1. For the low-risk subscale the item constrained to equal 1 was “Display a poster or bumper sticker with a political message specific to the Black community.” For the high-risk subscale, the item constrained to equal 1 was “Engaged in a political activity related to the Black community in which you knew you will be arrested.” For the formal political subscale, the item constrained to equal 1 was “Organized a political event (e.g., talk, march) specific to the Black community.” In the three-factor model, the factors were allowed to correlate given the oblique rotation used in the EFA. We examined goodness of fit using the following indices: the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). Models with an RMSEA less than .07 (using a 90% confidence interval [CI]), CFI greater than .95, TLI greater than .95, and SRMR less than .05 are considered to have an excellent fit to the data (Hooper, Coughlan, & Mullen, 2008).

The one-factor solution provided a poor fit to the data, χ²(324) = 2863.37; RMSEA = .146, 90% CI [.142, .151]; CFI = .72; TLI = .70; SRMR = .19. The three-factor solution provided a good fit to the data, χ²(321) = 1101.10, RMSEA = .079, 90% CI [.075, .084]; CFI = .92; TLI = .91; SRMR = .06. The likelihood ratio test indicated that the three-factor model resulted in a significant improvement in model fit; χ²(3) = 1762.27, p < .001. Internal consistency estimates of the scores, standardized estimates for the pattern loadings of each factor, standard errors, 95% CIs, z scores, and factor intercorrelations between subscales for the three-factor solution are provided in Table 2. All pattern factor loadings were statistically significant (p < .05) and Cronbach’s alpha levels indicated strong internal consistency for scores of each subscale.

Table 2.

Standardized Estimates of the Pattern Coefficients for the Black Community Activism Orientation Scale Confirmatory Factor Analysis With Oblique Rotation (n = 447).

Latent variable and indicators	Standardized estimate	SE	95% CI	z
Factor 1: Low-risk (α = .94)
Display a poster or bumper sticker with a political message specific to the Black community	.78	.02	[.74, .82]	40.0
Purchase a poster, t-shirt, and so on, which endorses a political point of view specific to the Black community	.84	.02	[.81, .87]	55.9
Go out of your way to collect information on a social or political issue specific to the Black community	.81	.02	[.78, .85]	46.5
Present facts to contest another person’s social or political statement about the Black community	.79	.02	[.75, .83]	41.5
Confront jokes, statements, or innuendos that opposed the Black community	.67	.03	[.62, .72]	24.7
Boycott a product for political reasons specific to the Black community	.73	.02	[.68, .78]	31.4
Sign a petition for a political cause specific to the Black community	.82	.02	[.78, .85]	47.9
Try to change a friend’s or acquaintance’s mind about a social or political issue specific to the Black community	.79	.02	[.75, .82]	40.1
Try to change a relative’s mind about a social or political issue specific to the Black community	.81	.02	[.77, .84]	45.4
Wear a t-shirt or button with a political message about the Black community	.80	.02	[.77, .84]	44.3
Teach or mentor in the Black community	.70	.03	[.65, .75]	27.6
Factor 2: High-risk (α = .95)
Engage in a political activity related to the Black community in which you knew you will be arrested	.86	.01	[.84, .89]	63.8
Engage in a physical confrontation at a political rally specific to the Black community	.84	.02	[.80, .87]	53.0
Engage in a political activity specific to the Black community in which you feared that some of your possessions would be damaged	.80	.02	[.77, .84]	44.1
Engage in an illegal act as part of a political protest specific to the Black community	.81	.02	[.78, .85]	46.4
Engage in a political activity specific to the Black community in which you suspect there would be a confrontation with the police or possible arrest	.88	.01	[.86, .91]	73.8
Block access to a building or public area with your body for a cause related to the Black community	.87	.01	[.84, .89]	64.7
Engage in any political activity specific to the Black community in which you fear for your personal safety	.84	.02	[.81, .87]	55.3
Factor 3: Formal political (α = .92)
Organize a political event (e.g., talk, march) specific to the Black community	.84	.02	[.81, .87]	54.7
Give a lecture or talk about a social or political issue specific to the Black community	.78	.02	[.74, .82]	39.7
Donate money to a political candidate who supports Black issues	.77	.02	[.73, .81]	37.5
Send a letter or e-mail expressing a political opinion specific to the Black community to the editor of a periodical or television show	.82	.02	[.79, .86]	50.7
Send a letter or e-mail to a public official about a political issue specific to the Black community	.81	.02	[.78, .85]	47.3
Attend a regular planning meeting for political organization that supports Black issues	.81	.02	[.78, .88]	46.9
Keep track of views of members of Congress regarding an issue important to the Black community	.73	.02	[.69, .78]	31.6
Campaign by phone for a political candidate who supports Black issues	.81	.02	[.77, .84]	45.7
Factor correlations
Low-risk ↔ High-risk	.61	.03	[.55, .68]	19.0
Low-risk ↔ Formal political	.89	.01	[.87, .92]	67.5
High-risk ↔ Formal political	.82	.02	[.78, .86]	43.72

Note: SE = standard error; CI = confidence interval.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

To examine convergent and discriminant validity, we examined the bivariate correlation coefficients between the scores of the BCAOS and the other scales, social responsibility personal beliefs, social responsibility personal values, racial identity, and racial ideology. Means, standard deviations, skew, kurtosis, reliability estimates, and bivariate correlations are reported in Table 3. We established an alpha of .001 as the level of significance for these tests, to reduce Type I error and to provide a more stringent test of significance given the large sample size (Dahiru, 2008). Following recommendations for interpreting bivariate correlation effect sizes for validity, correlations (a) less than |.20| were considered low, (b) between |.21| and |.40| were considered moderate, (c) between |.40| and |.49| were considered high, and (d) above |.50| were considered very high (Swank & Mullen, 2017). We considered correlations with a minimum effect size of |.30| to establish convergent validity. We considered correlations below |.30| as evidence of discriminant validity.

Table 3.

Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations for Sample 2 Examining Convergent and Discriminant Validity (n = 447).

Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Low-risk activism orientation	—
2. High-risk activism orientation	.58*	—
3. Formal political activism orientation	.85*	.76*	—
4. Social responsibility beliefs	.30*	.15	.31*	—
5. Social responsibility values	.19*	.06	.19*	.63*	—
6. Centrality	.24*	.19*	.25*	.25*	.18*	—
7. Private regard	.16*	.10	.17*	.22*	.23*	.71*	—
8. Minority ideology	.09	.10	.10	.23*	.23*	.07	.10	—
9. Nationalist ideology	.29*	.41*	.36*	.16*	.00	.31*	.16*	.21*	—
M	3.18	2.41	2.85	4.03	4.24	5.98	6.37	5.10	4.40
SD	0.97	1.08	0.98	0.81	0.76	1.26	0.85	1.03	1.07
Range	1-5	1-5	1-5	1-5	1-5	1-7	1-7	1-7	1-7
Skew	−0.31	0.54	0.12	−0.60	−0.96	−1.49	−1.84	−0.52	−0.85
Kurtosis	2.63	2.61	2.67	3.09	3.71	5.15	7.51	3.50	4.00
Reliability estimates (α)	.94	.95	.93	.87	.88	.88	.73	.83	.80

p < .001.

Prior to examining convergent and discriminant validity, we conducted a CFA of the items for the MIIB-S, to demonstrate the factor structure of the scale. CFA was run using structural equation modeling with maximum likelihood estimation in STATA SE 14. We compared the three-factor model for centrality, private regard, and public regard against a one-factor model, with all items loading onto a single factor to determine whether the three-factor model provided a better fit to the data than a single-factor model. In the single-factor model, one item, “Being Black is an important reflection of who I am” was constrained to equal one. In the three-factor model, for each subscale, one item was constrained to equal 1. For the centrality subscale, the item constrained to equal 1 was “Being Black is an important reflection of who I am.” For the private regard subscale, the item constrained to equal 1 was “I am happy that I am Black.” For the public regard subscale, the item constrained to equal 1 was “Overall, Blacks are considered good by others.” In the three-factor model, the factors were allowed to correlate. The one-factor solution provided a poor fit to the data, χ²(27) = 912.86; RMSEA = .27, 90% CI [.256, .286]; CFI = .62; TLI = .49; SRMR = .18. The three-factor solution provided a good fit to the data, χ²(24) = 76.83, RMSEA = .07, 90% CI [.053, .088]; CFI = .98; TLI = .97; SRMR = .03. The likelihood ratio test indicated that the three-factor model resulted in a significant improvement in model fit; χ²(3) = 836.03, p < .001. All pattern factor loadings were statistically significant (p < .001) and Cronbach’s alpha levels indicated strong internal consistency for scores of each subscale (see Table 3).

Evidence of convergent validity

Social responsibility beliefs had a medium positive correlation with low-risk (r = .30), and formal political (r = .31) orientations, as predicted. The more participants believed they had a civic and social responsibility to their community, the greater their likelihood of endorsing less risky and more traditional future social action in the Black community. Nationalist ideology had a medium and positive relationship with high-risk (r = .41) and formal political (r = .36) Black community activism orientation. Participants who endorsed an ideology that highlighted the uniqueness of being Black also reported that they would be likely to engage in high-risk and traditional political social action in and for the Black community.

Evidence of discriminant validity

Discriminant validity of the BCAOS was supported by low correlations between the BCAOS and measures of social responsibility values, racial centrality, racial private regard, and minority ideology. Social responsibility values had low positive correlations with low-risk (r = .19) and formal political (r = .19). Social responsibilities values were not associated with high-risk activism orientation in and for the Black community (r = .06). The overall importance of being socially responsible was not related to an orientation toward activism in the Black community.

Racial centrality and private regard were not related to the BCAOS. Racial centrality had low positive correlation with low-risk (r = .24), high-risk (r = .19), and formal political (r = .25) Black community activism orientation. Private regard also had a small and positive correlation with low-risk (r = .16), high-risk (r = .10), and formal political (r = .17) Black community activism orientation. Minority Ideology had nonsignificant relationships with low-risk, high-risk, and formal political Black community activism orientation.

Discussion

The current study was designed to develop and validate a measure to assess orientation toward Black community activism. Our expectation was supported through EFA that was used to identify a 26-item scale that measures activism orientation across three dimensions: Low-risk, high-risk, and formal political. Through CFA, we gathered evidence to support that the three-factor structure provided an improved fit to the data over a single-factor solution. Lastly, we examined internal, convergent, and discriminant validity for the BCAOS scores. Our analyses provided evidence that the factors of the BCAOS were related as expected to dimensions of racial identity that reflect a strong and positive connection to the Black community. Overall, our findings provide strong preliminary evidence to suggest that the items and factor structure of the BCAOS are appropriate for use to examine activism orientation among Black adolescents and emerging adults.

Through exploratory and CFAs, we found evidence of three dimensions of Black community activism orientation. Low-risk activism orientation reflected the likelihood of participating in social and political actions that are relatively safe, with minimal risk of personal harm, arrest, danger, and general uncertainty. High-risk activism orientation was most similar to conventional definitions of activism (McAdam, 1986), and reflected social and political action that may result in bodily harm, involvement with the criminal justice system, or damage to possessions. Formal political activism orientation measured propensity toward social and political actions that are typically regarded as political participation (Ekman & Amnå, 2012) and included organizing and attending political events, and donating to and campaigning for political candidates that support the Black community. These findings support previous research, which has measured activism and activism orientation across a wide-range of action for social change identified (Corning & Myers, 2002; Ekman & Amnå, 2012).

Our findings also suggest that the three dimensions of activism orientation are related, yet distinct. Intercorrelations among the factors revealed that the subscales were related; participants who endorsed one form of activism orientation were likely to have endorsed the other forms. Our hypotheses regarding convergent and discriminant validity were partially supported. As expected, social responsibility beliefs and nationalist ideology were related to activism orientation. Participants who endorsed low-risk and formal political activism orientation believed they have a responsibility to improve the world and community and believed it is important to consider the needs of others, particularly marginalized groups. Also, a nationalist ideology that emphasizes the uniqueness of the Black experience was related to a greater orientation toward more risky and formal political forms of activism. Scholarship on youth critical consciousness and sociopolitical development suggests that collective identity—a shared culture and sense of belonging with a group—is a contributing factor in youth decisions to participate in social actions toward social change (Watts & Hipolito-Delgado, 2015). Thus, as expected, social responsibility and nationalism are distinct but related to activism orientation.

There was also evidence of discriminant validity. Our findings show that social responsibility values are not related to any dimensions of activism orientation. This suggests that valuing social responsibility generally (considering the needs of others and making sure everyone is treated fairly) is distinct from one’s likelihood in engaging in social action in and for his or her racial group. We also found, contrary to our hypotheses, that holding race as central to one’s self-concept and having positive feelings toward the Black community are not strongly related to activism orientation. Previous research found that youth who consider being Black as central to their self-concept demonstrated stronger prosocial attitudes and behavior specific to the Black community (White-Johnson, 2012). The theoretical underpinnings, however, do not suggest that centrality of race or personal regard of one’s racial group should be directly inclusive of social or political action to address racial injustice (Sellers et al., 1998). Our findings provide evidence to suggest that while there is a small positive relationship, racial centrality and private regard may be distinct from Black community activism orientation. It may also be possible that the importance of race to one’s self-concept and feelings of belonging toward one’s racial group do not motivate sociopolitical action in and for that racial group.

Surprisingly, beliefs that recognize commonality in oppression faced by Black people and people of other marginalized groups were not related to Black community activism orientation. We expected that an ideology that connects the experiences of oppression in the Black community to other communities might be an indicator of collective political identity, and thus, related to Black community activism orientation. This result from our study, however, was not the case. Activism theorists have suggested that a politicized collective identity is a distinguishing feature of activists (Curtin et al., 2010). It may be that for Black adolescents and emerging adults, a collective identity with other marginalized groups does not relate to activism target toward a specific racial group. Alternatively, marginalized groups can exist across other racial-ethnic categories (e.g., Latinx community), or intersectionally, within the Black community (e.g., Black LGBTQ [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer] people). It is also possible that a relationship between minority ideology and Black community activism orientation was suppressed given the measurement of minority ideology in reference to a nonspecific marginalized group or that the content of the BCAOS is measuring a unique dimension of orientation toward racialized activism that is unique from an ideological connection to other marginalized groups.

Study Limitations

Our study is not without limitations. While we attempted to include a wide range of activism, it is possible that there may be additional behaviors that should be considered as activism for social and political change. Additionally, our study participants were self-identified Black adolescents and emerging adults. While the study sample allowed for examinations of activism orientation among Black people from a variety of African diasporic backgrounds, we did not have large enough samples to test measurement invariance among subgroups within our sample. Furthermore, we were not able to examine this measure among older members of the Black community to determine whether similar factor structures exist across generations. While our sample included adolescents and emerging adults from across the United States, this sample was not nationally representative. Moreover, we combined adolescents and emerging adults in our analyses. Future research may consider further validation of the BCAOS with early adolescent, late adolescent, emerging adult, and older adult populations to assess the utility of the measure across the developmental span. Finally, another limitation of the study is that the survey measures were not randomized during survey administration.

Implications and Future Directions

Despite the limitations, our findings provide preliminary support for the development of a measure of Black activism orientation that focuses on a wide variety of behaviors specific to social action in and for the Black community. The BCAOS is a measure that reflects variants of Black activism and will allow researchers to examine orientations toward different types of activism. We found that orientation toward sociopolitical action in and for the Black community is multidimensional for Black adolescents and emerging adults. By considering low-risk, high-risk, and formal political activism orientation, scholars can disentangle under what circumstances young people may be motivated toward social action and how this relationship might differ depending on the type of activism at hand. For Black adolescents and emerging adults in the United States, the racially oppressive sociopolitical climate has been cited as a health risk and catalyzes the fight for equality, justice, and liberation (Hope, Hoggard, & Thomas, 2015; Hope & Spencer, 2017). Future researchers can use the BCAOS to contribute to the growing literature on youth activism and social justice movements to assess orientation toward activism in and for the Black community and investigate the causes and consequences of activism for Black adolescents and emerging adults.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental_Table – Supplemental material for Development and Validation of the Black Community Activism Orientation Scale

Supplemental material, Supplemental_Table for Development and Validation of the Black Community Activism Orientation Scale by Elan C. Hope, Kristen N. Pender and Kristen N. Riddick in Journal of Black Psychology

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Elan C. Hope

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Anyiwo

Bañales

Rowley

S. J.

Watkins

D. C.

Richards-Schuster

(2018). Sociocultural influences on the sociopolitical development of African American youth. Child Development Perspectives, 23, 102-106. doi:10.1111/cdep.12276

Arnett

J. J.

(2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469-480. doi:10.1037//0003-06X.55.5.469

Ballard

P. J.

(2015). Longitudinal links between discrimination and civic development among Latino and Asian adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 26, 723-737. doi:10.1111/jora.12221

Barnes

C. Y.

Hope

E. C.

(2017). Means-tested public assistance programs and adolescent political socialization. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46, 1611-1621. doi:10.1007/s10964-016-0624-x

Bernard

D. L.

Hoggard

L. S.

Neblett

E. W.

Jr. (2018). Racial discrimination, racial identity, and impostor phenomenon: A profile approach. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 24, 51-61. doi:10.1037/cdp0000161

Black Youth Project 100. (2013). #BYP100 responds to George Zimmerman Verdict. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUxKJXK5WAc

Bonilla

Rosa

(2015). #Ferguson: Digital protest, hashtag ethnography, and the racial politics of social media in the United States. American Ethnologist, 42(1), 4-17. doi:10.1111/amet.12112

Brandon

D. M.

Long

J. H.

Loraas

T. M.

Mueller-Phillips

Vansant

(2014). Online instrument delivery and participant recruitment services: Emerging opportunities for behavioral accounting research. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 26, 1-23. doi:10.2308/bria-50651

Butler-Barnes

S. T.

Leath

Williams

Byrd

Carter

Chavous

T. M.

(2017). Promoting resilience among African American girls: Racial identity as a protective factor. Child Development, 89, e552-e571. doi:10.1111/cdev.12995

10.

Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement. (2014). New analysis: Political engagement of Asian American, African American, and Latino Youth. Retrieved from https://civicyouth.org/new-analysis-political-engagement-of-asian-american-african-american-and-latino-youth/

11.

Chen

W. Y.

Propp

Lee

(2014). Connection between adolescent’s exposure to community violence and future civic engagement behaviors during their young adulthood. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 32, 45-55. doi:10.1007/s10560-014-0361-5

12.

Cohen

C. J.

Kahne

(2011). Participatory politics. New media and youth political action. Oakland: YPP Research Network. Retrieved from https://ypp.dmlcentral.net/sites/all/files/publications/YPP_Survey_Report_FULL.pdf

13.

Cokley

K. O.

Helm

(2001). Testing the construct validity of scores on the Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34, 80-95.

14.

Corning

A. F.

Myers

D. J.

(2002). Individual orientation toward engagement in social action. Political Psychology, 23, 703-729. doi:10.1111/0162-895x.00304

15.

Costello

A. B.

Osborne

J. W.

(2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(7), 1-9.

16.

Curtin

McGarty

(2016). Expanding on psychological theories of engagement to understand activism in context(s). Journal of Social Issues, 72, 227-241. doi:10.1111/josi.12164

17.

Curtin

Stewart

A. J.

Duncan

L. E.

(2010). What makes the personal political? Personal political salience and activism. Journal of Personality, 78, 943-968. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00638.x

18.

Dahiru

(2008). p – Value, a true test of statistical significance? A cautionary note. Annals of Ibadan Postgraduate Medicine, 6(1), 21-26.

19.

Dawson

Brown

Jackson

J. S.

(1993). National Black Politics Study, 1993. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2008-12-03. doi:10.3886/ICPSR02018.v2

20.

Dennis

(2016). Black contemporary social movements, resource mobilization, and Black musical activism. Law & Contemporary Problems, 79(3), 29-51.

21.

Diemer

M. A.

(2012). Fostering marginalized youths’ political participation: Longitudinal roles of parental political socialization and youth sociopolitical development. American Journal of Community Psychology, 50, 246-256. doi:10.1007/s10464-012-9495-9

22.

Diemer

M. A.

(2011). Critical consciousness development and political participation among marginalized youth. Child Development, 82, 1815-1833. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01650.x

23.

Ekman

Amnå

(2012). Political participation and civic engagement: Towards a new typology. Human Affairs, 22, 283-300. doi:10.2478/s13374-012-0024-1

24.

Flanagan

C. A.

Martínez

M. L.

Cumsille

Ngomane

(2011). Youth civic development: Theorizing a domain with evidence from different cultural contexts. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2011, 95-109. doi:10.1002/cd.313

25.

Garza

(2014, October 7). A herstory of the #BlackLivesMatter movement. The Feminist Wire. Retrieved from http://www.thefeministwire.com/2014/10/blacklivesmatter-2/

26.

Gaskin

Happell

(2014). On exploratory factor analysis: A review of recent evidence, an assessment of current practice, and recommendations for future use. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 51, 511-521.

27.

Gillborn

(2006). Critical race theory and education: Racism and anti-racism in educational theory and praxis. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 27, 11-32. doi:10.1080/01596300500510229

28.

Ginwright

(2010). Black youth rising: Activism and radical healing in urban America. New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press.

29.

Hoggard

L. S.

Byrd

C. M.

Sellers

R. M.

(2015). The lagged effects of racial discrimination on depressive symptomology and interactions with racial identity. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 62, 216-225. doi:10.1037/cou0000069

30.

Hooper

Coughlan

Mullen

(2008). Structural equation modeling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6, 53-60.

31.

Hope

E. C.

(2015). Preparing to participate: The role of youth social responsibility and political efficacy on civic engagement for Black early adolescents. Child Indicators Research, 9, 609-630. doi:10.1007/s12187-015-9331-5

32.

Hope

E. C.

Hoggard

L. S.

Thomas

(2015). Emerging into adulthood in the face of racial discrimination: Physiological, psychological, and sociopolitical consequences for African American youth. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 1, 342-351. doi:10.1037/tps0000041

33.

Hope

E. C.

Jagers

R. J.

(2015). The role of sociopolitical attitudes and civic education in the civic engagement of Black youth. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 24, 460-470. doi:10.1111/jora.12117

34.

Hope

E. C.

Keels

Durkee

M. I.

(2016). Participation in Black Lives Matter and deferred action for childhood arrivals: Modern activism among Black and Latino college students. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 9, 203-215. doi:10.1037/dhe0000032

35.

Hope

E. C.

Spencer

M. B.

(2017). Civic engagement as an adaptive coping response to conditions of inequality: An application of phenomenological variant of ecological systems theory (PVEST). In Cabrera

Leyendecker

(Eds.), Handbook on positive development of minority children and youth (pp. 421-435). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

36.

Juris

J. S.

(2012). Reflections on #Occupy everywhere: Social media, public space, and emerging logics of aggregation. American Ethnologist, 39, 259-279. doi:10.1163/9789004324589_021

37.

Livingston

J. N.

Bell Hughes

Dawson

Williams

Mohabir

J. A.

Eleanya

. . . Brandon

(2017). Feeling no ways tired: A resurgence of activism in the African American community. Journal of Black Studies, 48, 279-304. doi:10.1177/0021934717690526

38.

Lozada

F. T.

Jagers

R. J.

Smith

C. D.

Bañales

Hope

E. C.

(2017). Prosocial behaviors of Black adolescent boys: An application of sociopolitical development theory. Journal of Black Psychology, 43, 493-516. doi:10.1177/0095798416652021

39.

Martin

Wout

Nguyen

H. X.

Gonzalez

Sellers

R. M.

(2013). The Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity–Short. Unpublished manuscript.

40.

McAdam

(1986). Recruitment to high-risk activism: The case of freedom summer. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 64-90. doi:10.1086/228463

41.

Moore

S. S.

Hope

E. C.

Eisman

A. B.

Zimmerman

M. A.

(2016). Predictors of civic engagement among highly involved young adults: Exploring the relationship between agency and systems worldview. Journal of Community Psychology, 44, 888-903. doi:10.1002/jcop.21815

42.

Moskalenko

McCauley

(2009). Measuring political mobilization: The distinction between activism and radicalism. Terrorism and Political Violence, 21, 239-260. doi:10.1080/09546550902765508

43.

Neville

H. A.

Cross

W. E.

Jr. (2016). Racial awakening: Epiphanies and encounters in Black racial identity. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 23, 102-108. doi:10.1037/cdp0000105

44.

Sellers

R. M.

Rowley

S. A.

Chavous

T. M.

Shelton

J. N.

Smith

M. A.

(1997). Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity: A preliminary investigation of reliability and construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 805-815. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.4.805

45.

Sellers

R. M.

Smith

M. A.

Shelton

J. N.

Rowley

S. 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. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0201_2

46.

Simmons

Worrell

F. C.

Berry

J. M.

(2008). Psychometric properties of scores on three Black racial identity scales. Assessment, 15, 259-276.

47.

Sullivan

Esmail

(2007). Black social and political activism: An exploratory study. Race, Gender & Class, 14, 281-298.

48.

Swank

J. M.

Mullen

P. R.

(2017). Evaluating evidence for conceptually related constructs using bivariate correlations. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 50, 1-6. doi:10.1080/07481756.2017.1339562

49.

Syvertsen

A. K.

Wray-Lake

Metzger

(2015). Youth civic and character measures toolkit. Minneapolis, MN: Search Institute.

50.

Szymanski

D. M.

(2004). Relations among dimensions of feminism and internalized heterosexism in lesbians and bisexual women. Sex Roles, 51, 145-159. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SERS.0000037759.33014.55

51.

Szymanski

D. M.

(2012). Racist events and individual coping styles as predictors of African American activism. Journal of Black Psychology, 38, 342-367. doi:10.1177/0095798411424744

52.

Szymanski

D. M.

Lewis

J. A.

(2015). Race-related stress and racial identity as predictors of African American activism. Journal of Black Psychology, 41, 170-191. doi:10.1177/0095798414520707

53.

Thomas

O. N.

(2001). Collective action, socio-political attitudes, and social change preference: A multidimensional measure of African American activism (Unpublished master’s thesis). Michigan State University, East Lansing.

54.

Van Deburg

W. L

. (1992). New day in Babylon: The Black Power Movement and American cuture, 1965-1975. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

55.

Vandiver

B. J.

Worrell

F. C.

Delgado-Romero

E. A.

(2009). A psychometric examination of Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity (MIBI) scores. Assessment, 16, 337-351. doi:10.1177/1073191109341958

56.

Watts

Guessous

(2006). Sociopolitical development: The missing link in research and policy on adolescents. In Ginwright

Noguera

Cammarota

(Eds.), Beyond resistance! Youth activism and community change: New democratic possibilities for practice and policy for America’s youth (pp. 59-80). New York, NY: Routledge.

57.

Watts

R. J.

Hipolito-Delgado

C. P.

(2015). Thinking ourselves to liberation? Advancing sociopolitical action in critical consciousness. Urban Review, 47, 847-867. doi:10.1007/s11256-015-0341-x

58.

Weiner

M. F.

(2012). Towards a critical global race theory. Sociology Compass, 6, 332-350. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9020.2012.00457.x

59.

White-Johnson

R. L.

(2012). Prosocial involvement among African-American young adults: Considering racial discrimination and racial identity. Journal of Black Psychology, 38, 313-341. doi:10.1177/0095798411420429

60.

Worthington

Whittaker

(2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34, 806-838.

61.

Wray-Lake

Metzger

Syvertsen

A. K.

(2016). Testing multidimensional models of youth civic engagement: Model comparisons, measurement invariance, and age differences. Applied Developmental Science, 21, 26-284. doi:10.1177/0011000006288127

62.

Yong

A. G.

Pearce

(2013). A beginner’s guide to factor analysis: Focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 9, 79-94. doi:10.20982/tqmp.09.2.p079

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.12 MB