Measuring Racial and Ethnic Socialization: Adaptation of the ARESS for Black Women

Abstract

Despite the importance of racial and ethnic socialization (RES) processes for Black women, RES assessment has largely been limited to youth. We expand on the literature by examining the factor structure and convergent validity of the Adolescent Racial and Ethnic Socialization Scale (ARESS). As part of a cross-sectional psychometric validation study, Black women (n = 422) completed a modified ARESS (ERES-AR) and measures assessing race-related beliefs/attitudes, protective factors and symptoms. Exploratory Factor Analysis revealed five factors: Promotion of Pride, Active Cultural Socialization, Preparation for Bias, Passive Cultural Socialization, Promotion of Integration. In support of measure validity, Promotion of Pride was associated with identity, resilience, and depression. Active Cultural Socialization was associated with identity and resilience, while Preparation for Bias was associated with the superwoman schema, identity, belonging, resilience, rumination and worry. Passive Cultural Socialization was associated with resilience, belonging, and identity. Promotion of Integration was associated with the superwoman schema, belonging, and resilience. Our results show there are overlapping and distinct aspects of RES that are associated with meaningful psychological variables.

Plain Language Summary

Racial and ethnic socialization refers to the process through which individuals learn about their race and ethnicity. Although racial and ethnic socialization is an important process for Black women, no measures exist specifically for this understudied and underserved group. This paper found that racial and ethnic socialization has distinct components with unique associations with gendered racial ideologies, racial identity, and mental health.

Keywords

racial and ethnic socialization racial identity Black women psychometric

Introduction

The multi-faceted processes through which individuals learn about and acquire the customs, beliefs, language of their racial or ethnic group and see themselves as being part of that group refers to racial or ethnic socialization (Hughes et al., 2006; Lesane-Brown, 2006). Within the context of Black families specifically, racial and ethnic socialization is a complex and multidimensional construct thought to be transmitted from caregivers to their children, including the promotion of cultural pride, preparation for experiencing racism, and encouragement of egalitarianism (Hughes et al., 2006). Examining racial and ethnic socialization is critical for several reasons, including that it is a highly prevalent practice that many Black parents value (Thomas & Speight, 1999). Racial and ethnic socialization is also conceptualized as a precursor for the development of racial identity (Neblett et al., 2009), and is consequential for protection against adverse mental health outcomes (Reynolds & Gonzales-Backen, 2017).

Although several measures have been developed to assess experiences of racial and ethnic socialization, the majority, if not all, have focused on youth and adolescents. However, as noted by Lesane-Brown (2006), socialization messages received during childhood may undergo a complex process of rejection and internalization by the time someone reaches adulthood. Despite these long-term developmental considerations, there is a dearth of studies empirically testing racial and ethnic socialization measures in Black adults and particularly in Black women. Given that Black girls receive more frequent racial and ethnic socialization messages compared to boys (Priest et al., 2014) and that Black mothers engage in more racial socialization practices (McHale et al., 2006), centering Black women in racial and ethnic socialization work is particularly important. However, the lack of psychometric support for Black women’s experiences of racial and ethnic socialization hinders research aimed at understanding the potential long-term outcomes associated with various socialization processes.

Assessment of Racial and Ethnic Socialization

To address concerns regarding early measures of racial ethnic socialization, particularly those focusing on children and adolescents, T. L. Brown and Krishnakumar (2007) developed the Adolescent Racial and Ethnic Socialization Scale (ARESS). This scale addressed several issues, including an emphasis on verbal (vs. non-verbal) socialization practices, a lack of differentiation between the genders of the caregivers, and the conflation of racial and ethnic socialization. Building on the items of the Teenager Experience of Racial Socialization or the TERS (Stevenson et al., 2002), T. L. Brown and Krishnakumar (2007) used focus groups and subsequent confirmatory factor analyses in a sample of 218 Black adolescents. The authors developed two separate scales for racial and ethnic socialization, respectively, and further delineated the messages by caregiver gender to assess maternal and paternal racial and ethnic socialization.

The first ARESS subscale intended to assess racial socialization, which T. L. Brown and Krishnakumar (2007) argued incorporates inter- and intra-group relations and racial identity. This subscale contained 13 items across three subscales, including coping with racism and discrimination, promoting cross-racial relationships, and racial barrier awareness. The second scale was intended to capture ethnic socialization, which compared to racial socialization, focused more on cultural elements such as values and beliefs related to being African American. The ethnic socialization scale, on the other hand, had 22 items across five subscales, including African American cultural values, African American heritage, African American history, cultural embeddedness, and finally, ethnic pride. T. L. Brown and Krishnakumar (2007) found that subscale scores predicted adolescent functioning in expected ways and also noted that maternal (vs. paternal) caregivers offered more socialization practices which further warrants a focus on Black women. Thus, the development of the ARESS advanced the field of racial and ethnic socialization measurement by adding nuance to the racial versus ethnic distinction, incorporating nonverbal forms of socialization (e.g., going to museums) and assessing racial and ethnic socialization based on caregivers’ gender.

Building on the ARESS

Although the ARESS offers numerous benefits over previous racial and ethnic socialization measures, there remain several opportunities to build on this measure. First, it is critical for researchers to also extend the validation of the ARESS to Black adults, and in particular, Black women. The ways in which caregivers engaged in racial and ethnic socialization may have different effects during childhood versus adulthood. Thus, to better understand Black women’s experiences and the ways in which they relate to their race, it is critical to assess the functioning of measures like the ARESS in a representative sample of Black women. Furthermore, it can advance the literature and provide further support for the ARESS to expand discriminant and convergent validity. This includes assessing associations with race- and gender-related variables (e.g., superwoman schema, racial identity), strength-based protective factors (e.g., belonging, resilience, and optimism) as well as psychological symptoms (e.g., depression, worry, and rumination). For example, understanding how racial and ethnic socialization messages related to internalization of the superwoman schema, an inherently intersectional construct, offers important insights specifically for Black women. Extending the convergent validity of the ARESS can offer a more comprehensive understanding of how racial and ethnic socialization processes relate to key constructs in the literature.

Second, in terms of theoretical concerns, T. L. Brown and Krishnakumar (2007) called for a separation of racial and ethnic socialization processes, noting that such separation “assists in determining the relative influence of messages related to intergroup protocol (racial socialization) versus messages related to intragroup protocol (ethnic socialization)” (p. 1073). However, this separation has been a point of contention in the racial and ethnic socialization literature for many years. For example, Hughes et al. (2006) argued that, “. . .there is not yet a satisfying solution for unambiguously distinguishing socialization that is racial from socialization that is ethnic or for determining when one term should be used rather than the other. Further, we believe that both terms are too broad and nonspecific to be conceptually or empirically useful” (p. 749). In their review, they opt for using the combined ethnic-racial socialization term rather than settle the delineation. While both positions (combined or separate) are theoretically justifiable, the delineation remains an empirical question which was not specifically tested in the original development of the ARESS (i.e., testing models where the racial and ethnic socialization measures were combined). Testing a combined model may offer needed empirical support to justify the superiority (or inferiority) of separating racial and ethnic socialization.

Third, despite significant reconfiguration of the TERS items, use of focus groups, and considerable differences in the theoretical approach to racial and ethnic socialization, T. L. Brown and Krishnakumar (2007) opted for confirmatory, rather than exploratory analyses. Given these major changes in the ARESS compared to the TERS, the factor structure is likely to be quite different to the point that this may be considered an initial conceptualization of a new measure. As noted by Worthington and Whittaker (2006), such drastic modifications in a measure necessitates using an exploratory rather than confirmatory approach. Particularly given lack of evidence supporting the theoretical distinction between racial and ethnic socialization, exploratory factor analyses, which do not rely on previous theory, would offer the strongest support for the delineation that is less biased (Henson & Roberts, 2006).

Fourth, although the delineation of maternal versus paternal racial and ethnic socialization was well justified by T. L. Brown and Krishnakumar (2007), such an approach may be limited in a psychometric context. For example, there is an implicit assumption that an individual has both a maternal and paternal caregiver. However, participants could have only one (Damaske et al., 2017), or in the context of multigenerational households, could have more than two caregivers (e.g., grandparents) which are more common in Black compared to White families (Cohen & Casper, 2002). Furthermore, such a delineation may not accommodate racial and ethnic socialization in the context of being raised by LGB non-binary parents. Thus, it is unclear whether such a delineation by gender is justified given the potential for exclusion and erasure of families who do not fit within a “traditional” conceptualization of caregivers. In addition, completing the measure two times creates significant administrative burden. Thus, in summary, there remain several opportunities to build on the ARESS to better understand racial and ethnic socialization in Black communities.

Current Study

The current study aims to build on the previous racial and ethnic socialization measurement literature in several ways. In this study, we use EFAs to test the factor structure of the ARESS in a large, community sample of Black women. We address previous concerns regarding the potential conflation of racial and ethnic socialization by conducting an EFA with all items of the ARESS. Furthermore, rather than introduce unnecessary exclusion and administrative burden as noted above, we modified the items to refer to a caregiver in general rather than a maternal or paternal caregiver. Thus, our first research question was: What distinct factors emerge when all the ARESS items across the racial and ethnic socialization scales are subjected to a single EFA? Second, we aim to increase nomological network of racial and ethnic socialization by further investigating discriminant and convergent validity. Thus, the second research question was: Based on the factors that emerge from the adapted ARESS, does the measure relate to other constructs in ways that support psychometric validity?

Method

Participants

Participants were 422 Black women with a mean age of 37.92 (SD = 4.25; range = 30–47). The annual income breakdown was as follows: 24.4% less than $35,000, 20.6% $35,000 to 49,999, 22.5% 50,000 to 74,999, 30.1% 75,000 or more, 0.5% refused to answer and 1.4% did not know their annual income. In terms of employment 13.7% were unemployed, 19.2% worked part-time, and 64.2% worked full-time. On average, participants reported 15.17 years of education (SD = 2.48).

Procedure

Participants in the current study were recruited as part of the Mechanisms Underlying the impact of Stress and Emotions on African-American Women’s Health Study (MUSE), which took place in Atlanta, Georgia, a large urban city in the South. Based on the primary aims of the study, inclusion criteria were self-identifying as an African-American woman, being between 30 and 45 years old at the time of screening, and premenopausal with at least one ovary. Exclusion criteria included a history of clinical cardiovascular disease, being pregnant or lactating, any chronic illness known to influence atherosclerosis, current treatment for psychiatric disorders, current illicit drug use, or alcohol abuse. The present study used baseline data from this cohort, collected from December 2016 to March 2019 (McKinnon et al., 2022). All study procedures were approved by the Emory University Institutional Review Board and all participants provided written informed consent indicating willingness to participate. A total of 422 eligible respondents completed the in-person interview which were conducted by African-American women interviewers.

Measures

Racial and Ethnic Socialization

To assess racial and ethnic socialization, participants completed an adapted version of the ARESS, which has been described in detail in the introduction section. The adaptations included changing “maternal” and “paternal” caregiver to just “caregiver” and only administering the items once. In addition, an exploratory item about receiving Black dolls was added. All items were prefaced with “While growing up. . .” and rated on a scale from 0 (never) to 3 (always). The full list of items can be found in Table 1.

Table 1.

Factor Loadings for All Item EFA Model.

Item #	Original scale	Original subscale	Item (My caregiver. . .)	Loadings by factor
Item #	Original scale	Original subscale	Item (My caregiver. . .)	1	2	3	4	5
30	Ethnic	Ethnic pride	. . . taught me to never be ashamed of my skin color	0.86	0.03	−0.08	−0.06	0.12
15	Racial	Coping with racism and discrimination	. . . taught me the importance of getting a good education	0.84	−0.16	−0.03	0.17	0.04
31	Racial	Coping with racism and discrimination	. . . taught me to stand up for myself	0.80	−0.12	−0.01	0.00	0.11
36	Ethnic	Ethnic pride	. . . encouraged me to be proud of my background	0.77	0.21	−0.07	−0.13	0.01
6	Ethnic	African American cultural values	. . . taught me the importance of family loyalty	0.74	0.08	−0.13	0.13	0.04
32	Racial	Coping with racism and discrimination	. . . taught me that a belief in God helps with life struggles	0.72	−0.21	−0.06	0.01	0.11
12	Ethnic	Ethnic pride	. . . taught me that my skin color is beautiful	0.70	0.14	−0.09	0.18	−0.02
1	Racial	Coping with racism and discrimination	. . . taught me that if I work hard I can overcome barriers in life	0.66	−0.12	0.02	0.13	0.00
34	Ethnic	African American heritage	. . . taught me to never forget my heritage	0.57	0.32	0.09	−0.18	−0.05
25	Ethnic	African American cultural values	. . . taught me to respect authority figures like teachers, elders, and police	0.54	−0.25	0.03	0.27	0.12
4	Ethnic	Ethnic pride	. . . taught me to have pride in my Black culture	0.52	0.36	0.05	0.03	−0.19
22	Ethnic	African American heritage	. . . encouraged me to go to Black museums	−0.15	1.05	−0.18	0.11	0.13
23	Ethnic	African American heritage	. . . encouraged me to go to Black cultural events (e.g., parades, festivals, plays, etc)	−0.20	1.02	−0.08	0.10	0.09
21	Ethnic	Cultural embeddedness	. . . read books written by Black writers	0.02	0.85	−0.13	0.15	0.15
8	Ethnic	African American heritage	. . . did things to celebrate Black history month	−0.06	0.81	−0.01	0.03	0.03
19	Ethnic	African American heritage	. . . encouraged me to watch documentaries or movies on Black history	−0.04	0.75	0.13	0.09	−0.02
35	Ethnic	African American cultural values	. . . taught me that Blacks should give back to the Black community	0.32	0.62	−0.02	−0.14	0.01
11	Ethnic	Cultural embeddedness	. . . had Black art, sculptures, and pictures	−0.02	0.57	0.01	0.35	−0.06
7	Racial	Promoting cross-racial relationships	. . . encouraged me to have Black friends	−0.15	0.55	0.22	0.07	0.14
14	Ethnic	African American history	. . . taught me about slavery in this country	0.14	0.51	0.23	0.04	0.02
3	Ethnic	African American history	. . . encouraged me to learn about the history of Blacks	0.29	0.45	0.19	0.00	−0.13
2	Racial	Racial barrier awareness	. . . taught me that Blacks don’t always have the same opportunities as Whites	−0.14	−0.15	0.85	0.02	−0.05
26	Racial	Racial barrier awareness	. . . taught me to be cautious when dealing with White people	−0.21	0.01	0.79	0.02	0.09
24	Racial	Racial barrier awareness	. . . taught me that a Black person could be harassed because he or she is Black	0.05	0.04	0.76	−0.01	0.04
16	Racial	Racial barrier awareness	. . . taught me that racism is present in America	0.22	−0.11	0.72	0.09	0.02
17	Racial	Racial barrier awareness	. . . shared with me their experiences of racism and discrimination	0.06	0.04	0.65	0.10	−0.01
18	Racial	Coping with racism and discrimination	. . . taught me what to do if I’m called a racist name	0.05	0.10	0.57	−0.02	0.11
10	Ethnic	Cultural embeddedness	. . . had Black magazines like Essence, Ebony, Jet in the home	0.03	0.35	0.05	0.52	−0.08
9	Ethnic	Cultural embeddedness	. . . watched Black television shows	0.09	0.21	0.12	0.50	−0.09
29	Racial	Promoting cross-racial relationships	. . . encouraged me to have White friends	0.05	0.33	0.06	−0.12	0.66
28	Racial	Promoting cross-racial relationships	. . . encouraged me to get along with Whites	0.32	0.03	0.12	−0.02	0.61
13	N/A	N/A	. . . bought me Black dolls	0.13	0.36	−0.02	0.33	0.01
33	Ethnic	African American history	. . . taught me that knowing about African history is important	0.46	0.52	−0.05	−0.13	−0.05
5	Ethnic	African American cultural values	. . . taught me the importance of Black people helping one another	0.40	0.33	0.17	0.05	−0.14
20	Ethnic	Ethnic pride	. . . encouraged me to be proud of the accomplishments of Blacks	0.46	0.48	−0.02	0.04	−0.05
27	Ethnic	African American history	. . . taught me that Black slavery is important to never forget	0.17	0.33	0.39	−0.08	0.08

Note. Bolded factor loadings indicate the best fitting factor in the full EFA model. Items that are italicized indicate a high cross loading on two factors. The italicized items were dropped from the scale for the validity analyses.

Superwoman Schema

To determine the cognitive, affective, and behavioral impacts of the Strong Black Woman/Superwoman role, we used the Giscombe Superwoman Schema Questionnaire (G-SWS-Q; (Woods-Giscombe et al., 2019). This 35-item scale asks Black women to report the degree to which they identify with the Strong Black Woman (SBW) ideology across five factors: (a) obligation to present an image of strength, (b) obligation to suppress emotions, (c) resistance to being vulnerable or dependent, (d) determination to succeed, despite limited resources, and (e) obligation to help others. All items were rated on a scale from 0 (this is not true for me) to 3 (this is true for me all the time).

Racial Identity

To assess racial identity, we used the short form of the Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity (MIBI; Sellers et al., 1997). The MIBI-S (Martin et al., 2010) has been used in other Black community samples (Mekawi et al., 2020) and we used three subscales based on our a priori predictions: (a) Private regard, (b) Public regard, and (c) Centrality. Items were rated on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

Depressive Symptoms

Depressive symptoms were measured using the Beck Depression Inventory-I (BDI-I; Beck et al., 1961). This 21-item scale (α = .89) asks participants to self-report their depressive symptoms and rate them based on their symptom severity using the time frame of the past 2 weeks. All items are followed by four response options that assess depressive-like symptoms. Scores on each scale range from 0 (no symptoms) to 3 (severe symptoms).

Trait Worry

To measure trait worry, we used the Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ; Meyer et al., 1990). This 16-item scale (α = .93) asks participants to self-report their level of chronic worry on a scale from 1 (not at all typical of me) to 5 (very typical of me).

Rumination

The Negative Inferential Style Subscale from the Stress-Reactive Rumination Scale (SRRS-NIS; Robinson & Alloy, 2003) was used to measure rumination. This 9-item subscale asks participants to rate how they would think about certain life stressors on a scale from 0 (never think or do this) to 100 (always think or do this).

Resilience

Resiliency was measured using the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC-10; Campbell-Sills & Stein, 2007). This 10-item scale asks participants to self-report their resilience in the face of stress or trauma (e.g., “I am able to adapt to change,”; α = .90) on a scale from 0 (not true at all) to 4 (true nearly all the time).

Sense of Belonging

The 18-item Sense of Belonging Psychological Scale (SOBI-P; Hagerty & Patusky, 1995) asks participants to self-report their feelings of general belonging across contexts on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Items are negatively phrased and reverse scored (e.g., “I often wonder if there is any place on earth where I fit in”).

Optimism

Optimism was measured using the Life Orientation Test (LOT; Scheier et al., 1994). This 10-item scale (α = .76) asks participants to self-report their optimism levels on a scale from 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree).

Questions about health, including weight and age were also included as part of the demographics questionnaire.

Results

For details about the data analytic plan, see Supplemental Materials document.

EFA

Analyses showed the sample was adequate for an EFA, based on the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (0.96) and significant Bartlett’s test of sphericity (p < .01). We thus used SPSS to subject the 36 items using principal-axis factoring (Worthington & Whittaker, 2006). We examined the scree plot which suggested only one factor, but we also examined the eigenvalues for each factor and amount of variance explained to determine the number of factors, which suggested a five-factor solution. The eigenvalues and % variance explained (in parentheses) were as follows: for Factor 1, 17.55 (48.76%); for Factor 2, 2.10 (5.82%); for Factor 3, 1.80 (5.00%); for Factor 4, 1.39 (2.86%) and for Factor 5, 1.10 (3.05%). We also ran a parallel analysis for additional verification of factors and the eigenvalues were as follows for the five factors: 17.23, 1.71, 1.41, 0.98 and 0.68. Thus, the eigenvalues from actual data were greater than random data and the five factors are supported. We then examined the factor loadings in the pattern matrix (see Table 1) and factor correlations. Based on this, we found that only two items loaded highly on Factor 4 (“My caregiver had Black magazines like Essence, Ebony, Jet in the home” and “My caregiver watched Black television shows”). Similarly, only two items loaded highly on Factor 5 (“My caregiver encouraged me to get along with Whites” and “My caregiver encouraged me to have White friends”). Several items cross-loaded highly (>.15) on two factors. Factors 4 and 5 evidenced lower factor correlations with Factors 1, 2, and 3 (r’s = .09–.32) whereas the factor correlations among Factors 1, 2, and 3 were notably higher (r’s = .70–.75). Nevertheless, and despite the size of these subscales, the items seemed to reflect unique constructs.

Revised Scale

Based on the fact that the racial and ethnic items did not remain in their original scales in the full model EFA and that Factor 1 was a combination of racial and ethnic items, we determined that it was justified to consider the items together and therefore re-scored the measure according to the EFA results. As noted in Table 1, 11 items fit into Factor 1, which we named “Promotion of Pride.” Ten items fit into Factor 2, which we named “Active Cultural Socialization.” Six items fit into Factor 3, which we named “Preparation for Bias.” Factor 4 had two items and was named “Passive Cultural Socialization” and Factor 5 also had two items and was named “Promotion of Integration.” Four items from the original scale (33, 5, 20, 27) and the new item about Black dolls were removed due to high cross loading. The intercorrelations, means, standard deviations, and reliability estimates for the five factors can be found in Table 2. Given the amount of changes compared to the original ARESS, we renamed this version of the scale Experiences of Racial and Ethnic Socialization – Adult Report (ERES-AR).

Table 2.

Intercorrelations Among Factors of ERES-AR.

Factor	Factor 1 (Promotion of pride)	Factor 2(Active cultural socialization)	Factor 3 (Preparation for bias)	Factor 4 (Passive cultural socialization)	Factor 5 (Promotion of integration)
Factor 1	-	.75*	.63*	.49*	.49*
Factor 2			.68*	.61*	.53*
Factor 3				.49*	.50*
Factor 4					.26*
Descriptive statistics
Mean	2.45	1.73	1.71	2.26	1.58
SD	0.68	0.92	0.87	0.82	1.06
Alpha	.92	.94	.88	.73^	.82^

p < .05. ^Spearman-Brown formula.

Discriminant Validity

To test discriminant validity, we tested the strength of associations between ERES-AR subscales and two variables that are theoretically unrelated to socialization, age and weight and found no significant associations (Table 3).

Table 3.

Correlations Between ERES-AR and Discriminant Validity Constructs.

Factor	Age	Weight
Promotion of pride	.04	−.03
Active cultural socialization	.00	−.02
Preparation for bias	.04	−.04
Passive cultural socialization	.06	−.03
Promotion of integration	−.02	.00
Descriptive statistics
Mean	37.92	194.25
SD	4.25	50.36

Note. Factor 1 = Promotion of Pride, Factor 2 = Active Cultural Socialization, Factor 3 = Preparation for Bias, Factor 4 = Passive Cultural Socialization, and Factor 5 = Promotion of Integration.

Criterion Validity

To test concurrent validity of the ERES-AR, we conducted two sets of analyses: one for constructs directly related to racial and ethnic socialization (e.g., SBW schema, racial identity; Table 4) and the other for constructs indirectly related to racial and ethnic socialization (e.g., depression, worry, rumination, resilience, belonging; Table 5).

Table 4.

Correlations Between ERES-AR and Gender and Race-Related Variables.

Factor	G-SWS-Q subscales						MIBI-S subscales
	Total	Strength	Suppress	Vulnerability	Motivation	Obligation	Centrality	Private regard	Public regard
Promotion of pride	−.02	.08	−.13*	-.07	.18*	−.06	.31*	.28*	.13*
Active cultural socialization	.05	.17*	−.06	-.03	.23*	−.01	.38*	.31*	.13*
Preparation for bias	.20*	.27*	.05	.11*	.27*	.15*	.31*	.24*	.03
Passive cultural socialization	.06	.14*	−.03	.01	.16*	.01	.38*	.29*	.04
Promotion of integration	.15*	.16*	.05	.08	.24*	.10*	.15*	.11*	.23*
Descriptive statistics
Mean	1.91	2.24	1.64	1.90	2.22	1.71	6.15	6.42	3.75
SD	0.51	0.64	0.69	0.69	0.52	0.68	1.01	0.81	1.47
Alpha	.94	.81	.86	.86	.75	.88	.83	.75	.87

p < .05.

Table 5.

Correlations Between ERES-AR and Mental Health.

Factor	Depression (BDI-I)	Rumination (SRRS-NIS)	Worry (PSWQ)	Resilience (CD-RISC-10)	Belonging (SOBI-P)	Optimism (LOT)
Promotion of pride	−.15*	−.04	−.01	.28*	.24*	.20*
Active cultural socialization	−.08	.03	.01	.23*	.13*	.12*
Preparation for bias	−.01	.12*	.17*	.13*	.07	.04
Passive cultural socialization	−.05	.09	.03	.17*	.16*	.13*
Promotion of integration	−.05	.06	.07	.21*	.11*	.04
Descriptive statistics
Mean	6.04	49.06	34.18	30.38	2.29	16.77
SD	6.92	25.28	15.12	6.61	0.50	4.49
Alpha	.89	.93	.93	.90	.93	.76

p < .05.

Gender and Race-related Variables

As noted in the left panel of Table 4, we found that all five ERES-AR factors evidenced unique patterns of associations with each subscale of the G-SWS-Q. Promotion of Pride was significantly associated with obligation to suppress emotions (r = −.13) and intense motivation to succeed (r = .18); Active Cultural Socialization was only associated with obligation to present an image of strength (r = .17) and intense motivation to succeed (r = .27); Preparation for Bias was associated with the total G-SWS-Q score (r = .20), obligation to present an image of strength (r = .27), resistance to being vulnerable (r = .11), intense motivation to succeed (r = .27), and obligation to help others over self care (r = .15); Passive Cultural Socialization was only associated with obligation to present image of strength (r = .14) and intense motivation to succeed (r = .16); and finally, Promotion of Integration was associated with total SWS score (r = .15), obligation to present image of strength (r = .16), intense motivation to succeed (r = .24) and obligation to help others (r = .10). Notably, Active Cultural Socialization and Passive Cultural Socialization followed the same pattern of significance while Preparation for Bias and Promotion of Integration followed a similar pattern (differing only in the association with vulnerability).

Racial centrality was positively associated with all ERES-AR factors (r’s = .15–.38), as was private regard (r’s = .11–.31). However, for public regard, only Promotion of Pride (r = .13), Active Cultural Socialization (r = .13), and Promotion of Integration (r = .23) evidenced statistically significant correlations.

Mental Health Variables

In terms of mental health variables, we found unique patterns of associations for mental health symptoms versus strength-based mental health outcomes (see Table 5). Depressive symptoms (BDI-I) were only negatively associated with Promotion of Pride (r = −.15). Both rumination (SRRS-NIS) and worry (PSWQ) were only associated with Preparation for Bias (r = .12, r = .17, respectively). All five factors of the ERES-AR were associated with resilience (CD-RISC-10; r’s = .13–.28) and all but one factor, Preparation for Bias, were associated with belonging (SOBI-P; r’s = .11–.24). Optimism (LOT) was associated with Promotion of Pride (r = .20), Active Cultural Socialization (r = .12), and Passive Cultural Socialization (r = .13).

Discussion

To expand the psychometric literature on racial and ethnic socialization, we used EFA to evaluate the factor structure of the ARESS in a sample of Black women. Based on the emerging factors, we also explored how other constructs related to the adapted ARESS, which we named the Experiences of Racial and Ethnic Socialization – Adult Report (ERES-AR).

EFA results suggested the presence of five distinct factors: Promotion of Pride, Active Cultural Socialization, Preparation for Bias, Passive Cultural Socialization, and Promotion of Integration. The Promotion of Pride factor captured the degree to which respondents received messages encouraging the development of pride regarding being Black. Active Cultural Socialization captured intentional efforts to teach Black history/celebrate Black culture. Preparation for Bias captured messages that help Black children prepare for facing racism. Passive Cultural Socialization focused on messages received about Black history and culture in a passive and non-verbal manner (e.g., watching Black television shows). Finally, Promotion of Integration captured encouragement to integrate children into the dominant culture.

In each of our ERES-AR factors, both racial and ethnic items from the ARESS mapped onto our five factors, demonstrating the inseparability of racial and ethnic socialization processes in our scale. In T. L. Brown and Krishnakumar’s (2007) original scale, there are several factors that are similar to our ERES-AR, but are separated into two distinct socialization processes: racial and ethnic. However, through our exploratory factor analyses, we found that items in both ethnic and racial socialization models fit into our factors. Thus, racial and ethnic socialization processes may not need to be separated and examined as two disconnected processes but as one (racial-ethnic socialization). Some of the five factors found in the ERES-AR were different from the eight factors found in the original ARESS scale (T. L. Brown & Krishnakumar, 2007). The Promotion of Pride factor, for example, had items from various ARESS factors including Ethnic Pride, African American Heritage, Cultural Values, and Coping with Racism. Thus, various messages focused on instilling racial pride and empowerment loaded under a single factor. In the ERES-AR Active Cultural Socialization factor, some items from the ARESS’ African American Heritage, History, Cultural Embeddedness, and Promoting Cross-Racial Relationships factors were included. This suggests that items that promote African American education and cultural heritage may fit better under one factor of active cultural socialization. All items from the ARESS Racial Barrier Awareness factor and one item from the Coping with Racism factor loaded on the ERES-AR Preparation for Bias factor. Although all the items found in the racial barrier awareness items loaded on the Preparation for Bias factor, one item from the Coping with Racism factor discussing what to do when called a racist name also loaded on to this factor. This suggests that the ERES-AR Preparation for Bias factor not only considers messaging that brings awareness to racist experiences, but also messaging that teaches children what to do if they experience racism. Taken together, there were numerous differences in the item loadings and factors in the ERES-AR compared to the original ARESS, with the general pattern being that similar items from separate ARESS factors were collapsed into one ERES-AR factor.

While there were some items that fit better in the factors found for the ERES-AR, there was also some overlap in how items loaded on both the ARESS and the ERES-AR (e.g., items from the ARESS Cultural Embeddedness loaded on ERES-AR Passive Cultural Socialization and ARESS Promoting Cross-Racial Relationships loaded on ERES-AR Promotion of Integration). These items loading similarly on the ERES-AR demonstrate how interrelated these specific items are and provides support for the reliability of these types of ethnic-racial socialization messages across samples.

Validity

To establish construct validity and further develop the nomological network of racial and ethnic socialization, we explored associations between ERES-AR factors and conceptually related constructs. Below, we summarize the pattern of associations for each ERES-AR factors’ associations with race- and gender-related constructs (racial identity, the superwoman schema), and mental health (depression, rumination, worry, resilience, optimism, and belonging).

Promotion of Pride

Promotion of Pride appeared to serve as a generally protective factor for Black women. In terms of endorsement of SBW, Promotion of Pride was associated with less suppression of emotions and more motivation to succeed. In terms of racial identity, we found that Promotion of Pride was positively associated with centrality, private regard, and albeit to a smaller degree, public regard. In terms of associations with mental health, Promotion of Pride was associated with less depressive symptoms and not associated with rumination or worry. It was the only ERES-AR factor associated with less severe depressive symptoms and was also associated with more resilience, belonging and optimism. These messages may instill self-confidence about one’s identity, which may help Black women adopt positive views of their own gender and racial identity which may reduce psychological risk and promote resilience (Wills et al., 2007).

Active & Passive Cultural Socialization

Although Active and Passive Cultural Socialization emerged as separable constructs, their pattern of associations with constructs was similar. In terms of racial identity, we found that Active and Passive Cultural Socialization were positively associated with centrality, private regard, but only Active Cultural Socialization was associated with public regard. Active and Passive Cultural Socialization were associated with more resilience, belonging, and optimism. Regarding the endorsement of SBW ideology, Active and Passive Cultural Socialization was associated with more motivation to succeed and presenting an image of strength. Active and Passive Cultural Socialization messages may expose Black women to the painful events experienced by Black women throughout history, which could lead to greater need to present image of strength to protect themselves from the emotional and physical toll of gendered racism (Woods-Giscombe et al., 2019). Active and Passive Cultural Socialization messages were also associated with resilience, belonging, optimism, and identity, which could mean advantageous effects on mental wellness and self-perception.

Promotion of Integration

Promotion of Integration was positively associated with racial identity (centrality, private, and public regard) and mental health (resilience and belonging). One possibility for its positive associations with resilience and belonging may be due to greater awareness of Black racial identity as a result of trying to integrate into a Eurocentric society. In terms of endorsement of SBW, Promotion of Integration was associated with more motivation to succeed, presenting an image of strength, and feeling obligated to help others which could be the result of encouraging cordiality with White people and protection from racial bias (Davis & Afifi, 2019). People-pleasing behaviors may be taught as a way to appear more friendly and “less threatening” to White people (Davis & Afifi, 2019).

Preparation for Bias

Preparation for Bias appeared to be associated with both positive and negative outcomes across several validity constructs. This factor was positively associated with centrality, private, and public regard. In terms of SBW, it was associated with more suppression of emotions, presenting an image of strength, resisting vulnerability, and feeling obligated to help others. Preparation for Bias messaging discusses the hardships of being Black in America and Black women may feel that presenting an image of strength or showing less vulnerability can be helpful acts to protect themselves from the racist encounters they experienced or heard stories about growing up (F. Saleem et al., 2022). Notably, Preparation for Bias was the only ERES-AR factor positively associated with rumination and worry. One possibility is that Preparation for Bias messaging may increase anxiety and vigilance due to the warning nature of this type of messaging (Gonzalez et al., 2022). Still, Preparation for Bias messaging was positively associated with resilience and belonging, suggesting that this type of message can also be protective (F. Saleem et al., 2022).

Implications

Our results indicate that racial and ethnic socialization is a multifaceted and rich construct that is highly relevant to Black women’s identity and mental health. Assessing Black women’s racial and ethnic socialization experiences may allow for better contextualization of current problems in living and development of healing plans that are culturally-anchored and relevant to clients. Further, our results provide further evidence that explicitly encouraging racial and ethnic socialization is warranted. Building on other person-centered analyses in this literature (F. T. Saleem et al., 2020; Varner et al., 2018), our findings also set the stage for further more complex analyses (e.g., latent profile analyses) that can be used to identify typologies of Black women based on unique patterns of racial and ethnic socialization and use these typologies to better understand the connection to mental health outcomes.

Limitations

This study was the first to examine a racial and ethnic socialization scale for Black women and incorporate a comprehensive array of validity constructs to expand the nomological network of racial and ethnic socialization. Yet, our study has several limitations. First, although conducting an EFA was the appropriate choice for this study, this approach, without supporting confirmatory analyses in an independent sample, does not provide sufficient evidence that the adapted scale is ready for use without additional psychometric work (Flora & Flake, 2017). In addition to conducting CFAs, future psychometric work should include measurement invariance analyses, test re-test reliability estimates, as well as further establishment of convergent validity. For example, given advances in intersectional types of socialization, such as gendered racial socialization (D. L. Brown et al., 2017), examining associations with the ERES-AR will be helpful. Second, we recruited Black women in an urban context in the south because this demographic group is particularly understudied and underserved. However, this may mean that our results may not be generalizable to other regions or other genders. Third, our focus on adults recalling childhood memories is potentially negatively impacted by recall bias. Future work should use longitudinal designs to assess internalization of racial messages over time to empirically test links between childhood and adult perceptions of socialization. Fourth, although we focused on childhood messages because it is both the period of greatest exposure to caregivers’ messages (given daily contact and shared living environments) and a critical developmental window during which children are first forming racial identity, we acknowledge that racial and ethnic socialization does not end in childhood. Future work should also examine how socialization continues into adulthood, including how changing perspectives and sociopolitical contexts and experiences of discrimination (F. T. Saleem et al., 2020) shape racial socialization across the life span. Fifth, our stem asking participants to think about their experiences while growing up was broad, bringing up concerns that participants may have been thinking about different time periods as they responded. Future work should use more precise time periods to reduce variability in participants’ interpretation of “while growing up.”

Conclusion

Racial and ethnic socialization is a particularly relevant and consequential construct for Black women. This study offers important steps toward the development of a psychometrically validated measure of racial and ethnic socialization among Black women. The more that we can understand racial and ethnic socialization processes across developmental contexts, the better the ability to fully understand Black women’s unique experiences in a racialized world.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-jbs-10.1177_00219347261434294 – Supplemental material for Measuring Racial and Ethnic Socialization: Adaptation of the ARESS for Black Women

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jbs-10.1177_00219347261434294 for Measuring Racial and Ethnic Socialization: Adaptation of the ARESS for Black Women by Yara Mekawi, Maryam Ware, Kennedy Blevins, Izraelle I. McKinnon, Christy L. Erving, Rachel Parker, Shivika Udaipuria, Raphiel Murden, Renee Moore and Tené T. Lewis in Journal of Black Studies

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We thank the entire MUSE team for their contributions to data collection and management. We are particularly grateful to our participants for their willingness to be a part of this project and to share their experiences.

ORCID iD

Yara Mekawi

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The authors acknowledge funding from the following sources: R01HL130471, R01HL158141 and K24HL163696 (Funding Agency: NHLBI; awarded to Lewis); T32 HL130025 (Funding Agency: NHLBI; funding McKinnon, awarded to Vaccarino); Ford Foundation Postdoctoral Fellowship (awarded to Erving). Erving is partially supported by grant P2CHD042849 awarded to the Population Research Center at The University of Texas at Austin by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Yara Mekawi, PhD, is an assistant professor at the University of Louisville. Her research focuses on examining racial discrimination and racial prejudice at the intersection of affect and cognition. Specifically, her research focuses on examining the cognitive and affective mechanisms through which racial discrimination is associated with mental health in marginalized groups, as well as the cognitive and affective factors that maintain racially-prejudiced behavior and attitudes among privileged groups.

Maryam Ware, MS, is a doctoral student in the Clinical Psychology PhD program at the University of Louisville. Her research interests include exploring the impacts of racism on cognitive processes such as executive functioning among Black Americans as well as developing interventions to help alleviate the negative effects race-related stress has on overall wellbeing. Maryam’s clinical interests include clinical neuropsychology with an emphasis on culturally-responsive and equity-informed care.

Kennedy Blevins, PhD is a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of California, San Francisco Osher Center for Integrative Health. Her research focuses on how cultural and contextual factors relate to the biopsychosocial model of disease. She is interested in mindfulness, self-compassion, and other positive psychological cognitions as tools for improving holistic health, especially for women, historically marginalized populations, and those who have limited access to integrative health modalities.

Izraelle I. McKinnon, PhD is an epidemiologist whose research focuses on measurement and analytic approaches for psychosocial and behavioral factors in health research. Her work includes survey design, including large-scale surveillance systems, and the use of survey data in longitudinal, multilevel, and spatial analyses to inform efforts aimed at advancing health equity among populations that have been historically underrepresented in research.

Christy L. Erving, PhD is an associate professor in the Department of Sociology and affiliated with the Population Research Center and Center on Aging and Population Sciences at the University of Texas at Austin. Her program of research draws from theories, concepts, and perspectives across various disciplines to clarify and explain social disparities in mental and physical health. Her most recent projects investigate the psychosocial determinants of Black women’s health across the life course.

Rachel Parker, MPH is a PhD Candidate in Biostatistics at the Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University. Her research focuses on statistical methods for complex longitudinal and high-dimensional data, including multilevel modeling and functional data analysis. She is particularly interested in characterizing variability, dependence structures, and dynamic patterns over time in biomedical data. Her work bridges methodological development and applied research, with applications in public health and clinical studies.

Shivika Udaipuria, MPH, is a Biostatistician at Emory University with a background in dentistry and epidemiology. She manages and analyzes complex health datasets from clinical trials and longitudinal studies using SAS, R, and Python. Her work emphasizes problem-solving and workflow optimization across research teams. She has particular interest in health psychology projects and is committed to ensuring rigorous, efficient data management and statistical analysis practices.

Raphiel Murden, PhD is an assistant professor in the Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics at Emory University, Rollins School of Public Health. His research centers on data integration, functional data analyses, longitudinal analyses, and more recently, spatial analyses with applications in neuroimaging statistics, data from wearable devices, cardiovascular health, and HIV, among others.

Renee Moore, PhD, is a Research Professor, Director of the Biostatistics Scientific Collaboration Center (BSC), and Associate Dean of Culture, Community & Opportunity at the Dornsife School of Public Health, Drexel University. She received a B.S. in mathematics and completed the secondary mathematics education program at Bennett College, and her PhD in Biostatistics from Emory University. With over twenty years of experience, Dr. Moore is a team scientist whose research focuses on methodological design, rigorous conduct, and analytic evaluation of clinical trials, observational studies, and large administrative and national survey data aimed at advancing health equity. She is also committed to work that fosters equitable and inclusive learning and professional environments. Dr. Moore is a Fellow of the American Statistical Association and past-President of the Eastern North American Region (ENAR) of the International Biometric Society.

Tené T. Lewis, PhD is a Professor in the Department of Epidemiology in the Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University. She is trained as a clinical health psychologist and her primary area of research is in the area of health psychology/psychosocial epidemiology, with an emphasis on understanding how psychological and social factors impact risk for cardiovascular disease among African-American women. She is a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Heart Association (AHA), the Society for Biopsychosocial Science and Medicine (SBSM), the American Psychological Association (APA), the Academy of Behavioral Medicine Research (ABMR) and a past-President of the Society for Biopsychosocial Science and Medicine/formerly the American Psychosomatic Society (focused on the study of mind-body relationships).

References

Beck

A. T.

Ward

C. H.

Mendelson

Mock

Erbaugh

(1961). An inventory for measuring depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 4, 561–571. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1961.01710120031004

Brown

D. L.

Blackmon

Rosnick

C. B.

Griffin-Fennell

F. D.

White-Johnson

R. L.

(2017). Initial development of a gendered-racial socialization scale for African American College women. Sex Roles, 77(3–4), 178–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0707-x

Brown

T. L.

Krishnakumar

(2007). Development and validation of the adolescent racial and ethnic socialization scale (ARESS) in African American families. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36(8), 1072–1085. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-007-9197-z

Campbell-Sills

Stein

M. B.

(2007). Psychometric analysis and refinement of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC): Validation of a 10-item measure of resilience. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 20(6), 1019–1028. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.20271

Cohen

P. N.

Casper

L. M.

(2002). In whose home? Multigenerational families in the United States, 1998–2000. Sociological Perspectives, 45(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1525/sop.2002.45.1.1

Damaske

Bratter

J. L.

Frech

(2017). Single mother families and employment, race, and poverty in changing economic times. Social Science Research, 62, 120–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2016.08.008

Davis

S. M.

Afifi

T. D.

(2019). The strong Black woman collective theory: Determining the prosocial functions of strength regulation in groups of Black women friends†. Journal of Communication, 69(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqy065

Flora

D. B.

Flake

J. K.

(2017). The purpose and practice of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis in psychological research: Decisions for scale development and validation. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du Comportement, 49(2), 78–88. https://doi.org/10.1037/cbs0000069

Gonzalez

L. M.

Martin Romero

M. Y.

Stein

G. L.

Coard

S. I.

Kiang

(2022). Troubled waters: Barriers to preparation for bias conversations across racially/ethnically diverse families. Family Relations, 71(5), 1878–1895. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12769

10.

Hagerty

B. M.

Patusky

(1995). Developing a measure of sense of belonging. Nursing Research, 44(1), 9–13. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-199501000-00003

11.

Henson

R. K.

Roberts

J. K.

(2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research: Common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(3), 393–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282485

12.

Hughes

Rodriguez

Smith

E. P.

Johnson

D. J.

Stevenson

H. C.

Spicer

(2006). Parents’ ethnic-racial socialization practices: A review of research and directions for future study. Developmental Psychology, 42(5), 747–770. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.5.747

13.

Lesane-Brown

C. L.

(2006). A review of race socialization within Black families. Developmental Review, 26(4), 400–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2006.02.001

14.

Martin

P. P.

Wout

D. A.

Nguyen

H. X.

Gonzalez

R. D.

Sellers

R. M.

(2010). Investigating the psychometric properties of the Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity in two samples: The development of the MIBI-S. Unpublished Manuscript.

15.

McHale

S. M.

Crouter

A. C.

Kim

J.-Y.

Burton

L. M.

Davis

K. D.

Dotterer

A. M.

Swanson

D. P.

(2006). Mothers’ and fathers’ racial socialization in African American families: Implications for youth. Child Development, 77(5), 1387–1402. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3878440

16.

McKinnon

I. I.

Johnson

D. A.

Murden

R. J.

Erving

C. L.

Parker

Van Dyke

M. E.

Vaccarino

Booker

Moore

R. H.

Lewis

T. T.

(2022). Extreme racism-related events and poor sleep in African-American women. Social Science & Medicine, 310, 115269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115269

17.

Mekawi

Lewis

C. B.

Watson-Singleton

N. N.

Jatta

I. F.

Ander

Lamis

Dunn

S. E.

Kaslow

N. J.

(2020). Racial identity profiles among suicidal black women: A replication and Extension Study. Journal of Black Studies, 51, 685–704. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021934720935601

18.

Meyer

T. J.

Miller

M. L.

Metzger

R. L.

Borkovec

T. D.

(1990). Development and validation of the penn state worry questionnaire. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 28(6), 487–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(90)90135-6

19.

Neblett

E. W.

Smalls

C. P.

Ford

K. R.

Nguyên

H. X.

Sellers

R. M.

(2009). Racial socialization and racial identity: African American parents’ messages about race as precursors to identity. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(2), 189–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-008-9359-7

20.

Priest

Walton

White

Kowal

Baker

Paradies

(2014). Understanding the complexities of ethnic-racial socialization processes for both minority and majority groups: A 30-year systematic review. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 43, 139–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2014.08.003

21.

Reynolds

J. E.

Gonzales-Backen

M. A.

(2017). Ethnic-racial socialization and the mental health of African Americans: A critical review. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 9(2), 182–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12192

22.

Robinson

M. S.

Alloy

L. B.

(2003). Negative cognitive styles and stress-reactive rumination interact to predict depression: A prospective study. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 27, 275–291.

23.

Saleem

Lambert

Rose

(2022). Ethnic–racial socialization as a moderator of associations between discrimination and psychosocial well-being among African American and Caribbean Black adolescents. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 28(2), 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000521

24.

Saleem

F. T.

Lambert

S. F.

Stock

M. L.

Gibbons

F. X.

(2020). Examining changes in African American mothers’ racial socialization patterns during adolescence: Racial discrimination as a predictor. Developmental Psychology, 56(8), 1610–1622. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000993

25.

Scheier

M. F.

Carver

C. S.

Bridges

M. W.

(1994). Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A reevaluation of the life orientation test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 1063–1078.

26.

Sellers

R. M.

Rowley

S. A. J.

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(4), 805–815. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.4.805

27.

Stevenson

H. C.

Cameron

Herrero-Taylor

Davis

G. Y.

(2002). Development of the teenager experience of racial socialization scale: Correlates of race-related socialization frequency from the perspective of Black Youth. Journal of Black Psychology, 28(2), 84–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798402028002002

28.

Thomas

A. J.

Speight

S. L.

(1999). Racial identity and racial socialization attitudes of African American parents. Journal of Black Psychology, 25(2), 152–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798499025002002

29.

Varner

F. A.

Hou

Hodzic

Hurd

N. M.

Butler-Barnes

S. T.

Rowley

S. J.

(2018). Racial discrimination experiences and African American youth adjustment: The role of parenting profiles based on racial socialization and involved-vigilant parenting. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 24(2), 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000180

30.

Wills

T. A.

Murry

V. M.

Brody

G. H.

Gibbons

F. X.

Gerrard

Walker

Ainette

M. G.

(2007). Ethnic pride and self-control related to protective and risk factors: Test of the theoretical model for the strong African American families program. Health Psychology, 26(1), 50–59. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.26.1.50

31.

Woods-Giscombe

C. L.

Allen

A. M.

Black

A. R.

Steed

T. C.

Lackey

(2019). The Giscombe Superwoman Schema Questionnaire: Psychometric properties and associations with mental health and health behaviors in African American women. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 40(8), 672–681. https://doi.org/10.1080/01612840.2019.1584654

32.

Worthington

R. L.

Whittaker

T. A.

(2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006288127